You’re misquoting me, 1=infinity relative to zero. Anything relative to zero is infinite in expanse. That was the point I made… and you’re talking to me like I’m some childish moron who just doesn’t “get it”, James you’re being obtuse.
I believe that you are seeing your own reflection when you say that (a very common trait around these parts).
I know what you meant (finally). I explained why it is bad wording. You want to say it anyway, without explanation as to why (and only recently added the “relative to zero”). Who is really being “obtuse” and derailing a thread?
Because you need to work out your issue with zero if you’re going to say there isn’t one!!! I"m not derailing the thread. You said ZERO affectance has no existence, which is the same as saying zero has no existence. Those aren’t my problems or assertions, those are yours.
Why should I even bother to look at your ideas when the most on topic point of your thread is considered off topic by you? Do you really want to be that guy who lives in that bubble?
You should be honored that I’m discussing this with you James. You think you know so much about the world, and can’t see when you’re being honored right when it’s in your face.
There is an important difference between confidence and arrogance.
Not really. Confidence includes knowledge or not and arrogance can either include knowledge or not.
The point is, I’m more on topic than anyone else in this thread. And you accused me of derailing it. Maybe you have ideology James, not the truth you seek.
Well, since we are obvious seriously off topic anyway, perhaps you can explain to me exactly why;
We’re not off topic, you’re being obtuse. You said that when there was zero affectance that there was no existence. This is the same as saying there is no zero. You should be honored because nobody else in this thread is smart enough to realize that this is a claim you’re making: there is no zero. Apparently that’s off topic to you. Probably because it conflicts with your ideology. You say I’m using infinity wrong, when I say that relative to zero everything is infinite… which is why you’re saying zero doesn’t exist in the first place, and then getting somewhat angry at me for pointing this out, which is absurd. If you actually look at this whole thread you’ll realize that I"m the only poster on topic.
Ecmandu, stop being arrogant and derailing this thread. You are obviously not even smart enough to realise that you are derailing this thread.
Okay, piece by piece … can you handle a long series?
Every time you are talking about either you or I, we are most definitely OFF TOPIC, and actually “ad homonym”, technically a violation of the rules of the forum (not that such seems to matter).
No. It is not the same as saying that there is no zero, merely no zero affectance.
Actually, I have a thread in Science and Math explaining the nonsense of absolute zero for scalar qualias. No one has been disagreeing with me on that issue (although I would normally expect more). But that is not what the whole issue is about. That is only one small, very small, piece.
Explained already, but better do it again;
Any time we are discussing the person, either person, we are OFF TOPIC and in violation of the rules of this forum. It doesn’t matter to anyone how brilliant either you or I think we are or how dumb we might think the other is.
THEY
Do
NOT
CARE (not counting inner fun at seeing others argue about nonsense).
… and on this thread … is totally irrelevant.
Emm… no. Why zero doesn’t exist (even though that isn’t what I said) isn’t the same at all as why you are using the term improperly. I explained why you were using it improperly. I also stated that you weren’t going to change and we already knew that. I was right. It has nothing what so ever to do with this topic other than to confuse the language being intended.
That is, typically, 100% your imagination. I have not been anywhere even close to angry. Not even annoyed, merely not really interested in arguing over your language use when I already know that you aren’t going to listen (on top of it being merely another derailing of another thread to discuss YOU).
Already explained why that isn’t really true.
I appreciate that you agreed with one of the issues involved. But you seem to be agreeing for the wrong reason. If I was merely after getting everyone to agree with me, you would be highly regarded, regardless of your reasoning. But I am not an actual troll, seeking a following … never have been (I sure as hell wouldn’t come here for that). That is merely one of the very, very many presumptions that people make about any male making un-mainstream assertions, so as to keep the mainstream strong.
Quite unwittingly, when people criticize TOO MUCH, they actually support the mainstream collective consensus that they are usually trying to criticize. The world is not so simple as “good guys ↔ bad guys”. Good and bad come in layers and types, much like intelligence. And it takes some pretty serious intelligence to deal with it all (assuming that you are actually trying to accomplish anything worth while).
And btw;
Confidence: “I am very certain of what I say.”
Arrogance: “My opinion is more important/significant to people than yours or theirs.”
What is required is BOTH intelligence AND humility.
If you say affectance is EVERYHTHING, than YES, it means you’re saying there’s not zero. And tell Arminius that even though I made it personal, I’m on topic.
I understand this is a small part of your theory, you think affectance solves ethics of all things.
Touche. And there’s nothing in the concept of confidence to suggest that it MUST have humility.
No, once again.
Affectance is the fundamental substance of all “things”. But affectance is not locations. Due to the time it takes for any one affect to propagate from one location to another, there is ZERO effect from that one affect until sufficient time passes. Propagation and resultant Effect involves more than merely scalar qualia issues.
And why should I lie to Him?
Are you not capable of reading and understanding what I have stated several times about what is or isn’t “OFF TOPIC”? ANY reference to ME or to YOU, is OFF TOPIC.
“Ethics”???
You are no where even close to the whole ethics issue within RM:AO. Ethics is about how people “should” (for their own sake) behave toward others in society. Within the curriculum of RM:AO, that topic is a 3rd year course, a “303” type of course (if you are familiar with university curriculum numbering). You haven’t made it through “101” because you want to lecture before you learn.
What “infinity” means is a small part of merely the metaphysics of the PHYSICS ontology (only an analogy to the sociology and psychology). It is more merely about the language being used, having nothing at all to do with reality, merely the efforts to describe it => proper language for public use. “Infinity” means “limitless”. So use “limitless” or “unlimited” in place of the word “infinity” and see if your statements still make reasonable sense.
But this is not a thread on English, spelling, and grammar.
… but there is within the concept of “arrogance”.
And realize, that I said, “what is needed …”. … for the sake of living better than you are.
dup.
Relative to zero any existent is limitless. I never said affectance was locations, I said that if you say affectance is everything or to humor you everything or to humor you every existent , then zero is nonexistent. You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the idea that relative to zero, EVERY existent is infinite in existence.
Yeah… you’d be a professor I sighed when I saw lecturing and you’d flunk me for being right. Same shit different day.
You made it personal as well by the way.
Well, see, there you go. You, no doubt due to serious rejection and ego issues, proclaim that you are unquestionably right despite someone being a “professor” disagreeing with you. That is largely what you, yourself, identified as being “ODD”. Have you ever thought about what causes ODD? I bet you could figure it out (although …).
Well, okay. I did largely “make it personal” (even though I am sure that you really were the first to say “you” … but I am not going to go check). More importantly, the reason that I made it personal is that I give a shit. In your real life, things matter far more than they do here. This site, like most others, is merely a “almost dream” sort of thing. It is somewhat of a game, largely merely imagining and thinking, but with the participation of other people. Your real life, wherein people can physically touch you, is another issue. The hope is that what you pickup from the game, might help you in the real world.
So in reality, it is you who “should” (for sake of your own good) thank people like Ussicore, Carleas, myself, and various others for their response to whatever you say, because it, in a very harmless ways, all relays to you what real people might be thinking behind your back in your REAL life. I, personally, accept it that way (even though I know that the average here isn’t the average there).
In that one sense, I really do appreciate your participation in this thread. You really do tell me what someone, perhaps many people, might think concerning what I say and in very seldom, but real cases, inform me of my actual mistakes. But in your case, the reverse doesn’t seem to be true. You seem to be ignoring what people are saying in response to your assertions. You appear to be defeating yourself (even though, admittedly, one could say the same of me … although I have my reasons). You keep trying merely to defend your stance, ignoring why it is that anyone is arguing with you. You have been fooled into thinking that anyone who is correct should be accepted and loved. That isn’t the real world. And that is what people have been relaying to you. And now I am spelling it out for you … even though … it could NOT be more … OFF TOPIC.
Well you’re right, that was extremely personal… however, I think it’s safe to say from knowing you, that your frustration also lies with people not liking you for being right. We agree on a lot of things James, that’s why I said Touche to you in the last post, or post before. We even have some of the same language to describe things. So we both consider ourselves very correct people who don’t receive the commesurate response from society, and I think what we disagree upon is actually quite minimal.
I mean honestly James, how many people in the world figure out that if everything is exactly the same it is nothing at all, and build a philosophy from it. You and I are VERY connected, whether you like it or not. And I agree that Uccisore and Carleas have both helped to hone my thoughts… even if Carleas is the more congenial (you use the term cordial) of the two.
I thought that I would add this issue to this thread considering that the Affectance theory depended on the impossibility of absolute homogeneity or of nothingness.
Reality must contain the infinite as the cardinality of any finite resolution to the matter [inc affectance] will always be self-limiting. …it would not be able to define the whole or otherwise an entirety we could call reality [whats before, after, or around it etc].
The only way to resolve the issue is to sew infinities together in patterns e.g. How a fractal could turn infinite fields of colour [as a metaphor] into shape and form. That would be two infinities; the spatial [emptiness/nothingness] and the informing [fractal formula] infinities. The universe we could think of as the/an eye of that storm if you will.
Creation in any sense has the problem concerning its ultimate causality ~ what came before and so forth.
P.s. A finite explanation assumes God is not infinite.
P.p.s. What on earth would affectance look like?! What’s all around it, or outside of it etc
_