I am so hurt James. With this post, you have elevated your piles of crap above mine, and will forever be known as a living legend, sounded in the halls of ilpturds.com, for aeons.
With this post, you have single-handedly doomed me to a life of obscurity, and mediocrity, for many years. Well played sir, well played.
I think that you need to define what you mean by nothingness.
Do you believe that empty space is nothingness?
I personally believe that space is full and matter is empty.
The universe is apparently 4% matter and 96% emptiness or space.
If E=MC squared, then emptiness and space are made of the same stuff.
I would call this stuff aether.
…the complete lack of any form of substance or differentiation, 100% homogeneity.
I know that it isn’t. That’s the whole point to the OP.
Unless you have a strange definition of “empty”, matter cannot be empty.
It is around 4% highly concentrated affectance and 96% very lowly concentrated affectance.
That’s true.
I call it Affectance. Aether was defined much earlier and in very slightly the wrong way. Due to that misunderstanding of what it had to be, Science turned against the existence of it completely. The Aether theory was actually very close to being exactly right … except they mis-defined what aether is.
On the other hand, there is no alternative to the existence of Affectance.
Affectance is what “aether” was supposed to be.
How do you know that nothingness is %100 homogeneous?
If matter isn’t empty, then , why is space trying its hardest to get into it (gravity)?
You have just added another name to aether. I will have to add it to my growing list. Dark matter, dark energy, virtual photon, Higgs boson, up quark, down quark, space time continuum, strange quarks, charm quarks, muons, neutrinos, tauon, bottom quark, top quark, weakons, Klingons and now introducing the ‘affectance’.
Aether is like soap powder.People keep repackaging it with hyperbole and dubious science.
That seems like kind of a silly question. If there was any variation, that variation wouldn’t be “nothing”.
I could understand you asking why other mass is “trying to get into matter”, but what makes you think that space is trying to “get into matter”?
No. I have named what is actually there. The word “Aether” is not referring to the same thing that I am talking about. Affectance is much like what they defined as aether, but they are not actually the same thing. I didn’t call it aether for a reason. When they defined aether, they made a mistake … the same mistake that your buddy Robert Distinti is making. Affectance is NOT a “medium” that objects float through.
So, are you saying that empty space has nothing in it?
Space is pushing you down towards the centre of the Earth, that’s why. Nature can only push, it can’t pull. Pulling is a 17th century concept which was derived from the horse and buggy era. It was thought that the horse was pulling the buggy but alas, the horse is pushing the buggy, not pulling it.
Ah, ha. So affectance is a new improved form of aether. Does it get out all those stubborn stains that ordinary aethers can’t? 
Enough humour; what about cause and effect? Is affectance an effect without the cause? If so; then, what what causes affectance?
Robert Distiniti has more than 50 videos. I imagine that you couldn’t have seen all of them in such a short period of time so you might have been a little rash in jumping to any conclusions so quickly. I would advise you to see all his videos and maybe watch some several times so the concepts are better understood. Note - Spinning objects tend to attract without gravity or magnetism.
Please explain how you believe light travels.
I am saying that there is no such thing as absolutely empty space.
Affectance is eternal. It is impossible for affectance to NOT exist in all places at all times throughout eternity. That is what the OP is proving. So there could never have been a “before affectance came along” moment.
I was merely taking his word in the few that I did watch. I am not going to watch 50 vids when the man has already made very relevant fundamental errors in merely the first couple.
If he was here, I would debate why his reasoning was bad, but as it is, he cannot defend himself. If you want to try to defend his notions, go ahead.
I see no reason to believe that.
On an appropriate thread.
If it wasn’t for absolute empty space matter wouldn’t exist. The electrons and protons need something to fall into (entrapment).
.
Are you sure this ‘affectance’ isn’t some kind of a religious idea? If you replace ‘affectance’ with the word God, then, everything you are saying sounds like some religious fanatic ranting on. “God is eternal” etc
In other words - I am going to close my eyes and pretend that this electronic genius doesn’t exist because he has turned my little affectance world upside down with logic and common sense and made me look puerile and silly.
Again, merely an assertion with no reason to believe it. Who besides you ever said that electrons need something to fall into?
So now if anyone uses the word “eternal” they are referring to religion? 
… very limited mindset.
Now he’s a “genius”?
Obviously you can’t defend any of your own speculations and certainly not his.
This is a philosophy (display your reasoning) forum, not a soapbox preaching pulpit.
Thought it was.
The logic is rope and string theory. If you spin an object, it wraps the string around, like a spool. This pulls in other objects, like a tractor beam.
Seems like a silly speculation. Even Hawking gave up on his string theory.
Is there any evidence that spinning particles attract each other when non-spinning similar particles do not?
No, but I never said I believed in string theory.
Of course you realize that mathematics in itself cannot definitely prove the existence of a physical property that cannot be demonstrated experimentally. At best, it can provide indirect evidence (as in string theory).
I would tend to agree with your statement, but I won’t try and say that I can prove it (I can’t, and neither can anyone else). But then, quantum physics essentially reaches (perhaps even requires) the same conclusion (for reasons that are better established than anything string theory has yet to offer). But even a quantum physicist won’t try and say they can prove a principle like this … quite frankly, I’m not really sure how something like this can ever be established experimentally (although, since we also lack a crystal ball, we can never say never) 
Empirical evidence without reasoning/logic/math proves that magicians really do pull rabbits from hats, the Earth is flat, Helios raises the Sun, speeds can be faster than light, and liberals are good people.
Mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities. Logic is merely careful examination of concept definitions. Definitions are merely explanations for wording. Wording is merely an effort to communicate. And communication is merely another form of sensing some aspect of reality. Any and all efforts to sense reality can be in error, but logic can cross check and verify empirical sensing and communication.
Without logic, there is no such thing as proof or validity.
Agreed, we need “both” … but the thing is about going down the rabbit hole with pure mathematics (and no evidentiary support) is one tiny error, one wrong assumption, and you wind up taking a turn that puts you way off course.
I don’t dislike math (I’ve taken plenty in my academic studies), I just think it has limitations; especially when dealing with a subject like ‘is nothingness possible’ or infinite space or whatever.
The real reason for the “both” is that one has a brain and senses, thus that one has a logical theory and an empirical praxis in life as well as in science.
So we need not only thoughts, mathematics, logic, and a well defined language but also the observation, laboratories and other empircal things.
Logic and observation are two different forms of truth seeking, investigating. Each has its special field where it shines. Neither must always have the other, but then people make mistakes so easily that both are required for surety.
I can know, without observation, that certain things do or do not exist in the universe, but I couldn’t tell you where they are at any particular time without observation.
For example. I know that no where in the entire universe is there a square-circle. I can know that with absolute certainty, merely due to logic, no observation is required. And I can also know that no where in the entire universe is there a perfect circle (or actually any defined perfect shape). The proof of that is a little more complicated, but if verified by other people who understand the process of logic and math, 100% certainty can be obtained.
In the case of the OP, I can know with 100% certainty that nothingness is always absolutely impossible, everywhere. I can know that without the slightest observation because it is strictly an issue of pure logic/math. Observations would merely confirm what couldn’t have been mistaken in the first place. But in a case such as this, no observation can confirm or deny anything being proposed.
When I constructed Affectance Ontology, I knew without doubt that each element being proposed absolutely had to exist in the universe, but I didn’t necessarily know where. It was only due to the preponderance of similarities between science’s reports concerning physics and my abstract constructions that it became 90% certain that what I had constructed in abstract was in fact, the reality of physics. Then it became even more certain after a great deal of debating here and other places. At this point, I can’t imagine anyone being able to find any flaw in it (other than my bad wording at times or something that I wrote when I was still trying to get it all figured out).
So a person can begin with pure abstract logic or one can begin with superficial observations. But before long, no matter which way it began, one must try to confirm the results with the other form of investigation if such can actually be done.
Rational Metaphysics:
Definitional Logic + Scientific Methodology + Resolution Debating = Path to certainty.
Only because we contrived definitions for both squares and circles, so yeah, David Hume talked about this centuries ago. Just as we can always prove the “internal” consistency of mathematics, we can prove the validity of deductive statements, because we define everything within those statements (e.g. no such thing as a married bachelor or whatever).
The thing is, how do you rationally define a property like nothingness? When we contrive axioms, we can usually demonstrate its significance (empirically). Like when trigonometry was invented. You won’t find a perfect triangle in nature, you can’t even really draw one (they even tried to make a perfect triangle in space with lasers, only to discover that the curvature of space makes a perfect line impossible), but you can draw an almost perfect triangle and say that for the purposes of our calculations we’re gonna pretend that the lines are perfectly straight. Then you can make statements like the sum of all its internal angles must be 180 degrees.
To liken something like infA/infA = 1 to 3/3 = 1 (or whatever) … is absurd.
A number or a length has real meaning. Numbers have representative value and demonstrated utility, while properties like length have physical meaning that can be observed.
Your statement is analogous to saying Bertrand Russell’s celestial tea pot/Bertrand Russell’s celestial tea pot = 1, thus it must exist (and to say otherwise is like saying A does equal A)
Obviously you have to establish the existence of Russell’s celestial tea pot independently for your statement to have any meaning.
I’m sorry … but this is just ridiculous.
Easily.
Existence is qualified by the property of Affect. If something has absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever, that thing does not exist. And anything that actually does have real affect upon anything does exist. With that in mind, the state of “nothingness” is a state wherein there is no affecting at all: “Absolute Zero Affectance”.
The OP is actually calculating the possibility of ever having absolutely zero affectance. And that possibility is absolutely zero, as pointed out in the OP.
Well, those aren’t “axioms” actually. Those would be ontological elements, which are merely chosen and defined with the hopes of them being useful in some way of thinking. They are not proposed truths, merely abstract ontological constructs, much like an invented language.
Well, I’m afraid that is not at all absurd. By definition infA/infA is exactly equal to one for the exact same reason that 3/3 is exactly equal to one. Realize that the term “infA” is exactly defined. It is not referencing the ambiguous term “infinity”, but rather a very specific infinite series.
Emmm… no. “InfA/infA” has nothing to do with physical objects (Russell’s celestial tea pot), but rather abstract unlimited quantities. And because they are identical, by definition, they divide into each other exactly once, thus " = 1". You can add 2+2 without having to worry about there being any actual object associated with “2”. You get 4 of whatever.
A / A = 1
Pi / Pi = 1
[1+1+1+ … +1] / [1+1+1+ … +1] = 1
Adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing infinite series is a common understanding in mathematics. The trick is that you have to ensure that the series are exactly defined.
So far, your objections have been.