Does infinity exist?

Which leaves us no one to argue against the existence of infinity. I think this closes the case, which had indeed been closed since Spinoza. He is great.

Seems like you’re saying existence is relationship because in order to be aware, you must relate somehow. James said if something has no affect, then it doesn’t exist and I think relationship is saying the same thing. Objective existence is therefore not existence as if there could exist a sole thing in absence of everything else.

Something can only exist in relation to something else and if it has no relation to anything else, then it can’t be said to exist lest anything be said to exist, including this pink elephant sitting next to me that I can’t detect.

No you haven’t. What you have accomplished is demonstrating your inability to differentiate between boundaries of categories and boundaries within categories. If I say there are infinite apples, I am not placing boundaries on the number of apples, but that doesn’t mean there are also infinite oranges and the fact there are not infinite oranges doesn’t mean I’ve placed boundaries on apples. Due to some suspected cognitive impairment you’re suffering from, you’re having difficulty making this completely obvious differentiation and are running about patting yourself on the back for being totally blind. :laughing:

Clearly you’re suggesting there are unlimited numbers of numbers between 1 and 0, right? Right? Is anybody home, McFly? :violence-stickwhack:

Because that’s what infinity means… unlimited, unbounded numbers of things. The only bound that exists is the category of identity… which is defined by 1 and 0 per your axiomization.

So you’ve defined a category and stated that within that category there are an unbounded number of things.

I would feel sorry for you if you weren’t so damn arrogant.

I can use whatever definition I want and it’s total within my discretion to define terms in order to communicate. The important thing is I have defined my terms so people know what I’m talking about, unlike you who can’t seem to muster a definition after repeated pleadings for you to do so, yet you continue to use a word that you can’t define.

I have my definition of existence articulated at the top of the OP because “first things first and I knew that”.

The question remains if you can read, recall what you’ve read, or have any clue how to define existence. Those are the unknowns.

The whole proof seems like shit to me, which I’m certainly ready to shred to bits, but I first need to know how he defines existence. If I use my definition, then the proof quickly falls apart, but I don’t know how he defines it, so I can’t do anything until I get that information… which seems to be conveniently missing in light of the fact that he defined everything else under the sun except the most relevant bit.

Are you warming up for a Dunning-Kruger interview or do you honestly believe that?

I certainly stipulate that I have no idea what that means. If it’s something you made up, can you please define it? And if it’s a standard subject in philosophy, can you supply a link?

Now when you say categories, of course I think of category theory, a modern foundational approach to large parts of mathematics that’s an alternative to traditional set theory. Interestingly John Baez, a mathematical physicists and the original Internet math blogger, has applied n-categories, meaning categories of categories etc., to the study of loop quantum gravity in theoretical physics. So it’s quite an interesting area, and one most amateur math fans haven’t heard of yet.

I do not think this is what you mean, though. So why not just say what you’re talking about? It certainly makes no sense to me in the context of the issue at hand.

I say again: In math, the closed unit interval on the real line is a bounded set that contains its upper and lower bound.

Furthermore, one could respond that yes, [0,1] is bounded as a metric space; but its cardinality is infinite, hence (by your argument) not bounded. However you are wrong even here. The cardinality of [0,1] is that of the reals, namely (2^{\aleph_0}). That cardinality is bounded below by (\aleph_0), and bounded above by (2^{2^{\aleph_0}}). So the unit interval is bounded in metric AND bounded in cardinality. It’s bounded every way you can think of.

I hope that you, or at least fairminded readers, can see that I’m making substantive responses to your points. I’d appreciate substantive replies to mine.

I perfectly well agree. If I have infinitely many apples I may well have only finitely many oranges.

Can you explain what that has to do with the boundedness of both the length and cardinality of the unit interval?

I can’t speak to your upbringing or possible neurochemical imbalances.

I do address @Carleas and the other moderators of this site. If this type of discourse is ok then the site’s not for me.

Moderators please advise.

Unlimited? No. There are exactly as many as there are real numbers. That’s much much smaller than the number of possible subsets of the reals, which is less than the number of subsets of subsets of the reals, and so forth.

This is Cantor’s theorem, which says that the powerset of any set has strictly larger cardinality than the set. So that in fact any transfinite cardinal you can name is bounded by the cardinality of its powerset.

Insults in lieu of substantive responses. Emoticons depicting physical violence. Lash out, little man.

So what do you think about Cantor’s theorem? Do you disagree with it? If so why? I’m openminded. I don’t care what position you hold if you can intelligently defend it. Say something intelligent.

  • I have certainly given no axiomitization of anything. The unit interval is a perfectly clear example to anyone who’s takenn algebra II in high school.

  • You have simply repeated your incorrect claim, that infinity means unbounded. That’s clearly false. Repeating a claim doesn’t constitute an argument in support of that claim. It only reveals you haven’t got one.

  • And the “category of identity?” Whats that mean? Something else you just made up?

Well no. I have noted that a standard mathematical object, familiar to everyone who learned the basics of analytic geometry in high school, is infinite; yet is both bounded in length, and also bounded in cardinality.

It’s funny that someone who simply knows what they’re talking about appears arrogant to you.

Of course. But you don’t define your terms. What’s a category and how does it relate to the unit interval?

If anyone here knows what Serendipper is talking about, please tell me. I’m openminded, if there’s something I’m not getting, just explain it to me.

Perhaps you missed it a few days ago when I wrote:

As you can see I already defined mathematical infinity. This particular definition dates back to Dedekind in the 1880’s. It’s been the standard one ever since.

Serendipper, the math is beyond me, but my take is that you are not coming off well in this exchange. You seem to be insulting someone with a deeper knowledge of math than you. Doesn’t mean he or she is right, but your explanations seem less grounded to this layman than yours. Are you sure you are not jumping past your own concerns that you are out of your depth and presenting a ‘I am sure of what I am saying’ front?

If so, just admit it, cut losses and see what you two can learn together.

I’ve noticed the tendency on your part to go ad hom or insulting in relation to me, rather than focusing on the substance of the issues, and it’s actually good to watch it unfold in relation to someone else.

Seriously, why not cut this shit out?

Well, as a curiousity to wtf,

The probability of any finite string existing, according to convergence theory (which sets the bounds) is zero percent. When the infinite converges, the finite strings also converge, so infinitesimally small, that if convergence theory is true, they can’t exist.

And there we have it. How can I explain to you something that you cannot see? If you cannot differentiate between boundless quantity and boundless identity, then there is no possible way for me to show you your error. If you can’t tell the difference between what something is and how many there are, then how can I help you?

I’ve defined it over and over, but it’s like a color that you can’t see.

The category is the set of numbers between 1 and 0 of which there are infinitely many. There are no bounds to the number of numbers within the category of 0 to 1. A category is identity… the identification of what you’re talking about… a definition. If I say cat, I do not mean dog. The category is cat. There may be infinite cats, but there are not infinite categories. And just because there are not infinite categories does not mean there are limits to the number of cats. The number of cats is unbounded, but the category of cat is not; it’s bounded by identity.

I did. Over and over. It’s like explaining red to a blind man.

Math is not the universe and math doesn’t even represent it fully. Whether something applies within math is irrelevant. You could axiomize anything and then state that within that construct that certain truths apply, but it’s irrelevant to the universe. Appeals to math are like appeals to authority or any other logical fallacy.

So your assertion is the unbounded is bounded. That’s ridiculous. Make up your mind… is infinity bounded or is it not?

Not that I can see. You’re dodging and being dogmatic in asserting that the unbounded can be bounded and further demonstrating inability to see your error.

You started it with your cocky tone in saying “I’m afraid I must dash your hope” instead of “How about we define infinity as _____________ instead of boundless.”

You have taken the position that infinity exists and are dogmatically determined to defend that position even if it means asserting absurdities as truth, such as the bounded unbounded. Evidently this is your religion because it’s not rooted in reason because absurdities are not reasonable. You are the dogmatist who I referred to in my OP who I didn’t want to clutter the thread with pages and pages of dogmatic refusals to see reason which renders the thread useless.

Right, unbounded numbers of apples have the bound of being only apples and not oranges. Bounded by identity, but unbounded in quantity.

Cardinality is just a fancy word for quantity within a set. Your pretentiousness is showing. In your example, the “length” is the set and the “cardinality” is the quantity within the set. So the set of all numbers between 1 and 0 is infinite. The set of all numbers between 1 and 2 is infinite. The set of all numbers between x and y is infinite where x and y is anything you want. Once you define x and y, you define a set with infinite cardinality.

You’re ignoring points!

Per the rules:

2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175550

You are “annoying other posters” by refusing to define infinity clearly while dogmatically objecting to my definition. And this definition is the same as mine: “Mathematically, a set is infinite if it may be bijected to a proper subset of itself” because the only way anything can biject with a subset of itself is if it has no bounds (which I said before and you ignored), so you said the same thing and still claim my definition is wrong.

Tell me exactly and clearly what infinity is… in plain english without math jargon that obfuscates the definition.

You are “annoying other posters” by having an inability to see the difference in boundless quantity and boundless identity.

You are “annoying other posters” by asserting the boundless has a bound.

You are not in good faith seeking the truth, but imposing your dogma and it’s “annoying other posters”.

If you don’t know something, I’ll gladly help you until you understand, but when you come across as flattering yourself for being right when you can’t even see what I’m saying, then it’s annoying.

Now I’ve linked to a Yale Phd in Mathematics and former professor at Stanford who asserts infinity doesn’t exist and that should at least give you pause before you come storming on here “dashing my hopes” as if you’re the grand poobah of math… and even if you were, it still wouldn’t be justification to make authoritative statements about the universe.

Oh, so, now there are not unlimited numbers of numbers between 1 and 0. Make up your mind! You’re annoying! Is there a limit to the number of numbers between 1 and 0 or is there not?

This from someone who asserts the unbounded has a bound :laughing:

This from someone who asserts infinity is not unbounded and then provides definition which requires infinity to be unbounded. :laughing:

Axiom - a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based. You stated 1,0 is the set and that’s the axiom upon which we work.

I took algebra II and geometry at the same time against the recommendations of the counselors and aced them both, then was sent to a special school for mathematically gifted students, then completed college calculus before I graduated high school and on the state’s dime. Admittedly, that was a long time ago and I’ve not kept up, but I’m not an idiot and these constant referrals to “anyone who has taken _____ should know _____” are annoying.

Then you better inform all the dictionaries on earth that they are incorrectly defining infinity lest the world get confused. I’m not appealing to the dictionary, but simply saying you could be famous for correcting them. Let me know what they say.

Wikipedia says: Infinity is a concept describing something without any bound

Oxford says: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size

Dictionary.com says: Unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless

Webster says: extending indefinitely : ENDLESS

Wtf says: the bounded unbounded

I say: wtf?

Yeah, kinda like the category of categories you made up.

Baloney! You said:

[i]I ask you to consider as a mathematical example the closed unit interval [0,1], which is defined as the set of all real numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive.

We know that this set contains infinitely many real numbers; in fact, an uncountable infinity of them. Yet this set is bounded.[/i]

So you’re asserting bounded unbounded; the limited unlimited, the finite infinite. You said it.

No one knows what you’re talking about, including you.

Now you’re lying.

A category is identity… what something is and a set to which it belongs. A unit interval is a category.

Openminded you are not. Dictionaries are wrong, accomplished mathematicians are wrong, my logic is wrong, but absurdities are right because you said so. I see why you named yourself wtf :laughing:

That’s an obfuscating way of stating unbounded.

So you’re saying you have no idea, but your idea is __________.

If “the math is beyond” you, then how can you tell? In order to judge an authority you have to be one.

How about Yale educated and former Stanford professor of mathematics, NJ Wildberger? Is he over his head too? Heck, his whole thesis is “being grounded in reality” (limited by the size of the universe) rather than off in fantasy land like his many of his colleagues. How can I be less grounded when the premise of my argument is to be grounded (finite) rather than hinged in obscurity (infinite)?

Well I’m sure the bounded unbounded can’t exist because it’s a direct contradiction. Either infinity is bounded or it is not.

We can’t say there are infinite apples and then claim there is a bound to the number of apples because there are not infinite oranges. Either the number of apples is without limit or it’s not. We can’t have limited unlimited. If you are not siding with me, then that is what you are asserting.

The way to show me I am wrong is to show me; not gang-up.

I have no problem admitting I am wrong, but first you must show me a how something can be bounded and unbounded in quantity.

That is an ad hom. The subject is infinity and the definition of and the existence of; not whether or not I ad hom.

This is why I said in the OP “Questions are encouraged, but dogma is not.” If someone asserts and clings to absurdities, which are inherently unreasonable and therefore dogmatic, then they shouldn’t be surprised if ad homs follow because the subject then transitions from discussing the differences between categories and quantities to someone’s inability to see the difference.

Why indeed.

Show me a quantity that is both unbounded and bounded and the shit will be cut out. Or admit that it’s not possible and the shit will be cut out. Continue this dogmatism and the shit goes on.

What else can I say? I can’t concede the bounded boundless exists until someone can show me how.

Until then, the definition put forth by every dictionary on earth stands, which is infinity is unbounded, limitless, endless.

If you disagree, then simply submit a CLEAR definition in PLAIN ENGLISH without obfuscating words reliant upon axioms of boundlessness.

Convey to me exactly what you think infinity is.

It’s easy! Simply say “infinite = _______________”

Otherwise concede that you accept my definition. If one can do neither, then one’s purpose here is to annoy, right?

If one can’t accept my definition and one can’t replace my definition and yet one keeps using the word while ignoring repeated pleadings to define the word they’re using, then their only purpose is to be annoying. What else could it be? :confusion-shrug:

You’re not fooling anyone but yourself. If that.

To be clear, what you are doing is pretend to be mentally challenged when that suits you so that you can ignore the logic that you are challenged with. It’s not very impressive except in how much time and effort of yourself and others you are wasting with it.

You’ve been refuted about sixty times in this thread alone, but like I ambiguous, this only seems to embolden you. Lol.

Thanks! Of course I’m not fooling anyone since I’m speaking sense. Those fooling folks are speaking nonsense that’s imperceptible to the ones being fooled.

Well at least I can type with decent grammar when insulting people :laughing:

What happened to “feigning ignorance” that you used to accuse everyone of? Did you wear it out?

All you have to do is show me how I’m wrong and that will take the wind from my sails, if that’s what you’re after. Otherwise, claiming I’ve been refuted when I clearly haven’t only flatters me that you’re groping for any insult you can find in lieu of counterpoint debate because what’s important is that I’m wrong, right?

Infinity must be defended at all costs :bow-blue: Infinity

Karpel, did you forget you said this?

I think shaming is good. I wish the community would shame not content but inability to carry out coherent dialogue with integrity. I mean, it does happen. A number of people have reacted to Prismatic who is a classice example of someone so sure they are right, they cannot acknowledge the slightest mistake and commit many of the sins I mentioned above. AT least three people have bluntly commented on his shortcomings here, after trying through many, many posts to have a rational dialogue with him. I think that kind of shaming is good. In fact I would like to see more shaming and less banning. Not that it has worked in Prismatic’s case, nor am I optimistic with some of the people mentioned earlier in this thread. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&p=2693911&hilit=shaming#p2693911

Now you’re admonishing me for shaming him for “inability to carry out coherent dialogue with integrity”.

You’ve also given me plenty of grief over Alan Watts’ attacks on displays of emotions, so when I display emotions, you give me more flack. I just can’t win with you man. I think you just have it out for me and I don’t know why. I’ve always liked you.

Serendipper, your spending all your days wasting everyones time with your excuses for not reading any argument offered to you is not fooling anyone into thinking of you as some sort of scientist or scholar. You’re quite evidently unconvinced of your own claims.

When Im confronted with a challenge I devour it. But thats my thing, I can’t force that mentality on you.

Its very embarrassing that you use the verb “to be” in a question phrased to pretend you don’t know how you should understand the term “existence”.

Spinoza is the father of all the rationalism you admire so much. He remains one of the most respected logicians in our time. That you can’t even bring yourself to read the first pages of his main work is a pretty much definitive indication of what you are.

To speak back to you in your language: :laughing:

I’m fairly confident I am the only human who has read every word (multiple times) of this thread. I may be wrong, but if I could compel anyone to waste their time reading it, that would be a start.

I never said I was and would prefer not to be tainted by such labels.

How so?

Probably why you restrict yourself to deprecation instead of sinking your teeth into the debate.

I’m grateful you cannot force it on me and I just hope what you have is not contagious :open_mouth:

You caught me, but I’m not feigning ignorance because I do know how to define existence, but I do not know how HE defines existence, so I’m not feigning.

Let’s see…

Rationalism =

[i]a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
“scientific rationalism”

PHILOSOPHY
the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.

THEOLOGY
the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion.[/i]

I see no distinction between reason and experience. I’ve long subscribed (coincidentally) to Goethe’s world view that deduction is merely another mode of perception and perception/deduction are both experience: do you do it or does it happen to you? Either way, you endure it. Oops, I mean “experience it”.

It’s been on my bucket list for years, but now that you’ve opened my eyes to him, I think I can cross him off.

As opposed to what?

Anyway, I’m mostly through a critique of the Spinoza proof you submitted. I realize I’m wasting my time, but it’s fun like a puzzle.

The collection of subsets of any given set is called the powerset of the original set. Cantor’s theorem shows that the cardinality of any set is strictly smaller than the cardinality of its powerset.

This is easy to see for a finite set. For example the cardinality of the set {1, 2, 3} is 3; and the cardinality of the set of subsets of {1,2,3} is 2^3, or 8. You can see this explicitly as follows. The subsets of {1,2,3} are: The empty set, {1}, {2}, {3}, (1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, and {1,2,3}. That’s eight subsets altogether.

Cantor’s theorem also true for any infinite set; and has a simple and beautiful proof given in the Wiki page I linked.

Therefore the cardinality of the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is strictly less than the cardinality of the set of subsets of reals between 0 and 1. That is, the cardinality of the reals between 0 and 1 is BOUNDED BY the cardinality of its powerset.

So, do you either

a) Not understand Cantor’s theorem? or

b) Deny it? And if so, why? What do you know that all the mathematicians in the world, from undergrad math majors to Fields medal winners, don’t?

Wtf, I wanted you to see this post

viewtopic.php?p=2711610#p2711610

I saw it earlier. Thank you.

I did not understand the meaning of, “The probability of any finite string existing, according to convergence theory (which sets the bounds) is zero percent.”

There are countably many finite-length strings from a finite or countably infinite alphabet. According to conventional probability theory, there is no uniform probability measure on a countable set. Can you say how you are computing these probabilities? Or do you mean that almost all binary strings have infinitely many 1 bits? The set of all binary strings having at most finitely many 1-bits is indeed zero. Is that what you mean?

Imagine an infinite set that converges at 3.

There are an infinite number of these sets.

Now take any number from that set if the set is defined as infinitesimal, no problem!

But when you use convergence theory, the infinite set, algorithm, equals 3!

What’s interesting about this is that both finite and infinite strings (just one) disappear on the continuum when the set converges.

This of it this way: I skipped a stone on a pond.

It’s very finite.

The odds of one event occurring with infinite time is zero percent, because the infinite regresses all converge to al limit.

How do we turn 0.3… three times into the limit of one? Not the approach, but the limit …?

At some point, the floating point infinitesimal one, makes all the others nothing, they didn’t exist AT CONVERGENCE!!

Convergence theory always takes away the infinitesimals.

A sequence tending towards 1, does just that, tends towards 1, but when we actually converge it. The odds of those numbers tending towards one are so infinitesimal that unless they keep calculating as such, the tendency towards 1, in the convergence, the tendency towards 1 can no longer exist.

The bounds are zero and one, and an infinite number of sequences are moving towards zero and one, but they are neither zero or 1. Once they become zero or one, they can no longer exist.

What are the odds of correctly picking a number from an infinite sequence?

Well this is remarkably easy.

You said before “We know that this set contains infinitely many real numbers; in fact, an uncountable infinity of them.” viewtopic.php?f=4&t=194376#p2710998

And you say now that “the cardinality of any set is strictly smaller than the cardinality of its powerset.”

So, by substitution, you’re saying that infinity is bounded by a bigger infinity and I’ll need you to show how something bigger can be a bound for something smaller and then define what you mean by “infinity” such that said definition will apply exclusively to the reals between 0 and 1 (without also applying to the powerset since that one is different - ie bigger) and, because it’s the same word, also exclusively to the powerset (without also applying to the reals set which is different - ie smaller) and then show how the powerset definition limits the reals definition (how does the big limit the small) and do so with intent to convey meaning, which means do not use obfuscating math jargon hiding the fact that your definition relies upon unbounded sets while pretending that it doesn’t (for instance bijection with itself relies upon the set being unbounded).

Once you’ve defined your terms with a good faith effort to convey meaning and have illustrated how big things limit small things, then we’ll move on.

(You only have 7 eternities to figure it out and then I’m calling time :smiley: )

Nothing can be conceived as infinite; it can only be speculated to be if one can’t see that the object without borders is not an object and therefore absurd.

Definition for existence is conveniently missing as are the definitions for the infinite and essence.

Appealing to terms not defined. If existence were defined as relationship, clearly self-causation is impossible since at least 2 things (with illusory distinctness) are required to form a dipole (subject/object) and constitute existence. If existence is not defined as relationship, then I’m at a loss for a definition.

North and south constitute a magnet, but it’s one magnet; not two distinct parts. The magnet exists as a function of the universe, but it’s one universe; not universe + magnet as if the magnet could exist independent of the universe. Beyond that, I don’t know.

Things are defined by boundaries and the size of things are irrelevant. De+finiteness constitutes thingness. And “size” itself is a construct of the spacetime fabric; size isn’t something that intrinsically, timelessly, objectively exists. Time is also an emergent property.

This seems to mean things have borders which stands in opposition to the previous definition. Independence = borders. Nevermind the fact that borders join rather than separate which renders independent things impossible. All borders are held in common.

What is meant by essence? Substance? Substance of substance?

Looks like a good definition of existence: “is conceived through something other than itself”

What does infinite mean? Boundless? In that case, God is not a thing because he has no “skin” (borders). Further, if God has infinite attributes, then nonexistence is one of those attributes. Indeed, it’s his only attribute!

Absolute infinite is a oxymoron. Absolutes have definite boundaries. The number 1 is absolute, definite, and finite. It is not 1.00000000000000000000001 nor 0.9999999999999999999999, but only and absolutely 1.

This contradicts itself saying free things are things determined by themselves, but determined by things external to them.

Eternity = existence? Why limit existence to just a function of 1 of 4 dimensions of a construct that already exists when instead we could define existence as infinite time AND space. Probably because time and space would have to exist before it could engender existence, which doesn’t make sense. No, existence has nothing to do with spacial or temporal constructs (timeless and spaceless as opposed to infinite time and infinite space).

This appears to mean time cannot come about by a process of time, but neither can existence.

No it can’t. No one can conceive of things without beginnings or ends and “continuance” has no meaning nor relevance if there are no beginnings or ends. What’s ubiquitous is irrelevant. Relevant things have beginnings and ends.

He came close to defining existence as relationship here, except that I’m not sure how something can exist in relation to itself. Things exist in relation to what they are not. The north pole of a magnet exists in relation to the south pole and neither could exist independently because they are codependent.

What does “conceived” mean? Thought of as? Conceptualized? So “That which cannot be conceptualized through anything else must be conceptualized through itself.” Nope. Things are conceptualized by contrasting with what it is not.

Well, then does conceived mean “give birth to”? “That which cannot be birthed through anything else must be birthed through itself.” Hmm… That makes no sense. There is a third option: That which cannot be birthed through anything else must not have been birthed.

See how language can obfuscate? I wish people would strive to say what they mean.

How does cause influence effect? No one can answer that because it doesn’t. There is no such thing as cause or effect, but they are the same process and not separate things.

The following is built upon that faulty foundation:

What is knowledge?

A way of saying existence is relative I think.

This seems to be an assertion of objective existence.

Goes without saying.

If he is asserting the infinite, then where do modifications end or begin? It seems the assertion of a substance and essence undermines what he’s attempting to prove.

This is an axiom: things with nothing in common have nothing in common.

Cause and effect doesn’t exist and is an abstraction.

Distinct things are nonexistent to each other.

There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances period. Things are substantive only in relation to something else which makes them one thing. The sun gives no light if there is nothing around to see it (photon can’t leave until they already have a destination, according to Feynman).

Yes, one distinct thing cannot produce another distinct thing or else they would not be distinct, but in fact one thing.

Sure I guess.

We’ve already established the maximum number of things (substances, essences, whatever) to be one, so there is nothing produced and neither is there self-causation.

Every substance is necessarily infinite = Every substance is necessarily without boundaries which makes it not a substance because there is nothing that it’s not.