How imaginative of you.
You are a retard who refuses to accept the fact that theories are built on top of sensory information and that there is absolutely nothing limiting the sequence in which sensory events unfold.
You insist on conflating different concepts of existence by reducing everything to the theoretical construct that is affectance.
Never will you admit that what ultimately matters is predictions and whether they turn out to be true or not.
How can it yield “sensory information” if it doesn’t affect anything?
I don’t know what you’re talking about with the chaos bit, but I can answer these, because they have the same answer. You seem to be underestimating the power of language. A thing does not have to be precisely defined or quantified in order for somebody to make use (even fairly detailed use) of a symbol for it. Think about all the things poets said about the sun throughout the ages without having a clue what it actually is. That’s how ‘everything’ works. You can make logical statements about everything without knowing what everything consists of very easily. The definition “All things that exist” works well with everything, and you certainly don’t need to reference a complete list of what qualifies in order to understand the definition, or to go on to make statements around it.
Zero is just a way of signifying that there is nothing in a spot where something could have been. So for example in the number .505. it’s not equal to .55. Something needs to go between the fives to indicate the concept of a ‘hundredths’ position despite the fact that there’s nothing in that position. Note also that some people would write out 0.505, but it’s often skipped because it doesn’t signify anything that isn’t already indicated by the decimal point.
You’ll find this pattern in non-mathematical speech, too. If somebody takes the time to tell you that they don’t have something (or have zero of something), it’s because they they expected to have it or thought they should have it, so that specific lack is significant. Nobody is going to (or can) list off all the things they lack.
Correction of mindrape currently going on here:
In order to affect, it must exist. Not the other way around.
Existence is the most basic rational postulate. Qualifying existence comes subsequent to that postulate as such, period.
Proceed.
Only if you are trying to avoid the question.
Does that tree produce the apple fruit?
Or is the apple fruit produced by that tree?
Is that color red?
Or is red that color?
The question is, “What does it mean to exist?”,
not “What is required to affect?”
To exist means the potential to affect something.
To affect means to, in some at least slight way, change something.
And even more precisely, the question is “What does it take to cause perception?” And the answer is that something must be affected such as to reach the observer.
Can something be observed if that something affects nothing? Can anything exist without the potential to affect anything? If you can think of any such thing, do tell.
If you don’t want to know what “to exist” means and keep having no affect in the world, certainly continue to avoid the question with your “god of the gaps” ex nihilo presumption.
And if you want to be “mindraped” less, I suggest to stop mindraping yourself.
“To exist means the potential to affect something.
To affect means to, in some at least slight way, change something.”
Some nice Orwellian double-think going on here.
If something exists, then it must affect something else. “Affecting something else” is a qualifying condition on “existing”. Existing, however, is logically basic – it is fundamental in the pure, philosophical sense. This is ontology.
Trying to reverse that and put the cart before the horse is… mindrape, as I said.
It is the “potential to affect something”. And an ontology can begin on any level and call it “basic”, which merely indicates a lack of any more basic understanding. The point to an ontology is to understand existance, not to merely presume it.
But since you wish to argue with my definition, provide a definition of “to exist” or “to be”.
And as I said, stop the intellectual masturbating and you wont have that problem.
You can’t detect an existent if it never affects something. The potential to affect something doesn’t make an existent.