In a generic sense of, having less effect. Or, the idea, that there is an equivocal limiting of these effects toward a null effect. I do understand that this would not nullify the affect.
One thing I have been thinking about to support Your argument is the recent discovery of a far away galaxy at the very periphery of the limits of the known universe as far away in light years as the age of the supposed universe is, something like 14 billion years.
this would support the idea, that measurability is a function of the status of advancement in the technology of the tools of measurement. Aid so, carried to its logical conclusion, Your theory would hold up even in the most remote areas of affectance, given the use of a large enough step up energy converter.
Here, the use would be for such a tool, the magnification of one type of energy source for another. So, there is a large uncertainty here.
It’s not approaching infinity that is the problem… it is infinity that is the problem. For example, anything higher than zero is infinitely larger. The number 1 is infinitely larger than zero. Because there’s a zero between 1 and 2, the number two is infinitely larger than the number 1, but has the same infinite largeness as the difference between 0 and 1 and 2.
When dealing with infinite distribution… it’s not possible for things to come together. which also calculates as nothing at all. This works the same as everything being the same and being nothing at all. I don’t think James has really thought this through, though I do agree that affectence is existence, I don’t think his proof of affectance is very good… John Bannon would laugh at it. He would suggest that there’s no reason why we cannot exist, given James’ “proof”.
My proof for existence is that if non-existence was itself, it would have to exist… (the non-existence of non-existence) and when existence exists, you have the existence of existence… two negatives always cancel each other out with identity. That’s one of my proofs for the necessity of existence, and is not something John Bannon would laugh at.
It’s also fundamentally an aether theory… unless all the objects of the aether are different it won’t work. The question is whether they are infinitely different.
There must be at least one element that’s both similar and different in near infinite sets in order to make sense of either. Something like one particle , while in simultainty a wave. To that gradients would or could not apply, it transcends limits.
The statement that there is an “inifinite difference” between two sequenced numbers is similar to the statement that a real physical contact between two bodies or particles is not possible because of the charges of their electrons on both outside lanes of both atoms: both charges are negative (each electron always has a negative charge).
But we know that 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, and so on, and we know that we can have contact.
We know that but we don’t know why. No matter how you cut it, the distance between 0 and 1 is infinite. Saying 0+1=1 doesn’t actually solve that problem. That’s like saying 0+infinity equals infinity. Perhaps you can get around it by saying there is no such thing as zero.
They’re not misuses of the term infinite relative to ZERO James… infinitesimals don’t solve the problem. John Bannon laughed at people all the time. He’d laugh at your proof of existence.
Well, I presented it to him … and he didn’t laugh.
But granted, he did try to use the laugh-at defense rather regularly.
Your misuse of the term “infinite” is in the fact that you do not refer to what it is that you have an infinity of. When you say that something is infinite, you are saying that it has no limit. If you say that the difference between 1 and 2 is infinite, you are saying that there is no limit above 1 such as to be able to reach 2. And yet we do it all the time, thus obviously there is a limit and thus not an infinity.
You can get around that sort of problem of limits only if you include an unlimited amount of something equally unlimitedly small. Each form of infinity, infinite and infinitesimal, cancel each other, yielding a realizable limit. That is how and why calculus works.
…which is also the resolve to all of the Zeno paradoxes involving infinite series.
If, hypotheticals define validation of them, then yes, 1-2 is infinitely divisible. There is a point where it seems not to, but it brings in the variable of the accuracy of perceiving it. After a while it becomes improbable that the tortoise will overtake the
hare, because of the immesurability beyond a certain point of halving. But that is the only variable which can distinguish discernible small limits to others. Mathematically, there is no limit to either discernible nothingness to every thingness (infinity)
Have you not yet figured out that numbers are not reality.
There are several things that numbers mean that are incommensurable with nature.
1=1 is incommensurable, because no two things are the same. There are no integers in nature and all maths depends ultimately on integers. Reality is analogue, numbers are digital.
There are no straight lines in nature.
Do I have to talk about Pi, irrational numbers…
The language of the universe is not Maths. maths is a human conceit.
Umm… I’m not using the term infinite improperly. Relative to ZERO, everything is infinite… it has existential value vs. no existential value, this is binary, is is not a matter of infinitesimals, and even if it were, infinitesimals have SOME existential value. However!!! Relative to ZERO, every number (existent) is infinite in magnitude. The problem is that you’re the one misunderstanding infinity, not me James.
Maybe Galilei exaggerated when he said that mathematics is the language of the nature. Anyway. We - the humans - have no other choice than to use our language in order to explain the observed nature (universe), because this explanation can only be done by the use of the language we have (and we have no other), scientifically spoken: by the use of linguistics and mathematics - and the intersection of both is logic.
If it’s pointless how can I use it improperly. James HONESTLY! You yourself say that there cannot be non-affectance, but defend zero… and when I say everything relative to absolute zero is infinite you throw your arms up as if I’m speaking some alien language. I’m speaking perfect english, and it’s logically consistent and sound.
Doing things improperly is what being pointless is largely about.
Yep.
Umm … no.
In “perfect English” that is logically consistent and sound, when someone says “infinite”, they are referring a quantity of something that is endlessly large. A quantity implies a group of lesser elements. What is the lesser element that stacks up endlessly to form 1 from zero? What about from 0.001 from zero?
Of what is any number larger than zero an infinite quantity?
I gave you a clue to the only chance you have of making sense of it. But you aren’t going to do that. And we know that already. And this doesn’t really have anything to do with Affectance Ontology. It is merely you refusing to learn how to speak English.
That’s what I’m trying to explain to you James… 0.0001 to zero is infinite. It’s relative to ZERO!!! Your not using your brain here, I don’t know what your using, but it’s not your brain.
Hahaha 