No, I wasnât referring to my theory. I was asking if there can be anything that YOU would say exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect. I am talking about the concepts of having affect and existence, not anyoneâs theory.
And to say that âwhat is, is undecidableâ or unknowable, seems a strange thing to claim. I happen to know otherwise, but realize that everything we âknowâ is actually just a naming of things. And you are saying that we canât even name it. That just seems odd.
But my question is simply, âWould you ever say that a thing exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect?â
Well, that is more than just a little familiar. But a few concerns;
) First, just an issue of language, you canât use both âparticleâ and âinfinitely smallâ to refer to the same thing. âParticleâ implies size. You can say that it is âalmost infinitely smallâ as the Quantum Magi do. In their ontology, their âparticles of spaceâ are 10^-31 meters (almost infinitely small to us). Or if you mean that it can truly be infinitely small, then it is a âlinear substanceâ or a âpropertyâ, not a particle.
) So you are saying that in your ontology, there are two basic elements; time and consciousness, both infinitely divisible?
) But I have to ask why you are calling it âtimeâ. What about it makes it time rather than orange juice, pickles, beauty, or light?
) What is between the âparticles of timeâ?
) You have this time-substance/particle congesting, which means that you have âtime-densityâ that varies from place to place. What makes it move? Why does it move?
) And you seem to have two definitions for âtimeâ; a fundamental element and the resistance of that element moving within an ocean of itself.