Given that it is because of Affectance that we do not reach an end when we try to do x forever (such as zoom into a particle and keep going), should we not then say Affectance = Infinite/Infinitesimal?
deleted
Double post so deleted
I am still a little uncertain how you individually mean “Infinity” and “Infinitesimal”. The field of affectance (the universe) is certainly infinitely large. And every infinitesimal portion of space is filled completely with affectance. If that is what you mean then - yes.
But does that address what you said that you needed?
The field of affectance being Infinitely large is clear. Every infinitesimal portion of space is filled completely with affectance is not clear. If there is more than one infinitesimal, what separates one infinitesimal from another?
Instead of saying ‘every infinitesimal portion of space’, is it not better to say ‘every non-infinitesimal or non-infinite portion of space’?
You say space is filled completely with affectance. This part without the ‘every infinitesimal portion’ I agree with. But this affectance that completely fills (or as I would say is in) all things (including space), can it be anything other than the Infinitesimal itself? It’s everywhere isn’t it? It’s not separated by anything else isn’t it? So how is it any different to the affectance you describe?
I don’t think I am tracking what you mean when you say “infinitesimal”.
When I say “infinitesimal” I am referring to any immeasurably small amount. There isn’t necessarily any separation or void between them. If you are referring to portions that are exactly next to each other, there is certainly no void between them. If you are referring to portions farther apart, there is certainly other affectance between those infinitesimal portions - never a void.
When you say there is a left half and a right half of an orange, are you implying that there is a void separating the halves?
I just don’t understand your version of “an infinitesimal portion” but it is clearly different than mine.
And affectance is not “within all things”. Affectance in its varied concentrations IS those things. Things are only distinguished by the concentration and type of affectance that makes them up.
I keep anchoring everything into the notion of existing and Existence. When you say affectance IS those things, if you mean to say it in the sense that those things are existing things, then I clear agree. But if you mean to say it in the sense that those things ARE Existence, then I disagree. The things that are sustained by the Infinitesimal/Infinite/Existence are not equal to the Infinitesimal/Infinite/Existence.
I don’t think I disagree with this. Because I know the sentence ‘there is non-existence in me’ is absurd, and because I know the sentence ‘there is an end to Existence in me’ is also absurd, I conclude that Existence (as opposed to non-existence) is in me and It Is Infinite (thus the label Infinitesimal). Nothing divides the Infinite/Infinitesimal. It/Existence Is Omnipresent.
Cut an orange in half and separate the two halves. Ultimately speaking, the Infinite/Infinitesimal/Existence will be both encompassing and separating the two halves. Nothing separates the Infinite/Existence.
Ok you are using the words “Infinite” and “Infinitesimal” in a way that I just can’t follow. You will have to clearly define what you mean when you use those words because you are certainly not using them in the normal since where “infinite” and “infinitesimal” represent opposite concepts - one immeasurably large while the other is immeasurably small. I guess them being capitalized signifies something but you will have to tell me what.
I thought I understood your usage of “Existence” (with the capital “E”) but now I’m unclear on that too.
You are just going to have to write out your personal dictionary for me to be able to follow you.
Whilst it is true there are different things inside of us (blood, atoms etc.) and different things outside of us (trees, planets etc.) there is one existing thing that is both inside of us and outside of us. Call it Existence, or E for short.
Do you agree that E is both immeasurably small and immeasurably large?
So you speak of “Existence” as a property.
“There is red inside us and there is red outside us.”
“There is good inside us and there is good outside us.”
Properties do not have size.
It makes little sense to say that red is both small and large. Or that good is both small and large. Or that Existence is both small and large. There can be either more or less of those properties present in any one place, but that isn’t size but rather degree.
Things that have those properties can be either small or large, but not both at the same time.
I have been using “Existence” as a thing (even a set) - not merely a property of things. That is how I thought you were using it as well - apparently my mistake.
I still don’t understand how you use “Infinite” and “Infinitesimal”. Those are normally used as properties (a thing or an amount is infinite or a thing or amount is infinitesimal) so I suspect you are using them as things - “The Infinite” as if there is only one possible thing that has that property (which would be false) yet you call that same thing “Infinitesimal”. So I am still lost.
And since it has been mentioned -
How you define the property of Existence or of existing in a meaningful way (James made a point about that)?
I don’t think you made a mistake regarding this. I do think that my usage of it is more in line with thing than property.
I agree that it makes no sense to say Existence is both small and large. But what about ‘Existence is both immeasurably large and immeasurably small’, actually scratch that, what about ‘The Measure of Existence is such that it encompasses all measures, however large or small they may be. To us, this Measure is immeasurable. But it cannot be said to be measureless or without measure or without being’. Infinitesimal/Existence is that which encompasses all small measures/things. Infinite/Existence is that which encompasses all large measures/things.
Just as there is nothing beyond Existence, there is nothing beyond the Infinite/Infinitesimal is there?
I am not entirely sure what you mean here. I don’t think you can have more or less Existence somewhere. There is Existence everywhere to the same degree. Existence does not come in degrees. Other things can come in degrees.
I need to try to draw your attention to the semantic I’m focused on. I call that which necessarily has no beginning and no end, Existence/Infinite/Infinitesimal. I call things that have a beginning but go on forever semi-infinite, because they are not purely/wholly Infinite. At best, they are part infinite (semi-infinite). For emphasis, they are not fully/completely/truly/absolutely Infinite. To me if x is not truly Infinite or truly Perfect, then it is non-infinite (semi-infinite or finite) and imperfect. It is not Existence, it is a part of Existence.
Existence (which you may call Affectance). It Exists (which you may word as ‘It Affects’). Its Measure Is Infinite/Infinitesimal. It Is Perfect (Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Sufficient, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent towards good, Omnimalevolent towards evil, Just, Merciful, Compassionate, Generous, Glorious, Beautiful…plus any other Attribute that is a semantical component of Perfection such that without It, x is not truly Perfect)
I am slowly catching on to your word usage but -
I have seen you emphasize “pure reason” quite often. That word “pure” directly implies that ALL impurities are absent - nothing at all that isn’t logic. And to me that means there is no poetry involved - no nuance - no hyperbole - no aggrandizing - no glorifying. Instead there are simple straightforward hard logic unambiguous facts - good or bad - like it or dislike it - it just is exactly what it is - nothing more and nothing less - neither a good thing nor a bad thing - nothing but the absolute fact of it. But your word usage doesn’t reflect that in my mind.
You seems to want to embed evangelistic, poetic nuance into your “pure reason”. And that makes is not really pure and a bit hard for us pure reasoners to follow.
“The Infinite/Infinitesimal/Existence”.
Really?
There are articles and other words specifically designed to make statements crystal clear and unambiguous - “pure”. You seem to want to leave those out - leaving your statement quite ambiguous and unclear (else we wouldn’t have been discussing this all this time).
If you want to create more chaos and evil - just keep speaking in a potentially confusing manner - pure reason will vanish before your eyes.
The world is right now in a very very very bad place and only getting much - much worse due to recent events we ignore while we bandy ambiguous wordings. Someone might call that being “evil” or at least promoting it. If you do not think so it is only because you have been ignoring it.
James speaks of “affectance density” as degrees of existence - the more dense - the greater degree of existence. He certainly agrees that it never goes to zero existence and also that it never reaches infinite degree of existence - nothing has zero density and nothing has infinite density. But since there is varied degrees of affect upon things - it is not black or white - not simply there or not there - but rather there to a greater significance or less significant affect - a measure of the degree of existence (not merely size).
I understood that from before but I still don’t see why it is needed in your “proof of God” thread.
What I meant was - What does it mean to exist? Or - how would you decide if some proposed thing (perhaps that unicorn) exists or doesn’t? What property does something have to have before we can claim that it exists?
I’m not entirely sure what has lead you to this conclusion. The best that I can gather from what you have said before and are saying now, is that I should not be saying Existence = Infinite = Infinitesimal.
So you really don’t think Existence Is the only Thing that truly denotes the measure of Infinite/Infinitesimal? In any case, I’d like to know why saying Existence = Infinite = Infinitesimal is poetic, or evangelistic, or not a dictate of pure reason. Where is the paradox? Where is the poetry? I will show the paradox I see when you reject Existence = Infinite = Infinitesimal. Consider the following which you said to me in an earlier post:
Either your word ‘Affectance’ and my word ‘Existence’ are highlighting the same semantic, or they are not. A is for Affectance and E is for Existence. Which of the following do you agree/disagree with:
- There are things in me, therefore, there is E/A in me.
- There is no end to the E/A in me. I do not hit a particle and then that’s as far as E/A goes. Thus ONLY E/A is Infinitesimal in measure.
- E/A is Infinite in measure. Nothing else is Infinite in measure because no matter how far/long something with a beginning point in E/A expands/continues, it will never reach the measure of Infinite. So it’s absurd to say that that room is infinitely long because the room has a beginning point. Only Existence is Infinitely any thing (long and small included). Where Infinitely enters the equation, you are referring exclusively to Existence.
I’m pretty sure we’ll disagree on 3, but consider reflecting on 2 and being open-minded about 3. Perhaps you will see what I see. If not, I think I am ok to discuss further to see if we can reach something more conclusive. Again, distinguish between that which expands or moves forward forever, and that which just has no end. x expands forever, but it always has an end that it is surpassing, so x is never Infinite. But that which x is expanding into (provided that we are highlighting Existence here), Is Infinite.
- We exist because Existence Exists, but We are not Existence. We are not E/A.
I think the above is absurd. I do not think you can have varying degrees of Existence. x either exists, or it doesn’t. How real x is, or how real x is in its existing, is a different matter. Also, when you say nothing has infinite density, the following question comes to my mind: Do you not think there exists a truly Infinite Thing?
If x is meaningful and therefore non-paradoxical, then it certainly exists. This includes Existence/God, you, me, unicorns, Santa, Zeus, and so on. How real something is, is another matter. To reject this, is to commit to something coming from nothing (I believe I can demonstrate this if you want). I also believe this particular issue is grossly overlooked by many.
Also, you say there is more than one Infinity or different sizes of Infinity. How?
123456…m is the same as 999…km and 888…cm and 98873285438534789…mm
Can you show me how you can have an ???..m/km/mm/cm such that ???.. is greater than the above? You cannot. So why does mainstream maths believe in different sizes of Infinity? Given that you describe yourself as a pure reasoner, why do you??
It is because you leave out often critical words such as - “the”, “a”, “those”, “portions of”, “a part of”, “a measure of”, “includes”, and many similar clarifying details that prevent vaguery.
I am certainly not a grammar expert and I am certain that I am often grammatically incorrect but when a grammar error leads to something blatantly illogical, I certainly try to catch and correct. Such as -
That is a blatant violation of logic. What that statement says to the purely logical is -
- Existence is the exact identical thing as “immeasurably large” and also
- The immeasurably large is exactly the same thing a “immeasurably small”
So an easy conclusion is that the set of natural numbers is Existence itself. It isn’t that Existence INCLUDES the natural number set but rather that the natural number set IS Existence - implying that anything that isn’t the natural number set is not Existence. But then the set of all odd numbers (also infinite) is also Existence itself. So the conclusion must be that the set of all natural numbers is the exact same as the set of all odd numbers. You don’t see the “paradox” in that?
That is what happens when you leave out those clarifying words that address important details.
It is absolutely false that existence is exactly the same as the set of all natural numbers (which is infinite). Yet that is what you said with “Existence ( = ) Infinite”.
What you could have said is -
- Existence includes all that is infinite and also
- Existence includes all that is infinitesimal
- Or
- Existence is all that is infinite, infinitesimal, and everything between
Can’t you see the difference?
There are probably many things that could be described that way - beauty, love, wisdom, intelligence, virtue, - maths,… And poetically, throughout poetry, they often are described that way so as to add a sense of magnificence - a touch of evangelizing.
You are right except for one small difference involving that question about how you discern what does or does not exist. It is easy to discern what does or does not have affect.
Note how you stated that in blue - “E is infinite in measure”. You didn’t say that “E = Infinite”. Those are distinctly different statements - the first being true - the second being false.
Now that I can interpret most of what you are trying to say, I can agree with your intent - but not the way you word it. Your wording defiles logic and reasoning - not your intent. Logic IS about words and the concepts they uniquely represent (A = A — NOT A = A+3 - regardless of whatever “A” represents).
I don’t have significant issue with any of that.
I think in Logic they call that “a non-sequitur” meaning that the premise didn’t actually lead to the conclusion even though the conclusion might be right. And also “Existence exists” is a bit meaningless - “tautological” - vacuous - “How do you know it is red? - Because it is red!” - “Why are you mad? - Because I am mad” - “Did you notice that black is black?” 
So it should be equally absurd that existence involves size - it either exists or it doesn’t - it is either real or it isn’t - size has nothing to do with it. What happened to all that talk about infinite and infinitesimal?
No one said anything about being real or not. No matter the density, if it exists at all, it is obviously real.
Density merely adds another measure. An existing thing can have spacial size and also have density. And it cannot be void of either.
If you mean “infinite size” there is certainly a thing with infinite size. But that same thing is NOT infinitely dense. In fact according to science that thing is very low density - mostly “empty” space (although we know that even “empty” space isn’t totally empty).
So unicorns exist? Everything you can imagine exists? If I imagine a man standing behind you with a knife about to stab you - he exists?
That could lead to some extremely serious court cases.
To me, the Infinite = the Infinite. The set of all natural numbers = the set of all natural numbers. The Infinite contains/encompasses the set of all natural numbers. It is not ‘all natural numbers’. I think it is the only thing/set that contains all natural numbers. Being all things and encompassing all things are two different truths. Actual Infinity is that measure which Cantor seemed to believe to be non-existent, hence his assertion that there is no such thing as the greatest cardinal number. What then is the number Infinity? We cannot count to the number Infinity, but it is still a number we are trying to count towards. We are not counting to red are we?
Also, Cantor’s assertion that there is no set of all cardinalities (if Wikipedia is correct). The Infinite is one thing/set/number that encompasses ALL numbers (including Itself). Much like how the meaning ‘meaningful’ is just one meaning. Yet, all meanings are members of it. In other words, all meanings are meaningful despite only one meaning actually meaning ‘meaningful’. All meanings are meaningful, despite only one meaning being a member of itself. Despite only one meaning meaning meaning.
There’s a reason why I did not say the above. I wanted it to be clear that there is only one Infinitesimal. What you say above may mean this, but it can also mean that there is more than one Infinitesimal. I am not clear on your position regarding this. It is paradoxical for there to be more than one Infinitesimal. Agree or disagree? If disagree, what separates one Infinitesimal from another?
Also, when I talk about that which is Infinitesimal in measure, can I be talking about anything other than Existence?
If you see a unicorn in your dreams, what does that mean to you? Surely at the very least it means that your dream exists. The unicorn in your dream exists. Existence does not just encompass one form or degree of reality. Thoughts and dreams do not pop in and out of Existence. Nor are they nothing/non-existent. They all exist in Existence. What thoughts or hypothetical possibilities you focus on, access, or experience, or how you experience them in Existence, is another matter. Because Existence Is Infinite, the hypothetical possibilities are Infinite.
All meaningful things you can imagine exist because all hypothetical possibilities truly exist (of which the number is Infinite). As in hypothetical possibilities truly are hypothetical possibilities. To say otherwise is to be contradictory because it amounts to saying x is a hypothetical possibility but it is not an existing hypothetical possibility. Whether or not a hypothetical possibility will attain reality in relation the reality that we label ‘our real reality’ or the reality that we label ‘dream’, is another matter. The potential backstabbing man you imagine is a hypothetical possibility. If it is not an absurdity/hypothetical impossibility, then it can attain reality in relation to me. It is the Nature of Existence that an Infinite number of hypothetical possibilities exist. It is the nature of God that God Is Omnipotent.
CR,
You’re not stupid, but then again, you are.
Falsify your shit.
I can imagine every being in existence being in the worst possible hell forever. Is that what’s occurring right now? No.
You’re making me tired trying to explain existence to you. I just want to tell you to shut the fuck up and listen. You’re like the drunk dude at the bar who gets 43rd because he’s such an asshole.
We access imaginary realms to live, that doesn’t mean it’s manifested. This is a good thing about existence.
Modal realism is a shitstorm.
I understand that you’re not intelligent, wise or a good person.
Existence as we currently experience is shit. You, are a sycophant …
By the way, if you being a sycophant works out well for you, it’s because of the extremely hard work of people like me, not because of you… you’re an infant in this cosmos.
I don’t even know what that means. I tried to guess earlier - but - who knows.
That depends on how you answer the question that I asked about how to discern what exists and what doesn’t. If anything I imagine exists, then what might be infinitesimal is up to my imagination.
I don’t think so. The unicorn in my dream is only an idea - no different than imagining the man standing behind you with a knife. The imagining process exists - the subject of the imagination doesn’t - else it wouldn’t be called “only imagined”.
I guess what you are talking about is that separation between existing as a divine object (concept, idea, or imagined) and existing as a physical object. James notes those as - “The Two Realms of Existence” - “Conceptual Existence” and “Physical Existence” and says that Plato had that same distinction - “Divine and Mortal” (I suppose that is true).
There clearly should be a distinction between a perfect circle and a physical circle because the physical universe cannot ever have a perfect circle - or any other geometric form. Ideas exist AS IDEAS (Biblically as “Angels”). Angels are not mortals (obviously you are not Catholic 
).
That is a claim that you are making - not a reasoning. “Hypothetical” doesn’t mean the same as “certainly existing”. The hypothetical refers merely to something guessed or supposed but perhaps not at all real - “Hypothetically I could balance a bowling ball on my head” - that doesn’t mean that I really can - only that it might be possible - a guess about what is real - and in reality perhaps completely impossible. So I cannot agree that every hypothetical exists or is real.
If it must attain reality then it certainly doesn’t already have it. And it can only attain reality if other circumstances allow for it. So until it is actual - it isn’t there.
Like the dream - the guess itself exists as a guess - a thought. But the conclusion of the guess doesn’t exist just because it was guessed. If I guess that I have already won $million is it really there? It MIGHT be - but it might NOT be. So we have -
- It exists
- It does not exist
- I don’t know if it exists
Where do you place the “I don’t know” category?
No. It isn’t.
1 is always one, and 0.999… is always 0.999…
Such an equation serves only mathematical requirements.
Alright, let’s focus on one point at a time. Let’s discuss the Infinitesimal, then the Infinite, and then after that, let’s discuss what it is to be real/exist and what it is to be as real as us (exist in the manner that we do), but in another thread. For now, just the Infinitesimal:
What the semantic of triangle is, is not up to your imagination. Similarly, what the Infinitesimal is, is not up to your imagination. What you imagine, is not up to your imagination. What you want/choose to imagine, is up to you.
Reflect on the Infinitesimal and tell me where you stand on the following:
It is paradoxical for there to be more than one Infinitesimal Thing. Agree or disagree or unknown or can’t make sense of the statement? If disagree, what separates one Infinitesimal from another? If unknown, then try to reflect on what it is for one infinitesimal to be here, and another infinitesimal to be 5cm away. What separates them?
If you can’t make sense of the statement, then focus purely on the semantic of ‘infinitesimal’. Does something infinitesimal exist? Is it absurd or possible for more than one of it to exist?