I didn’t ask for a “maybe”. I asked for what you believed, not what you suspect might be.
Do you know of anything else that you BELIEVE exists and also BELIEVE has absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever?
I find it funny how it has never been facts that have had the greatest effect on mankind, but the evolution of a system of beliefs. Beliefs have always been stronger than fact. Nobody won a battle by having the facts presented to them; they won because they believed fully that they could and they didn’t get in their own way.
Besides the special cases: no.
That, with the other things mentioned, is why it is rational to accept the definition of existence being “that which has affect”.
The next question is about the possibility of absolute homogeneity of affect. For absolute homogeneity of affect to be the state of the universe, the affectance would have to be infinitely identical in all locations. What is preventing that?
The “infinite homogeneity” and something which is “infinitely identical” are not the same.
Well one cannot have infinite homogeneity without having infinite similarity, so what distinction are you trying to make?
The distinction between “homogeneity” and “identity”.
I didn’t say, “Identity”. I said “identical”.
That’s right. You said “identical”, and I said “identity”. You used the adjective, and I used the noun (substantive).
So back to the question:
Germany. The German team.
[size=200]7 : 1 [/size][size=150]in Brazil.[/size]
[size=150]Germany 7 : Brazil 1.[/size]
3 goals in 3 minutes, 4 goals in 6 minutes, 5 goals in 18 minutes … Great!
Have you seen it?
Another answer could be:
The affectance is not “infinitely identical” in all locations of the universe because if something is “homogeneous” it does not mean that it is “identical”.
If you have the phenomenons “A” and “B”, then “A” can be “homogeneous” or “similar” to “B”, but not identical to “B” (because “A” can merely be identical to “A”). In German the words “(der/die/das)selbe” and “(der/die/das) gleiche” stand for the English word “(the) same”, but the former means “identical”, “same in an identical way”, and the latter means “homgeneous”, “equal”, “similar”, “same in a homogeneous way”.
I believe that you are misinterpreting the English.
When I say, “the two things are identical”, I mean that there are two separate things that have all of the same properties and to the same degree. I do not mean that the two things are one and the same thing (“same identity”).
Homogeneity involves many locations of similar substance. At each location there is a “different identity” of substance, but the properties of the substance are “identical”, meaning that you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart except for their location. And “infinitely identical”, means that there truly is absolutely no distinction to be found between the two locations within the substance, but the locations are still a different “identity”.
I know the meaning of the English „identical“, but in this case I interpreted it as „self“ („selbst“ in German because the German word „identisch“ and the English word „identical“ have exactly the same meaning and can be interpreted as „self“ and as „same“), although I know that it also can be interpreted as „same“ (for example: of two or more things). But you shouldn’t change the word „identical“ because in the English language it is not possible to have one of those two meanings in merely one word. It is possible in the German language but not in the English language. In English one has always to decide whether „x“ or „y“ is meant (because both can be meant), in German one can use the word „selbig“ or „selbst“ (cp. the English „self“, although it can’t be used in this way) for the meaning of „x“, and the word „gleich“ (cp. the English „same“, although it is used in both ways) for the meaning of „y“. Whereat „x“ means „same of one thing“ and „y“ means „same of two things or of one thing, if this one thing has changed very much" (cp. the ship of Theseus).
Well, that being the case, I think that in German, I mean “gleich” referring to each thing having the very same properties and to the same degree as each other = “homogeneous”.
So if that is correct, my question is still,
“Why can’t each point in space have the exact same properties to the exact same degree as all others?”
Because the potential-to-affect is not identical anywhere.
But what is preventing it from being that way? 
You mean what is preventing the potential-to-affect from being identical anywhere?
That’s what I mean. And don’t say that it is because “the word ‘identical’ means… whatever…” I am not talking about the words, but the issue of infinite similarity.
According to your “RM:AO” existence is that which has affect, and an affect can only derive from the potential-to-affect (to alter or to change), PtA, of another separate or distinguished affect. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.
Due to the above, in all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.
Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity?