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?
Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
… same issue.
“According to…”, but you aren’t certain? Seems like it.
Then how do they know that absolute zero is one divided by absolute infinity?
Logic dictates that they are the same thing. They don’t “derive it”, it is a matter of definitions.
Absolute greatness and absolute smallness are inverse concepts. Mathematically represented by a “division”.
And btw, I have been waiting (for quite some time - years) for someone to bring up the one small “trick” to this issue. There is more to be considered. I have been disappointed that no one has discovered it. But such is the way of the today’s world.
Do you really don’t know the answer?
Yes, that’s right. I am not certain. And that has very much to do with “absolute zero is … one divided by absolute infinity”! (See below).
When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, "RM:AO".
[size=120]I have discovered it.[/size] But I “accepted” it because I was not certain about my answer to your question due to your statement “absolute zero is … one divided by absolute infinity”. (See above).
When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, "RM:AO".
That’s not a problem of geometry, but of number theory and of the most mathematical branches, and therefore of mathematics at all anyway.
When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, "RM:AO".
I think that the “small ‘trick’” you mentioned has been overlooked for so long because of the attention only on the definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, “RM:AO”.
I assume that you are familiar with Zeno’s paradoxes. Zeno was saying the same thing that I am.
Distance is a qualia that is infinitely divisible. If you look at the distance between yourself and the doorway and realize that you would have to get half way to the door before you could get to 3/4 distance before you got to 5/8th before you got to 11/16th before … …, you could never get to the doorway.
Thus there can never be absolute zero distance between you and the door, because absolute zero doesn’t exist … unless you resolve Zeno’s paradox.
Affectance is also infinitely divisible. Thus Affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason, but in the case of Affectance, the solution to Zeno’s paradox does not apply.