Universe and Time

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 existunless 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.

Yes, I am famiiar with the pardoxes of Zenon the Eleate (b.t.w.: there is another Zenon, who lived about one century later: Zenon the Stoic). The pardoxes of Zenon of Elea are a set of philosophical problems, for example: “Achilles and the Tortoise” and “Arrow paradox”.

Yes, and I alraedy understand that affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason when I read your fundamentals of your “RM:AO” for the first time - and b.t.w.: that was the reason why I didn’t mention the mathematical, but only the definional-logical aspect (your ontology is based on definional logic).

Zeno’s Paradox(es).

But why doesn’t it apply to the reduction of Affectance?
Why can’t Affectance ever get to zero?

The error of the paradox “Achilleus and the Tortoise” is the failure to recognize the fact that the only mathematically infinite divisibility of a line or a length of time does not mean anything against their concrete finiteness.

In the case of affectance this must be different by defintion. 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. So by definition absolute zero can’t exist. The concrete line and time length of the paradox “Achilleus and the Tortoise” is finite, although the mathematical divisibility is infinte. Therefore it is a paradox. But according to “RM:AO” the concrete line and time length of the universe is infinite. That’s the difference between the paradox “Achilleus and the Tortoise” and the definitional logic of “RM:AO”.

The “small trick” that I mentioned earlier is that absolute zero can only exist by one of the following means;
1) in the imagination, such as an average or the non-existence of a mentally defined object.
2) by dividing a quantity by anything infinitely larger (or multiplying by anything infinitely smaller)

To have infinite homogeneity or infinite similarity, there must be infinite similarity between every point in the universe. Using a Cartesian system, there are 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points in the entire universe. To have absolutely zero affectance in the universe (zero existence) would require that all of those points be infinitely similar.

If we assign an affectance value of X to a point in space, every other point must be exactly equal to X. Each point has the possibility of being anywhere from 0 to infinite in its value. So the possibility of another point being that same X is 1/infinity. “1/infinity” is one infinitesimal, “0+”, not zero. So the possibility of merely two points being exactly similar still isn’t zero. So at this point, we can’t say that there is no possibility of the universe being infinitely homogeneous.

If we consider another point, our possibility of all 3 of them being exactly similar is one 1/infinity times 1/infinity, or;
P = 0+^2, an infinitely smaller possibility of the 3 points being exactly similar… but still not exactly zero.

But then, the universe isn’t made of merely a few points. The Cartesian model allows for 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points. So the possibility becomes;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before… but still not exactly zero.

So far, we used the standard Cartesian model of a universe to define our infinitesimal. But the truth is that even within the space of one infinitesimal, there is yet another infinite number of points. So a dimensional line would actually have, not infinity^2 points as the standard would imply, but rather infinity^3 points and 3/4Piinfinity^9 points throughout. That changes our possibility considerably;

P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^9 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before… but still not exactly zero.

But why stop at merely allowing a line to have infinity^3 points?. Why not infinity^4 or infinity^78? The truth is that there is no limit to how many points we can assign to a line, so lets just call it “n”, yielding;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^n - 1), where “n” can be anything.

But as long as n is any number, the possibility will still not be absolutely zero. And the truth is that n can be all but “absolute infinity”. So, let’s limit n to “the largest possible number” and call it “Largest”.

Now we have the equation;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1), as the possibility of all points being exactly similar.

And since “0+” merely means “1/infinity”, we can rewrite the equation as;
P = 1/infinity^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1)

But how can we have infinity raised to the Largest possible number without it being larger than the Largest possible? It is an impossible number. So what we have deduced is that in order to get the possibility of all points in the universe having exactly similar affect value there must be a number that is larger than the Largest possible. And there isn’t one.

Thus, the possibility of all points in the universe being exactly similar is;
P = 1/(an impossibly large number) = Absolute Zero

And that is how you discover that the universe has absolutely zero possibility whatsoever of not existing at any time. The universe could never have begun to exist because it could never have not existed in the first place. It is a mathematical impossibility. Nor can the universe suffer “entropy death” and the thought of such is merely a mild form of terrorism.

Yes, and what the most people you asked overlooked was the mathematical aspect (=> 2) because they were too much engaged in your “RM:AO”, in metaphysics, in ontology, in definitional logic …, and therefore they overlooked and afterwards didn’t mention the mathematical aspect.

That’s well known, James - it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil.

That was my answer (with other words).

But please don’t forget: mathematical impossibility and physical impossibility are not always the same, are not always consistent. What is mathematically possible does not always have to be also possible in reality, and what is possible in reality does not always have to be also mathematical possible.


Now I have to go to in a few miles distant place to see the final football match of the FIFA World Cup: Germany - Argentina. My tip: 3 - 0.

In in the next hours you can’t reach me by posting.

I will be back later, perhaps tomorrow.

As long as the definitions are applicable, they will be the same thing. Mathematics is just logic applied to quantities, but you have to make certain the quantities being referred to (the “definitions”) make rational sense.

Really?
By whom? Have a link?

Really what? Well known? Or that it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil?

And besides all mathematics: Do you have an answer to the question why the universe must be an eternal one? (Remember: besides mathematics; so please don’t say that it has to be because of mathematics!).

Can you provide a link where my explanation is obviously “well known” by anyone, young or old?

Mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities. To dismiss mathematics is to dismiss logic. Without logic, all you have to go on is sensed impressions, rumors, and faith that someone else magically knew void of reasoning. But then how do you know who to listen to other than those same gut feelings?

The question is one of Logic. Logic is the only way to actually answer the question and that includes Mathematics.

What you explained has to do with your “RM:AO”. It is derived mathematically, but not merely a mathematical theme. I meant the mathematics behind your “RM:AO”, not the “RM:AO” itself, when I said “well known”.

Mathematics and logic are not always congruent, else they could be synonyms, but they are not synonyms.

Math is constructed almost entirely of logic applied strictly to quantities only. Logic is a broader category. There are a few rare cases where math forgoes logic. As far as I know those are only concerning issues involving infinity and zero. So in my explanation, I fill in that disconnection as per Edwin Hewitt and Hyperreals. Standard mathematics doesn’t deal with powers of infinity, nor powers of infinitesimals. But to see the logic of why anything exists at all, one must look into those relationships. So I explain them as part of the whole explanation concerning why there can never be a state of nothingness.

In short, whatever math was lacking, I filled in with logic. And the math is pretty trivial.

But without the logic/math concerning powers of infinity, “Hyperreals”, any explanation is going to be incomplete.