Did you read my explanation?

Will would necessarily be the cause of all phenomena. Will is the Uncreated.

@Zteph Whose will is uncreated?

@dmatic Will doesn't become a 'who' until it identifies with a name-and-form [body]. Will has one mission: to seek the pleasant over the unpleasant. The will is blind and relies on the body to be its guide and is often misguided.

@Zteph Interesting. How do you know this?

@dmatic by attaining enlightenment:
[deathmetalbuddha.ca]

@Zteph You have attained it? Nice. May I ask you a question?

@dmatic Sure.

@Zteph Where is 'the will' located? It is most certainly(?) not sovereign, therefore, how can it be 'free'?

@dmatic When you understand that zero and infinity are equal, you'll realize that will is both nowhere and everywhere. Of course will is sovereign. It can both create and destroy.

@Zteph Well, I have a ways to go before I understand that zero and infinity are equal. Equal to each other?

@dmatic Think about it. All phenomena is finite [definitions which limit]. The limitless cannot be actualized, nor can zero of anything be actualized.

@Zteph So, there is no phenomena that is limitless? Is zero, nothingness?

@dmatic
Zero distance;
Space;
Is no measureable space
Between locations.
Zero is as infinite;
It cannot be multiplied
Nor divided.
Zero isn't a number
If we can't have a number
Of zero things to perceive.
Zero mass
Is an object
With no value
for mass or charge.
Infinite mass
Is mass with definitions
For mass and charge removed.
Zero mass
Is the same
As infinite mass;
When we take limit
Off of mass
There's nothing to weigh
Or measure
Which is the same
As a mass object that wasn't there.
Zero time and infinite time
Is the same thing.
Now is zero seconds long
And never ends.
Zero velocity
Is non-motion.
Infinite velocity
Is instantaneous travel
From departure to arrival
And is identical to non-motion.

@Zteph Thanks. I will need to ponder, before I respond...

@Zteph Your last post threw me for a loop and Sadly, I had no "free" time to ponder, due to much work to get done before winter hibernation, so, I shared it with a young friend of mine (I'm 69, as measured in years in this body). I believe him to be a genius and have known him for most of his life as he is the son of a friend of mine. Anyway, you're both smarter than I. I just want to understand Truth. So, I will print his first response to my query for help:
"While it is rather interesting, it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between zero and infinity. They are not the same, they are in fact opposites. It also doesn't account for the fact that photons are massless, yet have an absolute finite quantity of energy. A train of thought such as this attempts to be intellectual and philosophical, but it is misleading and ultimately destructive. The sentiment "zero isn't a number" is also false: not only is it a number, it is the center of all numbers. That last part about non-motion as compared to instantaneous travel has no backing whatsoever. The two are definitely not the same.

Pretty much every statement in this is fundamentally flawed. If you want me to go over each one individually, I can do that for you.

Might I ask the context of this? It appears to have come from the Intellectual Dark Web."

By the way, I would love to observe the conversation you and he would have. Thanks.

@dmatic he made statements but without supporting them. If zero is a number, do you have a number of something when you have zero of something?

@Zteph To be fair, he sent the following shortly after the first: I include it because I hope that you, he, and I are simply looking for Truth, correct? Your questions and insights are worthy of investigation. Thanks. Here is his second email:

"How long between responses do you usually give? If it allows you to give much time for thought, we could craft a response this Tuesday if you're up for it. It would also give me more context as to his stance on things.

Otherwise, something like this must be answered very carefully. I find that the only way to change someone's mind on something is to first start with a common belief in something, and then expand upon the logical conclusions that said beliefs lead you to. Something like this is very fundamental, so finding common ground may be difficult.

I would say the most fundamental belief possible is the nature of the self. To this belief, there are two possible outlooks:

1. The mind is merely a projection of matter in motion, and is not special as compared to nature.
2. The mind has a spiritual aspect, and cannot be broken down into mere matter.

If two people disagree on this basic postulate, them finding common ground is highly unlikely in terms of fundamental matters.

To answer something like this, turn to mathematics and how zero is a number in every way imaginable. What separates the finite from the infinite is definition. From the word define is where we get finite and infinite in the first place. All quantities within the realm of the finite are well defined. To be infinite is to be undefined in that regard. Though, infinity has other connotations to it pertaining to a quantity without bound, however, this is not necessarily the true definition of infinity as there are some quantities that are both finite and infinite simultaneously. Take irrational numbers such as pi for instance, while it is a finite value between three and four, it has infinite digits and cannot be expressed in its entirety in any integer base. Finite in quantity, infinite in depth.

Now we look at zero. Being the center of all numbers, it certainly has a definition as that is its definition as the center. If any mathematical expression has defined parameters, these parameters will always be numbers or represented by numbers. Something minus itself will always be zero so long as that something is defined. These sorts of conclusions are also backed up by physical phenomena such as the cancellation of motion, or sustained lift in an aircraft.

From this, we know that zero is definitely a number and you can definitely perform mathematical operations on it. Some operations, however, leave us scratching our heads because, when the function is graphed, the output approaches infinity. The inverse function is the most basic example of this. His mistake was claiming that zero isn't a number when in reality we need to start treating infinity more like one. While it can never truly join the club of finite numbers, it has more in common with them than it does differences.

I could go on and on about how this kind of thinking is simply nonsensical, but I don't have all day to do so. Haha

See you Tuesday!"

@dmatic "To be infinite is to be undefined in that regard."

1. Your friend said zero is the opposite of infinity
2. Your friend said [above] that to be infinite is to be undefined
3. Zero is undefined
4. To say, which is what your friend said, that zero is the opposite of infinity is to say that the undefined is the opposite of the undefined [there are no definitions which cause limit].
   FATAL LOGIC ERROR >> U=/= U

@Zteph Thank you. I will relay your astute observation.

@Zteph He writes: "He must have missed "undefined in that regard" and "His mistake was claiming that zero isn't a number when in reality we need to start treating infinity more like one."

His last remark, "FATAL LOGIC ERROR," also demonstrates a level of immaturity on his part. He did not get the gist of my arguments for I reckon that he was not willing to listen and learn."

@dmatic Definitions are limits. Is he saying in some regard you can put a limit on the limitless [infinite]?

@Zteph I'll ask him.

@Zteph His response:
"Infinity cannot be banned from mathematics as it has numerous applications deep within the patterns of mathematics. Take e^x for instance. What makes this function special is that it is its own derivative. This means that it is also its own integral, or antiderivative. However, unlike functions such as x^2, the lower bound of the e^x integral does not start at zero, rather, it starts at negative infinity. Having negative infinity as the lower bound, and zero as the upper bound returns one as the area under the graph. We have something that is both infinite and finite simultaneously. As I said prior, irrational numbers share this quality in that they have infinite digits in any integer base while at the same time having a clear finite value.

Case in point, infinity is weird. It itself is limitless, yet you can find it within the limited. Fractals are another interesting example of this. Infinity is everywhere within mathematics. Numbers go out into the infinitely vast as they go into the infinitely deep.

Although, I can't say that definitions and limits are identical. While infinity is limitless, it does have a definition. Its definition is that it is limitless. It is not the same kind of definition that we give to common numbers such as 2, pi, or i, but it is a definition that allows it to operate with other numbers in unison.

It is from 1/x that I get my notion of zero and infinity being opposites. While zero has no true reciprocal, infinity is the closest you can get to fulfilling that role. As x approaches zero, 1/x approaches infinity."

"It is from 1/x that I get my notion of zero and infinity being opposites. While zero has no true reciprocal, infinity is the closest you can get to fulfilling that role. As x approaches zero, 1/x approaches infinity."
You can't approach infinity nor zero. What isn't infinite is finite, its opposite.
What isn't zero [nothing] is something, its opposite.
If you give a circle an infinite radius, it becomes a straight line. A straight line has zero radius.

@Zteph Interesting. Thanks

@Zteph His answer:

"You can't approach infinity nor zero."

This simply isn't true mathematically. There are heaps of functions that do this very thing. Denying them would be out of ignorance or insanity.

"What isn't infinite is finite, its opposite.
What isn't zero [nothing] is something, its opposite."

While zero is indeed nothing, it is also finite. Infinity is infinite while also being something. Finite and something are not equivalent.

Something would be anything with essence to it, and is a concept found in philosophy. This category includes all except zero.

Finite is anything with limits or bounds. This category includes all except infinity.

Because finite and something are very distinct, this dynamic does not show that zero and infinity are equivalent as you say. Metaphorically, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

"If you give a circle an infinite radius, it becomes a straight line"

This is true.

"A straight line has zero radius."

This is a contradiction of your previous statement. If a straight line is treated like a circle, it must, therefore, have an infinite radius. Zero radius would be a point, which is a far cry from being a line.

Case in point, your arguments about these numbers are based in a form of twisted philosophy rather than the actual patterns found within deep mathematics. I would advise getting your math straight before commenting on them.
Though I wonder, what are you attempting to prove with this line of logic? What conclusion are you trying to get others to reach?

@dmatic Your friend is too rude for me to desire conversing with him, but I'll say to you:
"If someone were to ask you to represent the radius of a straight line with your finger and thumb, would it be different than if you were asked to represent a zero radius with your finger and thumb?"
Take care!

@Zteph Thank you, and you as well.