Necessary Thing

[Ignorant]

I don't know why you keep insisting it has to be a finite thing. Why does it?

If a single atom is finite, then it can't simultaneously be an infinity... your example below shows exactly what I mean. I am not talking about all of reality. I am referring to a single existing thing within reality. As such, it is finite. 

Finite amounts can be represented by an infinite number of discrete parts anyhow, even if you insist on the sum of all realities being finite (which I don't know how you could possibly know).

For example 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...

I had considered this before the thread, but I think that this mathematical representation is misleading because "equals" is understood to mean "approaches" one. With a geometric series like the one your propose, as n approaches infinity for (1/2^n), the sum approaches the value of 1 asymptotically, but NEVER actually sums up to one. It is the limit of the series, not its actual sum. If you replace the ellipsis in your equation with an infinity of increasingly halved values, it will never equal 1, but only nudge ever more slowly towards it, and no other value.

1/2 + 1/2 actually sums up to 1. The sum of (1/2)^n + (1/2)^(n+1), beginning with n=1 and increasing n infinitely never adds up to one, but it does get very close. Whether you subtract a single fraction given between n=1 and infinity of add one, it is impossible to ever reach 1. The sum only approaches closer to one, but is ultimately less than. <= That is the problem I see with an infinity of increasingly fundamental synchronous conditions. If 1 = existence, and 1 is never reached, but only approached, then the series never "reaches" existence.

[EDIT] MORE IMPORTANTLY: In the above series, consider the two fractions 1/2 and 1/4. (1/2)'s existence does not depend on the following (1/4). If you have a half of a pie as well as an additional 1/4 of a pie, you have 3/4 of a pie. Remove the (1/4), and you still have the (1/2). This analogy does not map onto my description of conditional existence.

This is the thing. If you want to learn things about what is actually real, you need to use the scientific method. 

That's fine. I also want to learn things about expressing what I've learned from the scientific method, and the implications of those things.

Maybe there's a big-daddy-something-or-other who is the master of contingency, maybe there isn't. Makes no difference to me. Maybe our whole idea of contingency is complete bullshit, and if we could see the big picture without being trapped inside one reality, it would make more sense.

Who says it has to be a "big-daddy-something-or-other who is the master of contingency"? Why can't it just be a non-contingent impersonal unintelligent thing?

Maybe our idea of contingency is bullshit, sure. Until I am presented with good reasons that such is the case, I won't seriously consider it. I have good reasons to think otherwise as the past 18 pages document. I'm just trying to follow what I find to be true.