Does zero exist?

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by Blutteufel

I had a very long arguement the other day with one of my friends about dividing by zero. I would have let it pass if he wasn't sober, and therefore had an excuse, but it turns out he's just an idiot, and a stubbornly arrogant one at that. He claims that zero divided by any other number is simply zero. It just doesn't work like that, though. You can't divide what's not fucking there.

Wait, are you talking about dividing by zero or dividing zero? Your post isn't consistent.

In math, as I hope you know, it's generally accepted that 0/x = 0 but x/0 is "undefined"

[sm666]

I think one first has to define what kind of zero we are talking about. you have the integer value zero, and the real value. The former I can show exists simply by counting, that being if you have an apple and take it away you have zero apples, as they are whole objects.

The real value zero relates more closely to physical values - the measure of time, the measure of energy, distance, etc. In this case I really can't imagine actually having zero, as in each case you can continue to sub divide the intervals for a long as you wish, getting ever smaller and smaller values, but never zero. The funny thing about this though, is the idea of quantum mechanics of quantization, which turns these values again into a counting format - much like binary, you have a zero or a one, something or nothing because there is a limit to how small you can make something (i.e on the Planck scale). Seeing as we really have no concrete idea as to why things are quantized at the scale they are, I'm not sure there is really much to be said of "real zero" either.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Wait, are you talking about dividing by zero or dividing zero? Your post isn't consistent.

In math, as I hope you know, it's generally accepted that 0/x = 0 but x/0 is "undefined"

Which is incorrect in realistic terms, right? Nothing divided by something is what? You can't divide an absence of something!

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Which is incorrect in realistic terms, right? Nothing divided by something is what? You can't divide an absence of something!

Or think of it this way. You have nothing. Split it up into 20 groups. You still have nothing. Therefore your "answer" is still 0. But you can't take something and put it in 0 groups. By definition of already having something quantified it's already in at least 1 group, right?

[Zylark]

Zero is just a concept, representing nothing. The absence of anything.

Concepts may or may not correspond with reality.

As it happens though we know a couple of things regarding reality. First, that where the universe isn't nothing is. Like in really nothing, zero. Not even time. Secondly, the universe is a zero-sum game. Whatever positive charge may exist in the universe, an equal negative exist. It is the basis of all physics. No double book-keeping in nature, it all equals exactly zero.

That if you ask me, is something to think about. Not discussing sematics over if a concept of nothing really can be said to represent nothing

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Zero is just a concept, representing nothing. The absence of anything.

And yet we count it. And yet we can add 0 to other numbers. And yet we rely on it for scientific equations and theories... but you can't divide ANYTHING BY ZERO, a "number".

Concepts may or may not correspond with reality.

Excuse me, but concepts shape our perception of reality as human beings. No two people see the same thing the same way.

As it happens though we know a couple of things regarding reality. First, that where the universe isn't nothing is. Like in really nothing, zero. Not even time.

So you know for sure there is nothing outside the Universe? NOTHING? I didn't know I did, but hey, you are a scientist after all.

Secondly, the universe is a zero-sum game. Whatever positive charge may exist in the universe, an equal negative exist. It is the basis of all physics. No double book-keeping in nature, it all equals exactly zero.

Did you understand my point that math is flawed, and thus, since physics is BASED ON MATHEMATIC principles, it is inherently LIMITED. Math can't really tell you what the functional value is at x when it requires dividing by zero, it merely approaches it. Too bad that zero does not exist, and thus screws up physics "equations" which are supposed to model reality. This "zero-sum game" you talk about does not exist, as you are implying a static field within which to play. All is one, and one is infinity / infinity. The ideal relationship between "zero" and 1 is most closely related to the ratio of 1 to infinity. 1/2 of 1, according to conventional math, is 1/2 greater than zero. haha What is zero? How does something compare with nothing, other than as an opposite? No number can relate to zero, Zylark, and surely you must understand why. It is the ABSENCE OF VALUE, like you said, whereas as any other number is a value. So what are the implications of this, as I stressed above? If all numbers are values, but we've been separating the negative from the positive numbers by the mysterious "fake" placeholder 0, why not just compare all values to one?

That if you ask me, is something to think about. Not discussing sematics over if a concept of nothing really can be said to represent nothing

That's something to think about from a truly objective viewpoint. Try not to use math to validate it, because what you already said was that zero is just a concept, and does not tie in with reality. This is true.

And Zylark, what are you doing in this thread I began then if it's not worth talking about?

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

And Zylark, what are you doing in this thread I began then if it's not worth talking about?

Not what I said. What I said was that discussing semantics is useless. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

So you know for sure there is nothing outside the Universe?

Yes.

Ofcourse it depends upon what one mean by universe. Most commonly defined as everything that physically exists. That may quite granted lead us down roads to M-Theory (hypothesis) or other multiverse speculations. But nonetheless, if it is not physically there, how can we learn about it? And on the opposite side of that coin, what is nothing, but the lack of existence? By definition really.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Excuse me, but concepts shape our perception of reality as human beings. No two people see the same thing the same way.

Ah yes. the "subjective reality" canard. Granted, we could all live in a simulation that revolves around you or me personally, and we'd be none the wizer. Won't get us very far though will it? Raise your hands up in despair and shout, "I don't believe it, cannot be true!!!!" and you might find peace in yourself. That do not have to correspond with actual reality however. That is why we got little things as science. To reach an objective understanding of reality as opposed to subjective personal guessing based upon bias. And believe it or not, science got proof regarding reality that will not change no matter how much or little one believe in them.

Reality is that which do not disappear once you stop believing in it.

And as a last point. Math isn't flawed as such. Math is a language. Go look for paradoxes, and you will find it. Don't need much knowledge of math to do that. But know math intimatly, you will see its beauty, it's coherence.

Personally, I'm not that much into math as such. And I'd certainly never use it to abuse it. As you do with your 0:1 and 1:2 argument. Discussing the semantics of math, shees.

If you use math as a concept, yes you are right. One is infinite more than zero. And vice versa. Zero is infinite less than one. Yay. Concepts confuse, I know

If you use math as a practical tool, you'd know that 2 kilos of weed is the same increment from 1 kilo of weed, that 1 kilo of weed is from 0 kilo of weed. Pragmatics simplify, I know.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Not what I said. What I said was that discussing semantics is useless. Do you disagree?

My perception was that you were implying my thread was merely arguing semantics. If that be the case, I disagree. If not, perhaps I'd agree.

Yes.

Ofcourse it depends upon what one mean by universe. Most commonly defined as everything that physically exists. That may quite granted lead us down roads to M-Theory (hypothesis) or other multiverse speculations. But nonetheless, if it is not physically there, how can we learn about it? And on the opposite side of that coin, what is nothing, but the lack of existence? By definition really.

lol That's ridiculous... It's not the lack of existence... There is no possible attribute to be lacked in nothing. Attributes don't even apply here. Nothing isn't even a "state". It's not a non-state either. The concept of nothing in and of itself cannot truly represent what it attempts to. No need to play dumb here. Try explaining how the brain makes consciousness for me with your science. If you can't explain why you are conscious of the math system as fundamental to actually understanding REALITY and EXISTENCE... you can't even begin to claim you know this for sure, much less that any Christian doesn't know what he's talking about. I wish you'd admit for once that you have indeed been had by limits, and remain so, at least for the moment.

Please don't ask others to back off on their "outrageous", "bigoted", or "nonsensical" statements... The point of this thread is actually to be groundbreaking. Math is clearly no more objective in terms of understanding the true essence of Existence than any religion. This cannot be denied. We may approximate it within the dimensional box of our subjective limitations if we choose, or we may release our biases as attempt to intuitively grasp this essence. If one has experienced any sort of personal Enlightenment, one will have some essential idea of how BEING "is". However, this personalized mental picture will clearly be limited by the experiential limits one has placed upon oneself.

Ah yes. the "subjective reality" canard.

Yeah, teach me about the objective reality you know so much about then.

Granted, we could all live in a simulation that revolves around you or me personally, and we'd be none the wizer. Won't get us very far though will it? Raise your hands up in despair and shout, "I don't believe it, cannot be true!!!!" and you might find peace in yourself.

Now that you have digested and hopefully taken to your heart of hearts the essence of my reflection, hopefully you will recognize that the raising of the hands and shouting in despair is actually sort of like what you seem to do when referring to, for lack of better words to communicate with you, "Abrahamic death cults" and their ignorant, brain-washed, and lost practitioners... not to mention their sacraments. Not that you're really in despair for yourself, but perhaps a little for the future of humanity in your mind?

That do not have to correspond with actual reality however.

You sure you still feel that way?

That is why we got little things as science. To reach an objective understanding of reality as opposed to subjective personal guessing based upon bias. And believe it or not, science got proof regarding reality that will not change no matter how much or little one believe in them.

Yeah, and religion's got faith that it has proof of knowledge of reality as well. Now, to make the religious and scientists accept each other's proof... ah, what harmony.

[Zylark's] (my edit) Reality is that which do not disappear once you stop believing in it.

And as a last point. Math isn't flawed as such. Math is a language. Go look for paradoxes, and you will find it. Don't need much knowledge of math to do that. But know math intimatly, you will see its beauty, it's coherence.

Just like I see Taoism's coherence. Coherence doesn't imply Universally True. Yes, math is beautiful. And so is Buddhism.

Personally, I'm not that much into math as such. And I'd certainly never use it to abuse it. As you do with your 0:1 and 1:2 argument. Discussing the semantics of math, shees.

Semantics or something difficult to argue against? Oh, both? What? You meant to imply the same thing either way? Yeah, if we could just communicate telepathically now you wouldn't have to try to tell me how I should be wording something, because words would not be necessary to Enlighten you.

If you use math as a concept, yes you are right. One is infinite more than zero. And vice versa. Zero is infinite less than one. Yay. Concepts confuse, I know

And if you use this concept as the basis for your society, you get economy, science, and measured time and space intervals. If not, you don't.

If you use math as a practical tool, you'd know that 2 kilos of weed is the same increment from 1 kilo of weed, that 1 kilo of weed is from 0 kilo of weed. Pragmatics simplify, I know.

Simplify, or refract and distort unnecessarily (I apologize for that subjective term)?

[Digit]

read the article and half the thread.

Since the infinitesimal cannot exist without relative measurements, the infinitesimal is an artifact of the illusion of separation, and is dependent upon the concept of limitation, which is also illusory.

yep.



so nice to have someone go to the bother of translating it into english, neat n concisely.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Digit

read the article and half the thread.

yep.



so nice to have someone go to the bother of translating it into english, neat n concisely.

That was the perfect sentence to quote. Way to get to the point.

[MoreBudzForMe]

Nothing more to be said really. At least not in my mind. Small as it may be.

Ah but quality now thats an interesting topic, who/what is it that quantifies quality and were does quality exist? Is a red apple red, the way we percieve red, in the objective world?(the question we ask as children, do you see the same red?) Well one could argue the objective world is less concrete then previously thought. More of a fuzz than a concrete statue that we have nothing to do with. What makes up the fuzz, energy? Well what is energy?Movement? Movement in what, it seems to me there isn't anywhere to move to if this all ='s zero. Its all illusion in my mind. But why actually go through with all the bullshit (Cancer SUCKS), whats the point? As terence mckenna said "Oh, I don't know, a good party."

If this don't make sense I totally understand, I'm not as learned as Id like to be, but I try.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by MoreBudzForMe

Nothing more to be said really. At least not in my mind. Small as it may be.

Ah but quality now thats an interesting topic, who/what is it that quantifies quality and were does quality exist? Is a red apple red, the way we percieve red, in the objective world?(the question we ask as children, do you see the same red?) Well one could argue the objective world is less concrete then previously thought. More of a fuzz than a concrete statue that we have nothing to do with. What makes up the fuzz, energy? Well what is energy?Movement? Movement in what, it seems to me there isn't anywhere to move to if this all ='s zero. Its all illusion in my mind. But why actually go through with all the bullshit (Cancer SUCKS), whats the point? As terence mckenna said "Oh, I don't know, a good party."

If this don't make sense I totally understand, I'm not as learned as Id like to be, but I try.

Um.... I actually have a question for you: how could something be "red" if no one could see it? Objectivity doesn't apply to adjectives. That's why you have to watch when pro-Rationalists and pro-Religionists stress subjective qualities (a.k.a. use adjectives). Certainly they aren't talking about any sort of Objective Truth, but rather a subjective approximation of it, perhaps (albeit with the assumption that Objective Truth does indeed exists*).

* And what I mean by that is, what is Objective? Isn't Objectivity perceived? If so... it's subjective again.

EDIT: I'll response more in depth to your post shortly as well. By the way, what is that thing in your signature, "Family is everything!" about? I'm curious to know what you mean.

[Blutteufel]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Wait, are you talking about dividing by zero or dividing zero? Your post isn't consistent.

In math, as I hope you know, it's generally accepted that 0/x = 0 but x/0 is "undefined"

It's plenty consistent, and yes, I'm talking aboutviding by zero.

[Digit]

zero is pretty easy to get to [by subtaction]. you can even explain it to a pre-pythagorean "caveman".

hand the cave man an arbritrary number of stones/twigs/oranges. keep the number low to keep it simple. ask the caveman how many he has. then (assuming he's correct) take the same number of stones/twigs/oranges from him and ask him again.


viola.

(disclaimer. a clever caveman when asked the second time how many stones/twigs/oranges he has may respond "but i dont have any")