Dimensions

"What" thing is irrelevant. We don't even know if there was ever "any" thing there.

*shrug* You're really stretching.

*shrug* Who cares about an "accurate philosophical description"?

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up:

All... I... am... saying... is... that... zero... is... not... nothing.

Zero is a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity. Nothing is not a number. Nothing is not symbolic. And nothing is not a quantity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So then what IS zero?
So far you can only tell what it is NOT. Do tell me what it is if zero is not the mathematical symbol for "no thing".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong. What he said is: "Zero is a number".

Clearly it is is not "the mathematical symbol for no thing". A couple of simple examples should make this clear:

- A temperature of zero degrees Celsius.

- A velocity of zero with respect to the Moon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Zero is a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity.

I don't know of any mathematical symbol for "no thing". "No thing" is not a precise description.

 

A scientific human "sleight of hand" to mark the point at which water freezes. Compared to "absolute zero", zero is warm. In nature "freezing point" is variable depending on the physics and the term zero is a meaningless expression in nature.

And that translates into the absence of relative velocity. Actual velocity is greater than zero. All anthropomorphizations.
Nothing to do with the definition of zero as the "absence" of any value.

No, it is a symbolic representation of absence of quantity or value.

I gave it to you. It is the symbol for "null".

 

How is the freezing point of water the absence of something?

 

It isn't and that's why the assignment of the term zero is purely for human convenience.
It is an arbitrary differential equation between the emergent properties of H2O depending on temperature.
Absolute zero is minus 273 degrees Celsius and minus 460 degrees Fahrenheit.
Zero Celsius is 273 degrees Kelvin and 460 degrees Fahrenheit and you claim that it has properties. Why does everything have to be anthropomorphized?

Is it impossible to talk objectively about the way natural processes rest on extant "relational properties" and generic "mathematical functions".

Difference Between Zero and Nothing
Zero vs Nothing

I am talking about "nothing" as a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition. Zero is a human invented symbolic variable.

Read more.... http://www.differencebetween.net/la...rence-between-zero-and-nothing/#ixzz7gj1piXdi

The OP talks about dimensions, not symbolic numbers like zero with variable meanings.

 

You have no idea what a differential equation is.

 

Nothing that prohibits something from occurring.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I just read that the term "permittive" applies specifically to Electric transmission, which is another scientific convenience. Permittive should be a generic term, but alas.

So to make it easier let's use the term "mathematically permissive".

Without time or dimension, spacetime geometry and its mathematical permissions and restrictions does not exist and will allow the emergence of anything. It is a permissive condition.
It is what allows the expansion of the universe itself.

Look at some computer programming books.

Infinity cannot have a beginning. Infinity is a timeless dimensionless condition.

I agree, but a condition is not a thing. A condition is an abstract quality and has no physical existence just as nothing is an abstract permissive condition.

 

Yeah it is. Zero is a useful element of a matrix. 0-1 matrices are useful.
Hell, so is the general linear group.

 

*shrug* ALL words are for human convenience.

Where did I claim that?

So what? Your own quotes agree with me and disagree with you:

The differences between zero and nothing are critical. Many civilizations could not solve tricky calculations due to their ignorance towards the magical figure of zero.
“Zero” is considered to be a number while “nothing” is considered to be an empty or null set.​

That's what I've been saying all along.

 

Only for humans. Nature's generic mathematics don't quite work that way.
Nature does not do theory. It does "function" only.

 

In human theory. Not in reality.

 

I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

You said, "Zero Celsius is 273 degrees Kelvin and 460 degrees Fahrenheit and you claim that it has properties." and I asked you where I said that. I'm waiting for an answer.

Human theory is all we know about reality.

 

I think you're engaging in hubristic sentiment. But that aside, there are relations between things in Nature, relations aren't always functions.
You even say that yourself.

 

I said that to show that the term zero, while it is defined as having no value, is used in human theory as a variable place setting.

But that does not mean human theory IS reality.

How so? I am the one accusing science of hubris by anthropomorphizing natural phenomena that only function in a generic mathematical way and "know" nothing about about differential theory. This is fundamentally the same problem as with SR.

Where did I say that?
I often posit my perspective that Nature processes "relational values via generic mathematical functions". IMO any relational interaction is via a function, no?

You are interpreting this as nature using zero in the same way as humans do in theory.
Can you clarify this objectively and logically how nature would process the value of zero with a mathematical function?