# Dimensions

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E, Sep 12, 2022.

1. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,057
"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.

Michael 345 likes this.
2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,458
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".

4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,071
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.

Michael 345 likes this.
6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,057
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.

8. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,458
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".

Last edited: Oct 4, 2022
9. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,057
How is the freezing point of water the absence of something?

10. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,458
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.

Last edited: Oct 4, 2022
11. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,071
You have no idea what a differential equation is.

12. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,678
I'm not sure if INTELLIGENCE is still visiting us. Anyhoo...
We have to deal with what we see. Our three familiar spatial dimensions are very large, maybe even infinite. If there are additional spatial dimensions, they must be too small to see. One way to ensure that, in string theory or whatever, is to make sure the extra dimensions are "curled up".
The EM spectrum is not about dimensions. EM radiation can have any wavelength you like, for instance, ranging from zero to infinity, conceptually. It turns out that the light we see has wavelengths in the range 400 to 700 nanometres. At smaller wavelengths we get UV light, then x-rays, then gamma rays. At larger wavelengths we get infrared light, then microwaves, then radio waves. That's the full spectrum, from zero to infinity. Visible light is not "in the middle" on this spectrum, as you can see. A radio wave with a wavelength of 1 million kilometres is much further away, in terms of wavelength, from the visible range than a gamma ray with a wavelength of 7 femtometers.

13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,678
No. Zero is just a number.

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,678
Yes. To find the half way point between two values, we average them.

For instance, 6 is half way between 4 and 8 because (8+4)/2=6.

Zero is half way between -1 and 1 because (1 + (-1))/2 = 0.

Last edited: Oct 4, 2022
15. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,678
Write4U:
Define your terms, first. What does it mean for something to be "permittive of everything"? Give me an example of something that is permittive of everything.
You speak as if "nothing" is something. How can there be any thing "in nothing"?
No.

Look, it's very simple. An equation is a mathematical statement that contains an "equals" sign. To spot an equation, just look for the "=" symbol. If you can't find one, then you're not looking at an equation.
No. 0/0 is usually regarded as undefined or indeterminate.
Define "dynamic value". That term is not found in my mathematics textbooks.
What is "natural generic maths"? What is "human symbolic maths"?

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
What is a "physical value"? Please give an example of a "physical value".
Is an anti-particle a number? If not, then it makes no sense to compare it to zero, which is a number.

You seem to have got yourself all tied up in confused knots again. It can often be a good idea to try to pin down the definitions of things before you try to start talking about them. Otherwise, you risk ending up talking nonsense that nobody else can make any sense of.
I guess you could represent anything by "zero". The map and the territory are different things. I can represent myself by the colour red and you by the colour blue. That doesn't make me blue or you red, because these are just representations. Understand?
Define "generic value". Define "potential".

(Haven't I previously schooled you on the usual meaning of "potential" in physics? Maybe not. Maybe we should discuss that concept.)
Do numbers exist in nature? If you think they do, then it follows that zero exists in nature, because zero is a number. If you think they don't, then I suppose you're right.

Your "mathematical universe" religion demands that you accept that numbers (and the rest of mathematics) exist in nature, does it not? Have I got it wrong?
Define "generic relational value" or "potential", please.
Please define how you are using it now.
What is a generic mathematical property? What non-generic mathematical properties are there? How are generic properties distinguished from non-generic ones? Please give some examples.
Special Relativity is a physical theory, not a religion.
It's a scientific theory. It uses mathematics to make quantitative predictions. This is common for theories in the physical sciences.
Belief in science is evidence-based, not faith based. That's what makes science different from religion.
That would depend on whether one's beliefs about mathematics were evidence-based (or, perhaps more appropriately, logically based or proved) or faith-based, would it not?
Mathematics isn't a religion. It is a formal system.
Define "Gods".
Who are you to tell Gods what they can and can't do?
"Nothing" is not a mathematical term.
Which theory?
Which proposition are you claiming "solves" for all the regular order?

Define "regular order".
That would be what science aims to do, wouldn't it?
"Nothing" is not a thing. The hint is right there in the word: nothing - "no thing".

It makes no sense to talk about the "existence" of "nothing". A not-thing cannot exist, by definition.
A "non-dimensional condition" sounds like a thing. In fact, it sounds a lot like a kind of condition. Conditions are things. Nothing is not a thing.
What can a timeless dimensionless condition do? How does it do it?
Which terms are in contradiction?
How can you look at nothing? There's nothing to look at.
It's an absence of things. (I just described it, didn't I?)
So we're now in agreement, suddenly?
Krass wants to define the quantum vacuum as "nothing". That's a bit of a fudge, if you ask me.
What does that contradict?
A condition - even a "permittive condition" - sounds a lot like a thing to me, even if I don't know what sort of thing it is meant to be. Nothing is not a thing.
Please cite a philosophy text that supports your position. A quote or two would be nice, too.

16. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,458
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.

17. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
Yeah it is. Zero is a useful element of a matrix. 0-1 matrices are useful.
Hell, so is the general linear group.

18. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,057
*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.

19. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,458
Only for humans. Nature's generic mathematics don't quite work that way.
Nature does not do theory. It does "function" only.

20. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,458
In human theory. Not in reality.

21. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,057
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.

22. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
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.

23. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,458
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?