Does 0+0=0?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 13, 2008.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well, here it is.

    With The Mind

    We have measurement, displacement, and coordination.

    Wthout The Mind

    We have nothing, since relativity would be incomplete. In Johns case, i believe he talks of relative time intervals, which, according to relative rules, [[ESPECIALLY]] that of special laws, distance, a measure of one yard, and one section from another, require the subliminal action of a mind. If there is no one there to measure these things, then there are no measurements. Nor Any Yardsticks.

    So, it is from the subliminal sense of construction of reality, do we sense time as being linear, whilst outside of mind, nothing is linear, and everything would happen faster than that of a bumblebees flap of its wings.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Isn't a number "just" an abstract concept that does not exist in reality?

    You can't point to number.

    You are still assuming that points have "size". I think you're imagining that points are somehow pushed up against one another until they can't compress any more and then you have a line. That's not true. There is an infinite number of points between any two given points on a line segment.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    The basis of the question is valid, but the asker doesn't have the knowledge to phrase the question properly, nor probably to understand the answer. The answer the asker seeks lies in the Lebesgue measure. To understand it they probably will first need to learn basic set theory, real analysis and measure theory.

    The Lebesgue measure of a countable union of disjoint sets is the sum of the Lebesgue measures of those sets, but this doesn't extend to uncountable unions. Consider the uncountably many real numbers x between 0 and 1.The Lebesgue measure of each x alone (or rather of {x}, the singleton set containing each x) is 0. But the union of these sets, the interval (0, 1), has Lebesgue measure 1.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    No, I changed my mind on that a number of posts ago. I agree with you now.
     
  8. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    speaking of nothing... it might sound weird that everything and something is nothing, but there's a simple analogy that can show that it must be so: music sounds like something, but it's made of infinitely short sounds, it's made of nothing, yet it sounds like something. that proves that nothings can create something.

    the reason that music and the universe can exist even though they have no time to exist (present moment = zero duration) is probably because they exist in memory (past).
     
  9. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    As i beleive when past is considered, is some intelligence their to excite the past, or in other words, some intelligent recording device during the present can self-reflect (see the Self-Reflection Principle of Quantum Mechanics and Self-Consistency to have some insights to how consciousness acts analogous to), we somehow only have past, when information is either added to our network systems, or the networks systems recieve it from the vacuum, which 96% of our bodies or so is made up of mostly spacetime anyway, so the idea is that the vacuum has a memory.

    I gave a particular notice of this in the physics section not long ago, where two atoms could not share energy unless through angular momentum, and even this action is restored as memory within the field of the particle, which is spacetime filling, like any other common homogenous field. When we talk about great distances, we refer to them as ''signals'', and these signals have been postulated to wear out over great distances, and this what will cause the big rip.

    Our future but, must also a memory we just can't remember. There are many ''greats'' who knew this, from the fact that our histories in relativity are all spred out like fly stuck in amber, all our histories both past and future, determined the now, as much as the now determines them. It was physicists (ADD) who first postulated the strange ability to defy the uncertainty principle, by making both the past and the future could act as ''Complimentary Solutions,'' to create the present time. If you could measure the path of a particle, and its future measure it's position, you can deduct the probability for the action inbetween, making both the position and the path knowable.
     
  10. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Not to put a damper on your enthusiasm for the idea that something can be nothing, but music is not made of infinitely short sounds. What we hear is translated in our brains, not as infinite sounds, but as finite notes. None of our human senses are capable of infinite signals to our brains. Our brains are finite objects that are incapable of processing an infinite amount of information. Moreover, sound waves are not infinite, but finite. Sound is transmitted through a finite medium, i.e. air. Air is only made of a given number of atoms. Now, if your point is that what we experience in our minds as sound does not actually exist, well that's not true either. It clearly exists in some form of electro-chemical signal in our nervous system. Now, if you are reaching even deeper and claiming that consciousness itself doesn't exist, well that's clearly not true either. Consciousness is a brain function. Although no one has adequately explained how consciousness itself works, still consciousness has explanation that can be found in the brain.
    Second, what's the difference between a present moment and a moment accessed from memory? They both are experienced as present moments. Moreover, to say a present moment has no time is wrong. Time is simply movement of a finite amount of matter. Without movement, there is no time. Consequently, the speed of movement is the real measure of time. This brings us to Zeno's paradox. How can anything move from point A to point B, when the object moving must first pass through an infinite number of mid-points first? The answer is that there is not an infinite number of mid-points in matter, but a finite number. There exists in physical reality a size for matter that can be no smaller than it already is. This is Planck's Constant.
     
  11. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    John howmuch weed did you smoke before you thought about this?, numbers are subjective characters we use to represent amounts. You know like 4, 6, 10, the little boy in the blue hat had 4 gummy bears, he ate 2 and gave another 2 to his friend in the red hat, leaving him with 0. Which means there are no gummy bears (like no numbers).

    0+0=0 Is the calculation that proves the universe and or existence (same thing?) always existed and is eternal.


    peace.
     
  12. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Actually, I've changed my mind out 0+0=0. It's really not a great analogy, because it confuses physical reality with mathematics. Mathematics contains non-dimensional points, whereas physical reality contains finite points. A much better argument for existence really being nothing is the accelerated expansion of the universe, or the Big Freeze. If the universe will expand indefinitely (as recent scientific discoveries have revealed), then one can argue that the finite amount of energy in the universe will eventually be contained within an infinite amount of space. If that is the case, then a finite amount compared to an infinite amount is zero. So, the universe appears to be headed to a state of nothingness. So, nothingness does exist - at least at some very distant point in the future. The expansion of the universe is really the ultimate unraveling of the Big Bang, which will force all matter to its simplest constituent part revealing what matter is made of. In the Big Freeze, matter decays (even black holes decay) into photons. But, do photons decay? And if they do, what do they decay into? Will empty space itself eventually decay into nothingness?
    I smoked no weed in coming up with this.:m:
     
  13. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848

    Thats all based on ideas and loose theory/models. Empty space has no physical attributes to decay, it's what is between your face and the computer screen right now.


    All events happen in the framework of empty space, think about the big bang theory and apply it explaining empty space and how it came about. How could this empty dimentional space be produced by the bang?. Because you have objects/matter you get depth perception and distance is born to measure, if only you existed surrounded by nothing except empty space you would see what existence is in its true form. Mass brings up complication when talking about how existence is possible, take away all energy/mass then you are left with what?.






    peace.
     
  14. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    then how do you explain afterlife?

    zeno had a perfect solution for his problem, which was the very reason he came up with the paradox: he wanted to show that motion is an illusion because things don't have time to move in the present moment.

    the planck length may be the smallest distance that has any meaning for us, but there is no reason to assume that the concept of space has absolutely no meaning beyond it. as david bohm says, the planck length is only a limit on the applicability of our ordinary notions of space and time, and it is quite arbitrary to suppose that there is nothing beyond this limit at all.

    everything must be consist of something more, otherwise they would be abstractions made of nothing. so everything must be divisible. the infinite divisibility of atoms resolves matter into simple centres of force (monads), i.e., precludes the possibility of conceiving matter as an objective substance. this vicious circle is fatal to materialism.
     
  15. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    All events happen in the framework of empty space, think about the big bang theory and apply it explaining empty space and how it came about. How could this empty dimentional space be produced by the bang?. Because you have objects/matter you get depth perception and distance is born to measure, if only you existed surrounded by nothing except empty space you would see what existence is in its true form. Mass brings up complication when talking about how existence is possible, take away all energy/mass then you are left with what?.

    Empty space does have energy. Otherwise, particles couldn't pop in and out of existence like they apparently do. As empty space has energy, then it can decay. The conceptual problem you are having is that nothingness is probably not the same as empty space. Empty space is something, because it has energy. The unraveling of the universe in the Big Freeze is important, because it will tell us what all matter is made of as it expands into its lowest constituent part. That lowests constitutent part may be photons. It may be empty space. It may be nothingness, where even empty space decays. If its empty space, than you could equate nothingness with empty space - calling it dimension if you will. The dimension could be produced by the Big Bang, if the Big Freeze reveals that the Big Bang is just crumpled up dimension. You could look at the Big Bang as supercompressed dimension.
     
  16. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    First, one way to explain the afterlife is to deny its existence. However, if there is an afterlife, then you might as well throw all these theories out the window as irrelevant at best.
    Second, Zeno was wrong. Matter is comprised of finite units, which explains movement.
    Third, there is unquestionably a boundary of some sort in the physical world. This is what keeps one object from merging into another. It is what creates objects or particle. Because there is a boundary in the physical world, what I like to call contrast, there must be a size at which nothing can get smaller. Without this lower limit on size, objects could not exist. Now, true it is arbitrary that the lower limit on size be at any particular point. But, it must be at some point in order for objects to exist. So, you got to pick some point, why not the Planck constant?
    Fourth, things do not have to be made of smaller things indefinitely. The very existence of objects proves that there is a finite state at which things cannot get any smaller. You cannot build an object out of an infinitely small substance. If it is infinitely small, it has no dimension and can never be used to define any size whatsoever.
     
  17. michael_coxonuk Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    The real question, is does 1+1 really equal 2???
     
  18. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Yes it does.
    End of story.
     
  19. michael_coxonuk Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    if you're not going to share constructive critisism with regards to a statement, then i'd rather not hear anything at all. douch!
     
  20. domesticated om Stickler for details Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,277
    Not any more. Now it equals 2 plus zero.
     
  21. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    I think I am in high enough authority to state without criticism that 1+1=2.
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    In Z and all extensions of it, yes. In something like modulo arithmetic where your quotient space is an interval over the reals of length less than 2, no it's not.

    The Peano axioms end up defining the integers as the set contructed from 0 via the successor function. We end up constructing statements like :

    \(\sigma(0) \equiv 1\)
    \(\sigma(n) \equiv n+1\)
    Therefore
    \(\sigma(\sigma(0)) \equiv \sigma(0)+1 =\equiv 1+1 \equiv 2\)
    Shut up, tool.
     

Share This Page