Does zero exist as material, immaterial or both?

Since zero denotes value of some kind, I would be less apt to use it to describe nothingness.
Nothingness describes a value-less concept, and while zero can denote nothingness, to me anyway, it is a mathematical term that denotes value.
Even as a placeholder, it holds quantifiable value.

We can't "quantify" nothingness, because it is a concept subjective to someone's interpretation of the word. But, zero isn't an abstract idea.

So, while the two terms can intersect, to me, they are not interchangeable.
(We sometimes view them that way in everyday conversations with others, however.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but is that value of something material or immaterial?

The question raised by the thread is not whether zero has a value or not. It is whether it relates to "something" that is material or immaterial.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do we view negative temperatures?
(Temps that fall below zero?)

something that might be of interest...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a concept or symbol. It relates to things in the same way that all numbers do. Does "5" relate to something that is material or immaterial? (I find the question to be nonsensical.)

 

...

 

...deleted post.

 

Does the letter "H" refer to something that is material or immaterial?

Zero is just another symbol. It's a good symbol for the concept in that it looks like a hole.

(Oh, nevermind - we're in the philosophy threads. The world where pointless arguments reign. Goodbye.)

 

Letters/numbers/symbols are used to signify something material though, no?

 

It's probably a mistake to confuse the number 'zero' with the ontological idea of 'nothingness', whether absolute or not.

Zero is a symbol that's used in some (not all) number systems. One of zero's uses in applied mathematics is to represent the absence of things. In other words, mathematical symbols can be used to represent and model states of affairs in the physical universe.

When it's being used to represent absences, zero's meaning is usually limited, relative and contextual. If we are shopping for boxes of breakfast cereal in the grocery store, we start out with zero boxes of cereal in our shopping cart. In other words, we can say that there's an actual physical absence of breakfast cereal in the cart, a state which we represent by employing the number 'zero'.

Absolute nothingness is a more metaphysical sort of idea, derived by expanding the idea of a relative absence to encompass anything and everything. Not only is there no breakfast cereal in the cart, nothing else is in the cart either. Contextualized to our shopping cart case, such a thing might not be possible. The shopping cart (which does exist) defines a particular spatial-temporal extension, relative to itself, which can be said to be something.

But speaking of reality as a whole, I think that the idea of absolute nothingness probably does work. We can arrive at it as the end of a process of subtraction, in which everything that can be said to exist in reality is subtracted and removed. Absolute nothingness would be the terminous of that process, when the process is finally complete.

Of course, our saying that 'nothing is left' in that absolute nothingness case doesn't imply that something is left, something that we call 'nothing'. I think that the tendency to think that way, which is hard for human beings to avoid, is a misleading artifact of the grammatical structure of our human languages. It's difficult to talk about something without turning it into a grammatical object, which seemingly names something.

It's probably better to say that simply by definition, the phrase 'absolute nothingness' doesn't name anything and doesn't have any existing referrant. What the phrase represents instead is the final terminous of the process of subtracting any and all forms of being, everything that exists in reality. That's not an ontological being in its own right, it's a limit concept.

 

I'm fascinated with zero as a kind of ideal limit. From one to zero, how do we really make such a transition? Discretely to be sure.
But the spectrum from 1 to 0 is continuous and infinitesimal, the real numbers forever only approaching zero like they do infinity. In this sense there is a diametrical kinship of zero with infinity. It is more than a number. It is a abstract parameter defining numericity itself.

 

You think the numbering sequence begins at 147? You need to study some math then.

"A new deck of 52 cards usually has two jokers. Likewise there are two jokers that bedevil physics -- zero and infinity. They represent powerful adversaries at either end of the realm of numbers that we use in modern science. Yet, zero and infinity are two sides of the same coin -- equal and opposite, yin and yang. "Multiply zero by anything and you get zero. Multiply infinity by anything and you get infinity. Dividing a number by zero yields infinity; dividing a number by infinity yields zero. Adding zero to a number leaves the number unchanged. Adding a number to infinity leaves infinity unchanged." Yet, the biggest questions in science, philosophy, and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity.

Zero is behind all of the big puzzles in physics. In thermodynamics a zero became an uncrossable barrier: the coldest temperature possible. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, a zero became a black hole, a monstrous star that swallows entire suns and can lead us into new worlds. The infinite density of the black hole represents a division by zero. The big bang creation from the void is a division by zero. In quantum mechanics, the infinite energy of the vacuum is a division by zero and is responsible for a bizarre source of energy -- a phantom force exerted by nothing at all. Yet dividing by zero destroys the fabric of mathematics and the framework of logic -- and threatens to undermine the very basis of science.

The biggest challenge to todays physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common -- and what they clash over -- is zero." "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless."

"Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object, and its very zerolike nature ensures that scientists don't even know the electron's mass or charge." But, how could physicists not know something that has been measured? The answer lies with zero. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. As with the zero-point energy of the quantum vacuum, "scientists learned to ignore the infinite mass and charge of the electron. They do this by not going all the way to zero distance from the electron when they calculate the electron's true mass and charge; they stop short of zero at an arbitrary distance. Once a scientist chooses a suitably close distance, all the calculations using the "true" mass and charge agree with one another." This is known as renormalization -- the physicist Dr. Richard Feynman called it "a dippy process."

The leading approach to unifying quantum theory and general relativity is string theory. In string theory each elemental particle is composed of a single string and all strings are identical. The "stuff" of all matter and all forces is the same. Differences between the particles arise because their respective strings undergo different resonant vibrational patterns -- giving them unique fingerprints. Hence, what appear to be different elementary particles are actually different notes on a fundamental string. In string theory zero has been banished from the universe; there is no such thing as zero distance or zero time. Hence, all the infinity problems of quantum mechanics are solved.

But, there is a price that we must pay to banish zero and infinity. The size of a typical string in string theory is the Planck length, i.e., about 10-33 centimeters. This is over a thousand trillion times smaller that what the most advanced particle detection equipment can observe. Are these unifying theories, that describe the centers of black holes and explain the singularity of the big bang, becoming so far removed from experiment that we will never be able to determine their correctness? The models of the universe that string theorists and cosmologists develop might be mathematically precise, beautiful and consistent and might appear to explain the nature of the universe -- and yet be utterly wrong. Scientific models/theories, philosophies, and religions will continue to exist and be refined. However, because of zero and infinity, we can never have "proof". All that science can know is that the cosmos was spawned from nothing, and will return to the nothing from whence it came."---http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm

 

yes , sort of , you have zero wheat stores for example , but that doesn't mean nor follow that wheat has become non-existent

the history of the concept of zero has its origin in accounting , economics , back in the Babylon days

 

I don't see it that way.
The Singularity comes into play, [in BHs and the BB] at the quantum/Planck level. That is still a size, albeit the smallest theoretical size allowable......The Singularity as I see it, is not infinite in itself, but it can/may lead to infinite quantities, although personally I don't believe that it will. A future validated QGT will reveal a surface of sorts somewhere within the Planck/quantum state.
Yes, it could be string or some derivitive of them, who knows?

 

does zero though have a quality ?

 

Hmm. Since this is the philosophy thread: some people would say yes, it does have a quality. Some people can smell numbers, or hear them.

 

I see zero/0 as the absence of any particular quantity......

 

but what of quality , as in physical qualities ?

 

In physics, I see zero as a symbolic term meaning lack of, or non existence of a quantity of a particular entity/substance.....or simply a mathematical term to express that state, as are other numerals.
It can in my opinion be used instead of the term nothing, but is also depended on what is being discussed and the way we are applying the concept of zero or nothing.

I see the term nothing when discussing where the Universe sprung from as misleading unless used with the phrase "that we can understand" or "that we can know of "
The term nothing when used in its most strictest sense in physics, is as incomprehensible as trying to envisage a Universe that is infinite.
How can there be absolutely nothing?
The BB did not bring forth space and time from nothing....it evolved space and time to a level that is understandable and fits with our models. Before that it was in a form that we do not understand as yet, but maybe revealed with a validated QGT.

Zero, in my opinion, and as already stated, confirms a quantity, pure and simple...I don't see it as applying to quality at all.

 

zero does depend on what is being discussed , agreed

how far do you go , though ? when does the theory , BB become irrational ?

there is where the mistake lies

nothing is not comparable to the infinity of the Universe

nothing has no qualities , whereas the infinity of the Universe is based on qualities

there can't , for infinity

hence there was always , something

there in lies the fault and inadequacy of quantity thinking

quantity thinking , thinks , that it is the quantity that brings forth the quality of any object , this is erroneous thinking

for without the quality of the object , the manifestation of the properties of the object measured , the quantity is not measurable at all