Does zero exist as material, immaterial or both?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Oct 6, 2013.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    Does that mean not watching it move up or down (like, by closing your eyes)?
    How is this non-motion point determined? How do you see it? That's the question I asked above, and your question leads back to it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    Well, that isn't really an answer, unless you mean something can be true and false simultaneously. Maybe you mean it's true or false depending on (mutually exclusive) contexts?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    With the above in mind
    Teaser:
    Apply the rational to the cosmological anomaly described as the "Great attractor" - could the Great Attractor be a universal culminate zero point [COM or COG] and not localized mass as theorized?

    wiki
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    No , just seeing the peak of ascension


    How is this non-motion point determined? How do you see it? That's the question I asked above, and your question leads back to it.[/QUOTE]

    No its not determined

    Visual

    The point is , is that the object will reach a point of non-ascension without time being applied
     
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    How do you "know" when to look at the object. how do you know it's reached this "peak"? Where does the information come from if you aren't looking at it or measuring its path with some kind of equipment, like a camera?
    Yes it is determined, by the force of the throw, the weight of the object and gravity.
    So you don't look at it, but it's visual?
    I still have only a vague idea what "time being applied" means. The object goes up, then it comes down. How do you not "apply time" and still know when the object reaches its greatest height?
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Followed the object from the beginning



    Before it starts to fall back down


    I have always been looking at it
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    not true and false but immaterial and material - big difference in definition
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    So what is your definition of material and immaterial then ?
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    good question...
    certainly not true or false...

    at present my definition would be [Evolving as]:

    Immaterial: is a source of or cause of a material effect.
    Material: is an existent measurable "object" that also has a material effect
    Object: is a substance that exists in 3 dim + t space that also has a material effect...

    Essentially I hold that there are two sources of effects
    material and immaterial
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    at present my definition would be [Evolving as]:
    How does the immaterial accomplish this effect , upon the material ?
     
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    How do you follow the object without "applying time"? You use the phrase: "from the beginning". How do you know when the object "begins" to move?

    Your assertion that we can somehow exclude time from the motion of the object doesn't appear to be well-founded. In fact it's full of holes, like "beginning", "not timing", and "how long it takes", all of which implicitly assume time is being measured, is part of the observation of the object's motion.

    You can't both see the object moving and exclude time, it makes exactly zero sense.
    On the other hand, if what you mean is "wait" for the object to reach its highest point, again, "when" do you see it do this? We can use equipment to determine this highest point, and we can measure the total time of flight, assume the up and down motions have equal length, then divide the total time in half; we can make the intervals of time equal for each of the up and down sections of the total path, so there is a single point of space and time where the object has zero velocity for an interval of time with zero magnitude.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    You see that it does

    If what you say is true , then why can I not give you a time value ?

    Time is about understanding what the object is doing at certain points in ascension

    I'm not trying to understand the points of ascension of the object , I'm just observing the ascension of the object
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    by immaterial means... [chuckle]
    ie, Gravity is an effect of a culminate center of attraction, that center of attraction [COG] may be immaterial [a zero point]
    Gravity is the effect... the source is immaterial, yet gravitational effects are very material.
     
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    And you can observe the "ascension" of the object without "understanding what the object is doing", except when it gets to its highest point, and you don't measure the time? When you see motion, this has nothing to do with time?

    The thing is, if you observe (anything), there is a time coordinate attached. Each point of the ascension/descension has a time coordinate. So "just observing" implies "observing points of time". You can't "not apply" time, although you can certainly misapply the concept of time.
    Not sure if you've won any prizes there, but nice try.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    For the zero point to exist means , if it does , or as you say , " may be immaterial " , and to effect material objects means and infers , something rather than the immaterial
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Put another way , would delta time changed to another value in an mathematical equation , change the action and/or motion of a physical object.?
     
  20. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Zero = Represents Non-occupied space

    Zero = the true, cosmically non-occupied space, not just an empty lot or empty parking space or missing shell relocation of a shell on an abacus.

    The number zero represents a numerically non-occupied space, by a counting number i.e. the number zero is a non-counting number yet it occupies a space.

    There exists infinite space, but only a finite part of it counts or is countable. We call that occupied space Uni-verse, the one, cosmically occupying verse.

    Zero = no time, no frequency, no motion, no charge ergo non-occupied space.

    It is really quite simple, not complex once you think about it. The trouble is breaking free of conditioning that keeps us trapped in a finite head space.

    To get outside of our finite head space, is to be open to the non-occupied space that is beyond our finite occupied space. Until the mind can break through these finite trappings it, will fall short of some cosmic truths. imho

    r6
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If space is the zero between substance, how can it space expand or contract since there is nothing to act up? Only substance can so this, which means space-time is an illusion or construct that happens in the imagination.
     
  22. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    No space( mind/intelligence ) vs empty space and occupied space

    Why do you state, that, "space is the zero between substance"?

    Truly empty( non-occupied space ) not only may not exist between substance, it certainly has not properties ergo truly empty( non-occupied space ) cannot expand-contract etc....

    Gravity is considered by many to be the alledged "spacetime". The question many conflict over, is whether gravity occupies space-- as do fermions and other bosons ---or is gravity a metaphysical, geometry pattern that only complements time/motion/frequency events of fermions and boson other then the geometric only gravity?

    This gets confusing because scientists, experts, dictionarys etc...give us or use various definitions of the word space, or other of these terms.

    This is why I have developed a cosmic heirarchy that actually lays out in clear top > bottom type list, so humans will have common starting point of understanding. From that starting point we can have better comprehension of the whole and its parts. imho

    To date, no one has offerred any rational, logical common sense counter arguments that would invalidated my cosmic heirarchy as stated.

    Metaphysical mind/intelligence

    ...all "substance" things, occupied space have a complementary metaphysical mind/intelligence aspect...
    ...no space is involved here above ergo no space is not zero but not to be confused with non-occupied space that follows below....
    ...concepts of space not actual space where occupied space can expand into or contract from....

    Line of differrentiation -----------------------line of differrentiation--------------

    Non-occupied Space macro-micro infinite
    ...zero occupied space ergo zero( empty ) space but not the above the line-of-differrentiation, metaphysical mind/intelligence no space

    Occupied Space
    ...ultra-micro gravity, fermions and bosons other than gravity...
    ..never zero i.e. inherent time/motion/frequency/charge etc...with the exception of ultra-micro gravity's aspects are yet to be well defined...

    This above is one version of a simple heirarchy.

    If we have a occupied space Universe, composed of ultra-micro, gravitational geodesic tori, then and only then, is there possibility, of a true zero( non-occupied space ) existent between the toroidal tubulars.

    This leads to other questions I have been pondering for a few years now.

    r6
     

Share This Page