Nothing from Something?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    You are wasting your time. Your 0+0 =0 equation does not prove what you say it does. It is a mental construct, nothiong more. It says nothing about the real world and you have no warrant to claim that it does.

    I will not enter into further correspondence on this topic.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,471
    Sure, space contains energy fields, particles, et cetera, but that doesn't mean space isn't primarily comprised of nothing. Analogizing space to the number zero is beneficial, because numbers are representative of reality. Where do you think numbers come from, if not from our observations of reality? I analogize to 0+0=0 because it is a simple way to show that nothingness can be contrasted from nothingness, i.e. 0+0. Using other numbers to make this simple point would distract from the simplicity.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,471
    Since when are numbers not significant in understanding reality? If that were true, then why would physicists waste their time with mathematics? To say numbers are nothing more than a mental construct, and nothing more, is just plain ignorance of the reality that numbers are a symoblic representation of reality. There would be no numbers, if there was no reality. I certainly have every right to claim that numbers can say something about the real world.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    If you define \(0\) to represent nothing, then \(0+0+\ldots+0\) still represents nothing, no matter how many zeros you add together. Simple mathematical logic. Your assumption that the universe must either have a primary cause or else have come from nothing is also without logical basis, because you're assuming causality as a fundamental property of existence, which is an impossible position to prove from basic logic alone. Causality is an assumption we make to help understand our world, that doesn't necessarily mean it was always that way, i.e. "before" the Big Bang.
     
  8. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    You miss the point. Sure, 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 equals zero. The point is that there can be multiple zeros, which still add up to nothingness. In other words, nothingness can have multiple aspects or contrast, what we call matter, and still retain its essence as being nothingness in total.
    On your second point, I don't believe the universe has a primary cause. However, most people think it does. My problem with the primary cause theory is that it doesn't explain what caused the primary cause. Therefore, I reject the primary cause theory, and instead, show that the universe is really only nothingness, which itself doesn't need a cause. Logically, everything but nothingness requires a cause. Every other explanation (as if there were many?) for the existence of the universe falls to the primary cause paradox, because only nothingness itself requires no primary cause. This is very logical thinking. Go ahead, name something besides nothingness itself, that does not require a primary cause?
     
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    No, if you define zero to represent nothingness, then each of the zeros in your sum is itself nothing, meaning it has no aspects whatsoever. Your definition, not mine.

    Your something from nothing idea is just as paradoxical as the idea of a primary cause. You ask me to name something other than nothingness which doesn't require a primary cause, and my answer is "anything". Nothing in the universe requires a primary cause, and no fundamental logical principle requires that this be so. Causality is not a logical principle, it's an assumption, an axiom.
     
  10. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Again, you miss the point. The mathematical fact that zeros can be added together means that zeros have individual aspects. It's the addition part of the equation that is important. The addition shows that multiple zeros can exist - and yet still comprise nothingness on the whole. You simply don't like the fact that you can add two zeros together. Sorry, but you can do it. Ask a mathematician.
    On your second point, you are simply claiming that the universe does not require a primary cause without explaining how that is possible. We'll, go ahead and explain it, then.
     
  11. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I am a mathematician, and as a mathematician I tell you that you can't in one breath say that zero represents nothingness, and then in the next breath say that zero has attributes. There is nothing to mathematically distinguish one zero from any other zero, therefore you are contradicting yourself.

    I never said I had an explanation. It's up to you to prove that the universe must have a primary cause.
     
  12. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Well, as a mathematician, you would know that zero does indeed represent nothingness. And you, of course, would also have to agree that 0+0=0. Therefore, zero can be added to itself, can it not? If zero can be added to itself, than there must be a mathematical distinction between two zeros in that each zero exists and can be added together. No?

    Well, if you don't have an explanation for why the universe would exist that does not depend on a primary cause, then you don't have much to offer - do you?
     
  13. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238

    \(|Perfect|\).
     
  14. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    No. If there is a zero, still means everything. As much as EVERYTHING MEANS ZERO...
     
  15. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Zero can be added to itself ad infinitum and still amount to zero, because it has no attributes. Therefore there is no distinction between any two zeros.

    I don't need to add anything, that's your job. If you can't prove that the universe requires a primary cause, then you can't use the assumption of a primary cause as a basis for your arguments.
     
  16. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    This adds nothing to the discussion. No pun intended.
     
  17. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''Zero can be added to itself ad infinitum and still amount to zero, because it has no attributes. Therefore there is no distinction between any two zeros.''

    Not true. Ever heard of superpositioning?
     
  18. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    A superposition of things with no attributes is itself a thing with no attributes. Superpositioning means summation, they're the same thing. And please start using the quote buttons, they're there for a reason.
     
  19. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    I agree. It's a very simple, very obvious answer - once you get over the dumbfoundingly erroneous assumption that something can't come from nothing. Somethingness and nothingness are the same thing, which should have been obvious from the beginning frankly, because both are interconnected with no apparent reason to distinguish one from the other. This whole great conglomeration of stuff we call the universe, is, afterall, still just one big bag of stuff with no apparent reason to believe some parts of it are so distinct from other parts of it, that they all still can't be the same damn thing.
     
  20. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Exactly.
     
  21. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    If it's such an obvious answer, then prove its obviousness from fundamental logical principles. Otherwise it's not obvious, because what makes sense to you is different from what logic dictates.
     
  22. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    If there was no distinction between two zeros, you couldn't add them together, could you?
    Second, I'm not claiming the universe had a primary cause. I am claiming the universe is nothingness, which doesn't need a primary cause. I am shooting down the other explanations for the existence of the universe (as if there were many?) on the basis that those explanations all require a primary cause, which makes those explanations subject to the primary cause paradox - which I find a distasteful and insurmountable objection.
     
  23. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Yes you can. The definition of zero is that when you add it to something, it doesn't change what that something is, whether or not that particular "something" can be equated to nothing.

    But your attempted explanation contains a self-contradiction because you give two different, contradictory definitions for the same object. Thus yours isn't an explanation either.
     

Share This Page