Nothing from Something?

Give him a bit of time and he'll come up with the idea that zero has the attribute of nothingness. I wish you joy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not?

\(\sqrt{-1}=0.50+0.50'\)

so long as

\(\sqrt{1}=0.50-0.50=0\)

This is the ''inbetween factor of 1 and and 0.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, we agree then. There is no primary cause. In that case, the only explanation I am aware of that doesn't require a primary cause is that all is nothingness. You've got another?

 

Or something always existed. In other words: there never was nothing.

 

Then by your definition, there never was a beginning, in which case something still doesn't come from nothing.

I am saying that zero represents the lack of all attributes, a.k.a. in your reasoning, it means nothing. The fact that you can add zero to anything without changing it is just a trivial definition which states that adding zero to anything does not give it any attributes, as the zero itself contains no attributes.

 

No. Let me explain even more...

 

Logically, there was no 'before the universe'. So how can there logically be a beginning ?

 

I am not claiming nothingness was the intial condition of existence. I am not claiming there was a great big empty box one day, and then, magically, the next day a particle appeared. I am claiming that existence is nothingness, but that your understanding of nothingness does not take into account multiple nothingnesses and how those interactions can create matter. When you think of nothingness, you probably think of zero. We'll you can also think of nothingness as 0+0, or more appropriately, 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0. It's your conception of nothingness that needs refinement to take into account the multiple aspects that nothingness can mathematically take the form of.

 

"0+0=0" means that when you have something lacking any attributes, i.e. nothingness, and you don't add anything with attributes to this nothingness, you still have nothingness. Simple logic, I'm kind of shocked anyone would try to derive more from this.

 

Sorry , but I have it on good authority that 2 = 2 x (10^0 x ( 0 ^0) + 2 x 0

 

It means that adding up zero's is meaningless because you always end up with zero anyway.

 

Is 0^0 even defined ? lol

 

What you fail to understand is that "0+x" is the operation which takes x and does not add any attributes to it. So the zero still represents nothingness, a lack of any mathematical action, as one would expect.

 

No, you are wrong. The correct one is

\(1=0\)

so long as

\(0+*=&^\)

 

Isn't zero just still in the equation for clarity reasons ? It's not functional in any way.

0+x = x

You might just as well write: x = x

 

I didn't say that. I gave you the proper definition of zero in the field of reals. I can construct exactly the same mathematical system where 1 plays the role of 0.

Let A = (R,+) be the group of reals under addition. Let B = (\(R^{+}\),*) be the group of positive reals under multiplication. Define the group homomorphism \(\phi\) via \(\phi : x \in A \to e^{x} \in B\).

Therefore \(\phi(0) = 1\).

It would seem the mathematician in you doesn't understand maths.

 

There cannot be a beginning in a vector, if there is no end. So.. consider this...

ZERO=1

1=Zero so...

\((a+bi)(a-bi)=a^2-b^2+2abi\) and will yeild \(\sqrt{1}\) if \(b=0\)...

However.... if \(b>0\), then \((a+bi)(a-bi)=a^2-b^2+2abi\) yeilds a negative number, \(\sqrt{-1}\), so there is a superpositioning factor between \(\sqrt{-1}\) and \(\sqrt{1}\) as \(0.50/0.50\).

So... \((a^2+b^2)=\sqrt{1}\) has a middle value of \(0.50\) of it holds true (which we know it should), if \(b>0\) so that = \((a^2-b^2)=\sqrt{-1}\).

....

 

This is a joke right ?

 

I thought that sqrt(-1) is not allowed.