On Nothing in a void.

Correction:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does it? Please provide evidence for this.

It's possible some things can mathematically be described, while other can’t. You can't generalize without justification. Similarly, that some things are connected doesn't mean that all things are.

But all of that is still irrelevant, because that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about common denominators in natural phenomena, not some philosophical connectedness or mathematical-ness of the entire universe. Please try to keep on-topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can tip marbles from a container and make them form a pyramid if you form a square of marbles to tip them on to first

At the atomic level some things just naturally fall into place and fit

Physics rules

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55. (xn = xn-1 + xn-2.)

https://math.temple.edu/~reich/Fib/fibo.html

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#section6

We might be able to say that Naturally occurring Patterns display Mathematical regularities.

Perhaps the physics of the universe demand forms of mathematical functions, which we have been able to identify symbolically. i.e. in large spaces the probability of an event to occur might be random or per chance, but when an event occurs it must follow inherent universal physical laws (constants), which by necessity is of (what we call) a mathematical nature.

E = Mc^2, is another of these phenomena which is a universal mathematical constant.

IOW, any regularly pattern in nature contains a mathematical aspect to its shape (value) or function. IMO, it cannot be otherwise. The two are intrinsically connected.

 

This is what I meant abstractly by "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

However, I believe this is true at all scales, not just at the atomic level. But at large scales this movement (imperative) is affected by many more environmental conditions, thus might not be able to complete this function as precisely as at the atomic level and we observe a pattern which comes close but not perfect, i.e. an approximation.

Not all spirals follow the exact Fibonacci sequence, but they eventually do answer to Phi.

 

Yeah, non of this addresses what we were talking about, so I'm just going to skip this off-topic part.

No, that's an equation, not a mathematical constant. I suppose you're using the word constant non-mathematically here, even though you've explicitly prefaced it with the word "mathematical". See how confused your speech sometimes is?

And no, it's not certain that's a universal truth: it may be disproven in the future.

I (of course) object to the word "contains"; if you replace it with "can be described by" I agree with your statement.

Do you believe there are things in nature that aren't intrinsically connected?

 

Not asked of me but if it was - balls and brains

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You may be closer to the truth than you think, but not the way you are suggecting.

 

Our use of the concept of nothing and of the word "nothing" just shows how versatile and flexible human languages and human thought are.

Most words clearly refer to some thing, or at least we use them and mean them as if they did, and be damned if we're wrong about that. But then the word "nothing" seems to refer to nothing. Oops! Sorry, I rephrase, the word "nothing" doesn't seem to refer to any thing. Hey, look, you just understood these two sentences as meaning exactly the same thing!

Yet, the first sentence says, "refer to". As if nothing was at the same time nothing and some thing. Would it be possible that the word "nothing" both didn't refer to some thing and yet referred to something that would be some kind of equivalent to nothing.

Well, yes, I think so, sort of. And it's kind of easy, really.

Still, I haven't read the whole thread so I'm going to make a break here and now and come back some other time to finish it off.

I almost said nothing.
EB

Note: I won't use any of the emoticons here because they're crap.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, and if there were no God, there would be no Atheists?

Kind of the same thing, I think.

Still, you're so close!

Maybe you could try and be just a wee bit more specific?
EB

 

Yes, that's close, too.

I could criticise what you say, but I'd rather like you to go on your own all the way to an effective expression of the actual meaning of the word "nothing".

Can you do it?
EB

 

Nah, it's very easy to visualise most of the time. We can all do it. Easy as pie. Maybe not in a few cases where we try to mean something special.
EB

 

That's just grazing. I guess it depends on what you mean by "relating to".

Referring to? Or something else?
EB

 

Ah, yes, we're in on the secret here. You know but you won't tell! Unless maybe we kneel and chant in praise of your wisdom? Typical.

Or, perhaps, it's indeed typical of the peripatetic teaching technique? Bait?
EB

 

Excellent.
EB

 

True, but the post was good!

So, kudos for everybody here!
EB

 

I do not know, but it isn't a problem that interests me enough to expend time on. I'm interested more in science than logic or mathematics. I'll be interested to read how you would express it, however.

 

If nothing exists please show me where it is because I think that there can be no place that does not contain something which eliminates nothing.
Nothing is a generalisation for "well there is something but it is too small or complex to explain so I say that it is nothing"


Alex

 

0 is a symbol. It stands for a number whose value is . . . nothing. Nothing is what you start with when you're about to count some things. "Starting with nothing" makes sense. If you have nothing, does it exist?

A space with nothing in it therefore has a symbolic representation (which isn't nothing, it's something). Why can we represent nothing if it doesn't exist?
Imagine trying to define a system of coordinates without having a symbol like 0.

On the one hand, we need to reject the notion that nothing can be something (what you start with, or . . . without), on the other, we need to embrace notions like zero length, or displacement, no difference between, etc.