Dimensions

[sideshowbob]

But that is a meaningless equation.

It's not an equation; it's a description.

You might as well say that "nothing" is halfway between "plus something" and "minus something" and that makes no sense at all.

You could say that. And it does make sense.

But it depends on the meaning of "thing". "No" thing would be halfway between "plus some" of that thing and "minus some" of that same thing.

Zero is more general than that. It applies to ANY thing.

 

[Write4U]

It's not an equation; it's a description.

A description is an equation.

You could say that. And it does make sense.

But it depends on the meaning of "thing". "No" thing would be halfway between "plus some" of that thing and "minus some" of that same thing.

No, it's a mathematical value and according to mathematics
what you are describing is that "nothing is between minus nothing and plus nothing"
0 + 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0
0 x 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
(- 0) { 0 } (+ 0) = 0 (not 1/2)

Zero is more general than that. It applies to ANY thing.

No, it applies to No thing (value).

Zero = Null value

algebraic "NULL"

You can play around with maths and make all kinds of hypotheticals, but for mathematics to be functional there must be a dynamic value that can be used as Input, before a mathematical function can create an output.

Input (zero value) --> mathematical function (+, -, x, /) --> Output (zero value)

Human symbolic maths zero can be used in theory. Natural generic maths can only process positive values and there can be no value less than zero.

AFAIK, a negative physical value cannot exist in Nature? Is an anti-particle less than zero?

 

[DaveC426913]

A description is an equation.

Whole some descriptions may be in the form of equations, and equations often describe things, they are not the same thing.

AFAIK, a negative physical value cannot exist in Nature?

That's because negatives are a mathematical construct. And as we all know, mathematics was invented by humans.

 

[sideshowbob]

A description is an equation.

Only if something is equated to something else.

... according to mathematics
what you are describing is that "nothing is between minus nothing and plus nothing"

I'm just saying that zero is not nothing. Zero is not about things. It is not the absence of things. Zero on a thermometer scale is an arbitrary position on the scale. There are no things that it is missing.

 

[Write4U]

Only if something is equated to something else.

I'm just saying that zero is not nothing. Zero is not about things. It is not the absence of things. Zero on a thermometer scale is an arbitrary position on the scale. There are no things that it is missing.

And that is true in Nature? Everything is always discussed from a human perspective.

Give me one example of some thing in nature that can be represented by "zero" or "nothing".

Or even as in between a positive and a negative "generic value" or "potential".

A perfect balance? An absence of motion? Buoyancy flotation?

 

[DaveC426913]

And that is true in Nature? Everything is always discussed from a human perspective.

Give me one example of some thing in nature that can be represented by "zero" or "nothing".

Or even as in between a positive and a negative "generic value" or "potential".

A perfect balance? An absence of motion? Buoyancy flotation?

Anything you want. As SSB says: its arbitrary.

Sea level can be zero.
Population growth can be zero.
Orbital eccentricity can be zero. (We've chosen 1, but it can be zero.)
Gravitational potential can be zero.

 

[sideshowbob]

Everything is always discussed from a human perspective.

By humans, yes. The ladybugs might not have a concept of zero. (It took us humans a while to figure it out.)

Give me one example of some thing in nature that can be represented by "zero" or "nothing".

A vacuum contains nothing (no thing - i.e. no matter). I suppose you could call it "zero matter" but the "zero" means nothing without the "matter". Zero is a modifier. It is parallel to the "no" thing in "nothing". Nothing could be called "zero things" - but zero has much broader meaning than that.

The bottom line is that zero is not about things.

 

[QuarkHead]

Nor is any other part of mathematics, for that matter. It is a purely abstract logical discipline which, quite remarkably and unexpectedly, turns out to be sometimes useful in the physical sciences. The supreme Eugene Wigner wrote a very famous essay to this effect called "The unreasonableness of mathematics" or omething like that. Find it if you can.

 

[Write4U]

The bottom line is that zero is not about things.

The bottom line is that zero is a human symbolic representation and does not exist in nature.

Nature does not deal with numbers, it deals with generic relational values (potentials). See Potential Theory.

On further research, I may have been using the term "generic value" somewhat incorrectly..
Perhaps the term "generic mathematical properties " is more appropriate in context of the premise.

In mathematics, a property is any characteristic that applies to a given set.[1] Rigorously, a property p defined for all elements of a set X is usually defined as a function p: X → {true, false}, that is true whenever the property holds; or equivalently, as the subset of X for which p holds; i.e. the set {x | p(x) = true}; p is its indicator function.

However, it may be objected that the rigorous definition defines merely the extension of a property, and says nothing about what causes the property to hold for exactly those values.

more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_(mathematics)

 

[sideshowbob]

The bottom line is that zero is a human symbolic representation and does not exist in nature.

That's what I'm telling you.

But "nothing" DOES exist in nature. Nature IS about things - no thing, some thing, any thing.

 

[Write4U]

That's what I'm telling you.

But "nothing" DOES exist in nature. Nature IS about things - no thing, some thing, any thing.

But you are committing a category error.

No thing = nothing

Nothing is the absence of anything. You cannot claim that the absence of anything has a dimensional existence.

Nothing:

the complete absence of anything, has been a matter of philosophical debate since at least the 5th century BC. Early Greek philosophers argued that it was impossible for nothing to exist. Nevertheless, some philosophers, like Descartes, continued to argue against the existence of empty space until the scientific discovery of a physical vacuum.

Modern science does not equate vacuum with nothing. Indeed, the vacuum in quantum field theory is filled with virtual particles. The quantum vacuum is often viewed as a modern version of an aether theory.

Definition of nonexistence

: absence of existence : the negation of being

Websters

 

[DaveC426913]

This is all semantics. Human words do not make things happen in nature.

I can define an arbitrary volume and then claim that "nothing is in there". I get to decide I that mean no matter or photons; you get to decide it still contains vacuum energy. It doesn't mean anything more than what I imply it means and/or what you infer it means. Not to mention that all these "definitions" - even the dictionary ones - are circular.

It is a useless point of discussion; it does not inform anything.

 

[exchemist]

This is all semantics. Human words do not make things happen in nature.

I can define an arbitrary volume and then claim that "nothing is in there". I get to decide I that mean no matter or photons; you get to decide it still contains vacuum energy. It doesn't mean anything more than what I imply it means and/or what you infer it means. Not to mention that all these "definitions" - even the dictionary ones - are circular.

It is a useless point of discussion; it does not inform anything.

Quite. But this is Write4U, after all, trying as usual to wrench things round to his "mathematical universe" religion.

 

[Write4U]

Quite. But this is Write4U, after all, trying as usual to wrench things round to his "mathematical universe" religion.

And you, after all, trying to wrench things round to your "special relativity universe" religion, right?

AFAIK, SR is a mathematical concept and represented with mathematical symbols, no?
Belief in SR must be a religious practice.

Do you avail yourself of mathematics ? Then mathematics must be your religion also, no?
Do you want to argue that logic?

Do you know the meaning of religion?
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

If mathematics is a religion are our efforts to create AI a religious practice? Are we Gods?
Yet, it looks like even Gods must avail themselves of mathematics. Can't create anything without maths.
Do you avail yourself of mathematics ? Then mathematics must be your religion also,no?

Odd that you should affirm that the mathematical term "nothing" does not mean "nothing". That's just lazy thinking. Care to explain the definition of nothing

Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing
Thomas Ryckman is the author of Einstein (Routledge, 2017) and The Reign of Relativity: Philosophy in Physics 1915–1925 (Oxford University Press, 2005). He is a professor of philosophy at Stanford University in California.

For example, in quantum field theory, “nothing” refers to the vacuum, or ground state, with respect to which other physical states are defined. In general relativity, it describes matter-free spacetimes, whereas in quantum gravity, it is a hypothetical state with no classical spacetime.

James Clerk Maxwell filled the void with an ethereal medium deemed necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic energy across space. Albert Einstein abolished Maxwell’s ether but reinstated one of his own, the metric field. " in quantum gravity, it is a hypothetical state with no classical spacetime."

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3695#:

I have not heard a better explanation for the way things work in the Universe. I am not alone in this. I did not invent this theory.
I just have not heard a single person come up with another proposition that "solves" for all the regular order.

Try and explain the Universe without having to resort to " relational values" and "mathematical functions" and
"solving" for "results" rather than "praying" for miracles.

Good luck.

 

[sideshowbob]

You cannot claim that the absence of anything has a dimensional existence.

When did I?

 

[Write4U]

When did I?

"But "nothing" DOES exist in nature. Nature IS about things - no thing, some thing, any thing."

There are no non-dimensional things. A thing must be describable or it is no thing.
Nothing is not describable as a thing. It is a non-dimensional condition.

I claim that apart from a finite universe with things like spacetime in it that had a beginning, there is only a timeless dimensionless condition.
I see no weakness in that argument. An infinite dimensional universe is a contradiction in terms, IMO.

 

[sideshowbob]

There are no non-dimensional things.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Nothing is not describable.

Sure it is. It's the opposite of something. it's the opposite of anything. Take something - anything - and then take it away. What you have left is nothing.

I claim that apart from a finite universe with things like spacetime in it, there is only a timeless dimensionless condition.

I don't care about that claim. It has nothing to do with anything I said.

 

[Write4U]

Sure it is. It's the opposite of something. it's the opposite of anything. Take something - anything - and then take it away. What you have left is nothing.

Nonono, that is a fallacious argument.

When you look at nothing you cannot tell what thing was there before it was taken away.
Nothing is not an observable thing that can be described. It can only be described as "not anything" and that does not imply a thing.

Now there is this.
There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics
Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explains why nothing is really something.

Lawrence Krauss; "Nothing’s just not what to used to be."
(note the omission of "it" in that sentence.)

But then we end up with the contradiction of an infinite universe that had a beginning.

Nothing is indescribable, there is no such thing as NOTHING. You cannot be scientifically dishonest about this.

"nothing" is a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.
That is the only accurate philosophical description of the term.

 

[arfa brane]

Is there a semantic nothing? What does that question even mean?

Can you allow a semi-nothing or a quasi-nothing?

Mathematical nothing has to be carefully defined--a vanishing product in some equation--you have scalar nothing and you have the zero vector, which is nothing with a bit more to it. Nothing, or zero, has to exist, ergo it is mathematically a thing. It's a semantic paradox, but we can still live with something being nothing.

 

[Write4U]

which is nothing with a bit more to it

"nothing with a bit more to it" is an anthropomorphic scientific "sleight of hand"

"More than nothing" is not "nothing with a bit more". I don't buy it. It is not mathematical.