Write4U:
OK, prove that "nothing is permittive of everything" is mathematically false.
Define your terms, first. What does it mean for something to be "permittive of everything"? Give me an example of something that is permittive of everything.
Nothing is permittive of everything, there are no mathematical restrictions in nothing.
You speak as if "nothing" is something. How can there be any thing "in nothing"?
A description is an equation.
No.
Look, it's very simple. An equation is a mathematical statement that contains an "equals" sign. To spot an equation, just look for the "=" symbol. If you can't find one, then you're not looking at an equation.
No. 0/0 is usually regarded as undefined or indeterminate.
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.
Define "dynamic value". That term is not found in my mathematics textbooks.
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.
What is "natural generic maths"? What is "human symbolic maths"?
Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
AFAIK, a negative physical value cannot exist in Nature?
What is a "physical value"? Please give an example of a "physical value".
Is an anti-particle less than zero?
Is an anti-particle a number? If not, then it makes no sense to compare it to zero, which is a number.
You seem to have got yourself all tied up in confused knots again. It can often be a good idea to try to pin down the definitions of things before you try to start talking about them. Otherwise, you risk ending up talking nonsense that nobody else can make any sense of.
Give me one example of some thing in nature that can be represented by "zero" or "nothing".
I guess you could
represent anything by "zero". The map and the territory are different things. I can represent myself by the colour red and you by the colour blue. That doesn't make me blue or you red, because these are just representations. Understand?
Or even as in between a positive and a negative "generic value" or "potential".
Define "generic value". Define "potential".
(Haven't I previously schooled you on the usual meaning of "potential" in physics? Maybe not. Maybe we should discuss that concept.)
The bottom line is that zero is a human symbolic representation and does not exist in nature.
Do numbers exist in nature? If you think they do, then it follows that zero exists in nature, because zero is a number. If you think they don't, then I suppose you're right.
Your "mathematical universe" religion demands that you accept that numbers (and the rest of mathematics) exist in nature, does it not? Have I got it wrong?
Nature does not deal with numbers, it deals with generic relational values (potentials). See Potential Theory.
Define "generic relational value" or "potential", please.
On further research, I may have been using the term "generic value" somewhat incorrectly.
Please define how you are using it now.
Perhaps the term "generic mathematical properties " is more appropriate in context of the premise.
What is a generic mathematical property? What non-generic mathematical properties are there? How are generic properties distinguished from non-generic ones? Please give some examples.
And you, after all, trying to wrench things round to your "special relativity universe" religion, right?
Special Relativity is a physical theory, not a religion.
AFAIK, SR is a mathematical concept and represented with mathematical symbols, no?
It's a scientific theory. It uses mathematics to make quantitative predictions. This is common for theories in the physical sciences.
Belief in SR must be a religious practice.
Belief in science is evidence-based, not faith based. That's what makes science different from religion.
Do you avail yourself of mathematics ? Then mathematics must be your religion also, no?
That would depend on whether one's beliefs about mathematics were evidence-based (or, perhaps more appropriately, logically based or proved) or faith-based, would it not?
If mathematics is a religion are our efforts to create AI a religious practice?
Mathematics isn't a religion. It is a formal system.
Define "Gods".
Yet, it looks like even Gods must avail themselves of mathematics. Can't create anything without maths.
Who are you to tell Gods what they can and can't do?
Odd that you should affirm that the mathematical term "nothing" does not mean "nothing".
"Nothing" is not a mathematical term.
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.
Which theory?
I just have not heard a single person come up with another proposition that "solves" for all the regular order.
Which proposition are you claiming "solves" for all the regular order?
Define "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.
That would be what science aims to do, wouldn't it?
"But "nothing" DOES exist in nature.
"Nothing" is not a thing. The hint is right there in the word: nothing - "no thing".
It makes no sense to talk about the "existence" of "nothing". A not-thing cannot exist, by definition.
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.
A "non-dimensional condition" sounds like a thing. In fact, it sounds a lot like a kind of condition. Conditions are things. Nothing is not a thing.
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.
What can a timeless dimensionless condition do? How does it do it?
An infinite dimensional universe is a contradiction in terms, IMO.
Which terms are in contradiction?
When you look at nothing you cannot tell what thing was there before it was taken away.
How can you look at nothing? There's nothing to look at.
Nothing is not an observable thing that can be described.
It's an absence of things. (I just described it, didn't I?)
It can only be described as "not anything" and that does not imply a thing.
So we're now in agreement, suddenly?
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.
Krass wants to define the quantum vacuum as "nothing". That's a bit of a fudge, if you ask me.
But then we end up with the contradiction of an infinite universe that had a beginning.
What does that contradict?
"nothing" is a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.
A condition - even a "permittive condition" - sounds a lot like a thing to me, even if I don't know what sort of thing it is meant to be. Nothing is not a thing.
That is the only accurate philosophical description of the term.
Please cite a philosophy text that supports your position. A quote or two would be nice, too.
