# Dimensions

When you look at nothing you cannot tell what thing was there before it was taken away.
"What" thing is irrelevant. We don't even know if there was ever "any" thing there.
There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics
*shrug* You're really stretching.
"nothing" is a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.
That is the only accurate philosophical description of the term.
*shrug* Who cares about an "accurate philosophical description"?

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up:

All... I... am... saying... is... that... zero... is... not... nothing.

Zero is a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity. Nothing is not a number. Nothing is not symbolic. And nothing is not a quantity.

Zero is a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity. Nothing is not a number. Nothing is not symbolic. And nothing is not a quantity.
So then what IS zero?
So far you can only tell what it is NOT. Do tell me what it is if zero is not the mathematical symbol for "no thing".

So then what IS zero?
So far you can only tell what it is NOT. Do tell me what it is if zero is not the mathematical symbol for "no thing".
Wrong. What he said is: "Zero is a number".

Clearly it is is not "the mathematical symbol for no thing". A couple of simple examples should make this clear:

- A temperature of zero degrees Celsius.

- A velocity of zero with respect to the Moon.

So then what IS zero?
Zero is a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity.
Do tell me what it is if zero is not the mathematical symbol for "no thing".
I don't know of any mathematical symbol for "no thing". "No thing" is not a precise description.

Wrong. What he said is: "Zero is a number".
Clearly it is not "the mathematical symbol for no thing". A couple of simple examples should make this clear:
- A temperature of zero degrees Celsius.-
A scientific human "sleight of hand" to mark the point at which water freezes. Compared to "absolute zero", zero is warm. In nature "freezing point" is variable depending on the physics and the term zero is a meaningless expression in nature.
- A velocity of zero with respect to the Moon.-
And that translates into the absence of relative velocity. Actual velocity is greater than zero. All anthropomorphizations.
Nothing to do with the definition of zero as the "absence" of any value.
Zero is a number, a symbolic representation of a quantity.
No, it is a symbolic representation of absence of quantity or value.
I don't know of any mathematical symbol for "no thing". "No thing" is not a precise description.
I gave it to you. It is the symbol for "null".
having no legal or binding force; invalid.

1. Similar: invalid, null and void, void
Opposite: valid

2. 2.
having or associated with the value zero.
1. ELECTRONICS
1. combine (a signal) with another in order to create a null; cancel out.
Null sign; "{}"

Description

The null sign is often used in mathematics for denoting the empty set. The same letter in linguistics represents zero, the lack of an element. It is commonly used in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Wikipedia

I am not arguing that zero is a useless symbol. But mathematically zero means "no value" (absence of value).

As far as this dynamic universe is concerned it has no zero state. Everything within this universe has a value. Bohm proposed that a cubic centimeter of empty space contains lots of energy. And energy has inherent value (potential) that obeys specific mathematical guiding equations. Never nothing.

The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space!
Michael Talbot and David Bohm (in quotes) in Talbot's The Holographic Universe, Chapter 2: The Cosmos as Hologram, p.51
According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths. Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe!
Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small "pattern of excitation" in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean. "This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation," states Bohm.[12]
In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself, but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something, but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things.
https://jacobsm.com/deoxy/deoxy.org/h_bohm.htm

Inside the universe, there is always something, an interactive value, however small that may be.

Outside the universe, there is nothing, a spaceless, timeless, dimensionless permittive condition.

Last edited:
No, it is a symbolic representation of absence of quantity or value.
How is the freezing point of water the absence of something?

How is the freezing point of water the absence of something?
It isn't and that's why the assignment of the term zero is purely for human convenience.
It is an arbitrary differential equation between the emergent properties of H2O depending on temperature.
Absolute zero is minus 273 degrees Celsius and minus 460 degrees Fahrenheit.
Zero Celsius is 273 degrees Kelvin and 460 degrees Fahrenheit and you claim that it has properties. Why does everything have to be anthropomorphized?

Is it impossible to talk objectively about the way natural processes rest on extant "relational properties" and generic "mathematical functions".

Difference Between Zero and Nothing
Zero vs Nothing
The differences between zero and nothing are critical. Many civilizations could not solve tricky calculations due to their ignorance towards the magical figure of zero.
“Zero” is considered to be a number while “nothing” is considered to be an empty or null set.
I am talking about "nothing" as a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition. Zero is a human invented symbolic variable.
Zero has a numeric value of “0.” Zero is a numerical digit as well as a number and is used to denote that number in numerical values. It has a vital role in all branches of science and mathematics as identification of real numbers, integers, and other algebraic formations. In the place value system, it is used as a placeholder. A zero placed after a number increases its value.
However, “nothing” is only a concept depicting a void or absence of anything relevant. It does not have any value.
The difference between zero and nothing may be clarified using an example. Imagine there are two students “A” and “B” in a class. In a mathematics examination of 100 points, “A” is the student who attends class and appeared for the examination, and “B” is the student who neither attended the class nor appeared for the examination. The fact that “B” got zero points is irrelevant and means nothing while zero for “A” means an actual zero.

The OP talks about dimensions, not symbolic numbers like zero with variable meanings.

Last edited:
It isn't and that's why the assignment of the term zero is purely for human convenience.
It is an arbitrary differential equation between the emergent properties of H2O depending on temperature.
Absolute zero is minus 273 degrees Celsius and minus 460 degrees Fahrenheit.
Zero Celsius is 273 degrees Kelvin and 460 degrees Fahrenheit and you claim that it has properties. Why does everything have to be anthropomorphized?

Is it impossible to talk objectively about the way natural processes rest on extant "relational properties" and generic "mathematical functions".

Difference Between Zero and Nothing
Zero vs Nothing
I am talking about "nothing" as a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition. Zero is a human invented symbolic variable.

The OP talks about dimensions, not symbolic numbers like zero with variable meanings.
You have no idea what a differential equation is.

I'm not sure if INTELLIGENCE is still visiting us. Anyhoo...
For string theory and many other equations to work it requires extra dimensions all of which are "smaller"

But are there dimensions which are larger? What would a dimension outside our macro be called and do we have any representations or equations to express what that might be?
We have to deal with what we see. Our three familiar spatial dimensions are very large, maybe even infinite. If there are additional spatial dimensions, they must be too small to see. One way to ensure that, in string theory or whatever, is to make sure the extra dimensions are "curled up".
Aren't we somewhere in middle like the visible spectrum is on the EM representation?
The EM spectrum is not about dimensions. EM radiation can have any wavelength you like, for instance, ranging from zero to infinity, conceptually. It turns out that the light we see has wavelengths in the range 400 to 700 nanometres. At smaller wavelengths we get UV light, then x-rays, then gamma rays. At larger wavelengths we get infrared light, then microwaves, then radio waves. That's the full spectrum, from zero to infinity. Visible light is not "in the middle" on this spectrum, as you can see. A radio wave with a wavelength of 1 million kilometres is much further away, in terms of wavelength, from the visible range than a gamma ray with a wavelength of 7 femtometers.

imo, 0 is a dimensionless, timeless, permittive state or condition.
No. Zero is just a number.

Is it exactly halfway? Why? Is there a proof?
Yes. To find the half way point between two values, we average them.

For instance, 6 is half way between 4 and 8 because (8+4)/2=6.

Zero is half way between -1 and 1 because (1 + (-1))/2 = 0.

Last edited:
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.
0 / 0 = 0
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.
Are we Gods?
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.
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.
"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.

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 that prohibits something from occurring.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I just read that the term "permittive" applies specifically to Electric transmission, which is another scientific convenience. Permittive should be a generic term, but alas.

So to make it easier let's use the term "mathematically permissive".

Without time or dimension, spacetime geometry and its mathematical permissions and restrictions does not exist and will allow the emergence of anything. It is a permissive condition.
It is what allows the expansion of the universe itself.
Define "dynamic value". That term is not found in my mathematics textbooks.
Look at some computer programming books.
Infinity cannot have a beginning. Infinity is a timeless dimensionless 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.
I agree, but a condition is not a thing. A condition is an abstract quality and has no physical existence just as nothing is an abstract permissive condition.
What does condition mean in philosophy?
condition, in logic, a stipulation, or provision, that needs to be satisfied. Brittanica

I don't buy it. It is not mathematical.
Yeah it is. Zero is a useful element of a matrix. 0-1 matrices are useful.
Hell, so is the general linear group.

the assignment of the term zero is purely for human convenience.
*shrug* ALL words are for human convenience.
Zero Celsius is 273 degrees Kelvin and 460 degrees Fahrenheit and you claim that it has properties.
Where did I claim that?
I am talking about "nothing" as a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition.
So what? Your own quotes agree with me and disagree with you:
The differences between zero and nothing are critical. Many civilizations could not solve tricky calculations due to their ignorance towards the magical figure of zero.
“Zero” is considered to be a number while “nothing” is considered to be an empty or null set.​
That's what I've been saying all along.

Yeah it is. Zero is a useful element of a matrix. 0-1 matrices are useful.
Hell, so is the general linear group.
Only for humans. Nature's generic mathematics don't quite work that way.
Nature does not do theory. It does "function" only.

*shrug* ALL words are for human convenience.

Where did I claim that?

So what? Your own quotes agree with me and disagree with you:
The differences between zero and nothing are critical. Many civilizations could not solve tricky calculations due to their ignorance towards the magical figure of zero.
“Zero” is considered to be a number while “nothing” is considered to be an empty or null set.​
That's what I've been saying all along.
In human theory. Not in reality.

In human theory. Not in reality.
I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

You said, "Zero Celsius is 273 degrees Kelvin and 460 degrees Fahrenheit and you claim that it has properties." and I asked you where I said that. I'm waiting for an answer.
In human theory. Not in reality.
Human theory is all we know about reality.

Only for humans. Nature's generic mathematics don't quite work that way.
Nature does not do theory. It does "function" only.
I think you're engaging in hubristic sentiment. But that aside, there are relations between things in Nature, relations aren't always functions.
You even say that yourself.

I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

You said, "Zero Celsius is 273 degrees Kelvin and 460 degrees Fahrenheit and you claim that it has properties." and I asked you where I said that. I'm waiting for an answer.
I said that to show that the term zero, while it is defined as having no value, is used in human theory as a variable place setting.
Human theory is all we know about reality.
But that does not mean human theory IS reality.
I think you're engaging in hubristic sentiment.
How so? I am the one accusing science of hubris by anthropomorphizing natural phenomena that only function in a generic mathematical way and "know" nothing about about differential theory. This is fundamentally the same problem as with SR.
But that aside, there are relations between things in Nature, relations aren't always functions. You even say that yourself.
Where did I say that?
I often posit my perspective that Nature processes "relational values via generic mathematical functions". IMO any relational interaction is via a function, no?

You are interpreting this as nature using zero in the same way as humans do in theory.
Can you clarify this objectively and logically how nature would process the value of zero with a mathematical function?