philosophy of 0+0
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
yes i know. thats why i said it is worthwhile because you said it was pointless.
it is far from devoid of meaning, it means the universe is infinite and it has always been.
if you do not see any meaning or point then you are free to leave the debate at any given time.
peace.
it is far from devoid of meaning, it means the universe is infinite and it has always been.
if you do not see any meaning or point then you are free to leave the debate at any given time.
peace.
You can still have something. If I had a car with 0 mechanics in it, and you had a car with 0 mechanics and we decided to pool our resources, forming a company selling old wrecks, we would have 2 cars with 0 mechanics (this is just a simple example, I'm sure there's some mathematical formula to prove you wrong).
now back to the topic at hand, before this is debunked to an argument rather than a debate.
0+0=0
infinity and beyond.
peace.
0+0=0
infinity and beyond.
peace.
your missing the point,
put it this way, if i dont have a car, and you dont have a car, and i dont have myself, and you dont have yourself, then how are you going to make a car? let alone 2 of them.
0 is 0 not something.
peace.
put it this way, if i dont have a car, and you dont have a car, and i dont have myself, and you dont have yourself, then how are you going to make a car? let alone 2 of them.
0 is 0 not something.
peace.
Contrariness in the face of logic for no reason?
What a surprise...
No, it is meaningless.
non sequitor.
Provide an argument to support this position.
Of course I am.
But there can be no discussion (this is not a debate) without structure.
..is a fantasy
im sure there is a mathematical formula to prove me wrong also, and i would like to see it as much as you, but im sorry i havent found it and have been looking, no matter how hard you squeeze a rock you wont get blood.
im sure if you try hard enough you will succeed,
good luck.
peace.
im sure if you try hard enough you will succeed,
good luck.
peace.
If zero is not something, then it's impossible to add it to zero, so your original question is meaningless.
picking apart my posts to try and take notice away from the matter at hand will not work with me,
if i continue this it will debunk my post, so ok you are right everything you saiid is correct, happy?.
0+0=0 therefore the universe is infinite because you cannot make something out of nothing,
peace.
if i continue this it will debunk my post, so ok you are right everything you saiid is correct, happy?.
0+0=0 therefore the universe is infinite because you cannot make something out of nothing,
peace.
if i understand you correctly wich i think i maybe do,
then 0+0=0,
so you agree you cannot get something out of nothing?
peace.
then 0+0=0,
so you agree you cannot get something out of nothing?
peace.
there was never a counter argument given for my original for me to challenge in debate,
the universe is infinite, because if we have 0 atoms 0 energy 0 particles and 0 mass,
there can be nothing in existence to bring anything else into existence, energy is transformed from 1 form into another, break it down to an atomic level and you will find that if you have 0 amounts of everything, then you cannot ever have anything atall,
if you say that something can come from nothing, then i suggest you prove it in an experiment, and show us how you created something from nothing,
and you cannot ask me to prove a negative, i am asking you to prove a positive though,
peace.
the universe is infinite, because if we have 0 atoms 0 energy 0 particles and 0 mass,
there can be nothing in existence to bring anything else into existence, energy is transformed from 1 form into another, break it down to an atomic level and you will find that if you have 0 amounts of everything, then you cannot ever have anything atall,
if you say that something can come from nothing, then i suggest you prove it in an experiment, and show us how you created something from nothing,
and you cannot ask me to prove a negative, i am asking you to prove a positive though,
peace.
i detect that your sense of humour systems are malfunctioning,
peace.
peace.
Ok, zero is zero, no more, no less...nothing, zilch. Point?
my point is that 0+0=0 so non existence+non existence= non existence,
but we have existence, so there must have always been something in existence,
peace.
but we have existence, so there must have always been something in existence,
peace.
Correct. As I said, this is not debate, this is discussion. You are the one making a claim. That being the case, the onus is on you to support your claim in the face of any criticism. Sorry, but that's how things work.
Again, your conclusion doesn't follow.
Simply because you can't account for the generation of energy from a purported 0 energy beginning, it doesn't follow that there then must have been a non-0 energy beginning.
You're assuming a dichotomous and mutually exclusive relationship.
Basically, you're simply saying that since A does exist, there must have always been A.
Fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
You may be overlooking the fact that in its simplest form, in mathematics, zero is merely an arbitrary number invented to define the lowest non-negative interger below 1.
In chemistry, zero can have other implications and meanings. When energy tranforms from one form to another it may pass through a zero point, but in this case, zero does not mean, nothing.
In chemistry, zero can have other implications and meanings. When energy tranforms from one form to another it may pass through a zero point, but in this case, zero does not mean, nothing.
Exactly; nothing but a scalar reference.
In this particular manifestation of this thread (as I know you're aware, EFOC has this going on in 3 forums..) I was sticking particularly to the philosophical angles of his vapid position.