Universal Constant -Science and philosophy collide

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 21, 2009.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Logically there can only be one universal constant underpinning all other apparently different constants, or so the proposition this thread will offer for discussion.

    Philosophy:
    In all discusions regarding objectivity and subjectivity only one factor remains constant and cannot be prejudiced in any way.
    That constant is "zero", "nothingness". On ecan ask is zero subjective or objective if considered as it must be considered as absolute?

    Physics:
    The only non-value that can be considered as constant in all circumstances is zero. Regardless of it's use it is not open to variation nor subjective valuation. It is also as with philosophy absolute in it's use and meanning.

    Therefore one could conclude that if one wished to find the mechanism that underpins universal constants one only needs to look for .....you guessed it "nothing"or "zero".

    So how does one find something that doesn't exist?
    Answer: By finding everything that does. [ deductive reasoning]

    Ages ago at this forum I ran a thread titled:
    "The value of everything is zero"
    And proposed that gravity is maintained as a force universally as constant becasue it is essentially generated by the same non-enitity that being zero or in physics what has been typically referred to as the "God particle"or "Higgs boson".
    This particle not being able to be found because it only exists by default of everything else as an inverse force that generates the attraction of gravity.

    Logically this nothing particle must exist as the only constant and in an ocean of substance zero can be considered as the most pervasive force with tangible effects that can possible exist. In fact it can only exist by it's effects and not it's substance [ aka religious arguement regardling the existance of God]

    In logic I believe this to be true and have yet to find reason to believe other wise.

    The purpose of this thread is to find reason to logically debunk the notion that the universal mechanism that underpins all constants is in fact a non-existant non-entity called zero.

    care to discuss?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    I tried to propose something like this ages ago....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Hey QQ,

    I understand what you're trying to get at here but, for the most part, I think this issue is nothing more than a semantic fabrication:

    This is nothing (no pun..) but a result of our linguistic tendency towards ideational opposition. It is helpful for us to organize our thoughts in a number of relational ways: opposition is one of them.
    The interesting thing is, we tend to Identify (create..) an opposition even when one may not in fact exist (see, for example, light and dark).
    The important thing to note here is that any contrary pair are necessarily bound: without the opposite, the one has no meaning.

    So, I would say to you that if anything is to be the 'primary universal constant' it would have to be this relation, and not any of its attendant instantiations.

    (Although, I must say that the notion of a 'primary universal constant' is somewhat silly, at least, ontologically speaking. What we're really talking about here are human mental conceptualizations.....)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I am in a restaurant at present sneeking a view of your post but I find it interesting and with significant merit..Shall take it in a post more later....
     
  8. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Aaah.. to be in a restaurant reading philosophy... right on.

    I'm at home, near drunk, and up too late... lol
     
  9. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    Zero is constant because rest of the numbers are human invention like words. The easiest relation i can think of it would be our fingers; and the 10 of them lead us into adopting a number system based on 10.


    Everything in this world can be deducted back to 0 and 1(or a state of something) or plotted in a map as B&W pattern. But then tats my belief and i haven't cared to think about it any further for few years.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    yes this is heading in the right direction IMO.

    Zero however is not just a non-value number in fact strictly speaking it isn't a number at all. More a lack of value or numbers. I am sure some math guy will come in and pass on a little math insight as to whether zero is a number or not.

    I propose though that zero is the only "thing" or no-thing that can be considered universally constant in it's non-value or absense of value.

    And in response to Glaucons' post it is certainly more than just mental semantics or gymnastics.
    Zero has a very real effect on everthing but ONLY by default and not directly.

    If one considers a hypothetical absolute zero vacuum of infinitely low pressure then this infinitely low pressure would be a considerable force or more precisely and inverse force. [ thus the inverse square rule for gravity - inverse force = inverse square rule]
     
  11. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    The word "constant," as in a numerical constant such as pi, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

    Also you are mixing meanings of "constant." A numerical constant is not the same as something remaining constant.

    0, as a number does have a specific fixed value. But so does every other natural number. It is no more special than 1 or 687298473.

    "Nothing" and "0" are not synonyms. Also, like "constant," nothing has several different meanings. My favorite example of this is:

    Nothing is better than god.
    Half a sandwich is better than nothing.
    Therefore, half a sandwich is better than god.

    Finally philosophy and physics deal with issues that are not necessarily related in any significant manner. Thus even if philosophy and physics happen to use the same word in a description, it is necessary to show that the same intent and context frame that word's meaning.
     
  12. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    I disagree. Ever read schroadingers cat? Basically an analogy sharing the observer is a part of the experiment, that nothing is isolated. It can be proven that nothing 'exists' that is separate. So a zero, is not a 'nothing' as without something you could not even consider a zero.
    Or rather ONE.

    Nothing can be measured without points. You cannot go to B without an A.

    No measurement can exists without time. So the existence is relative from a point greater than zero, not of nothing or absolute zero.

    Such as there is NO vacuum. No where in existence can a vacuum be performed. That is the clear proof most do not realize. That reality, is one method of realizing that 'c' is impossible to prove absolute unless t<0. (predetermined) (that idea hurts most trying to capture reality)

    that no where in existence is there an absolute void ever, otherwise 'it' does not exist

    no where in the universe is there a vacuum between 2 points.

    that is the logic to remove the zero from meauring a system.

    If it exists, it is of ONE. (greater than zero, all cases)

    Please, prove me wrong!
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Bishadi, you have abeit inadvertently proved my point quite well...Thanks.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    also you need to prove distance exits with out time as well...
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Bishadi, let me ask you this ;
    How is it that matter regardless of separating distances retaines the esame universal gravitational constant?
    How is it that masses regardless of distance of separation share the same inertia?
    How is it that the laws of physics apply universally? If not for the use of a single constant that is absolute.?
    Any thoughts would be welcome
     
  16. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Yeah I could elaborate a bit on this and I think it would be important considering my past attempts to elaborate in a certain thread, well in this one its confusing but I think that it would be helpful because it would clarify the issue.

    Mental configurations etc, that is what is attempted in many dicussions. People ask questions about the nature of things and attempt to use their own perpectives as some validation of the truth. When saying for example "god exists, and therefore I know this is true." it is a statement of anger or a statement of expression which validates their truth.

    Subjective or objective zero is that constant I would agree.

    Yea by finding everything that exists you'd render everything pretty pointless, and that could be what philosophy is in a sense.
    Which pretty much covers reason behind what I'd wanted to say.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Now, to your post Glaucon,

    Exactly thus making it almost impossible to discuss. Absolute zero has no meaning unless it is relational. Yet to be relational means that it is no longer absolute. Thus unconsciousness [ oblivion ] is relational to consciousness unless of course you never wake up....[aka death]

    Take all the matter out of this universe of ours and what do you have left?

    A single non-opposite.... the nonexistance of zero.

    there is nothing ontologically silly about unconsciousness nor the notion of a single universal constant providing the "coherancy off all universal pheno and laws. To establish a TOE one must include consciousness in that theory and absolute zero is the only way...or so it is proposed by this thread. It is the only thing that is common between life or animated matter and inanimated matter that holds true in all circumstances.

    Absolute nothingess is unable to be relative and is not a pole of two opposites.

    I would think even in Math zero is not considered as a pole but more a datum line between two extremes of positive and negative.


    Show how zero is a pole of two extremes....if you can.?
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2009
  18. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    QQ,

    Just some quick thoughts:


    And yet we are..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Agreed.

    I fail to see how this is so.
    There's nothing wrong with a relation being called absolute...
    (Although, I must say, even the concept of "absolute" is highly problematic in and of itself...)


    I would say it's always relational. The question is one of perspective. Naturally if it's you who are dead, it can't seem to be relational, but to those who knew you, it is.


    Not nothing.
    What you have is the absence of what was.


    Methinks you're confusing nothingness with zero.
    (More on this following...)


    I don't see the relevance of zero with respect to consciousness....


    Interesting. I agree with you on the misguided notion of polarity (or any binary/dichotomous relationship).
    I would say that it cannot not be relative.
    Thus, the difference between nothingness and zero.
    Zero, as you point out, is not merely a contrary notion:

    It cannot.

    However, unlike zero, nothingness is no more than a conceptual curio of the mind.

    Again, I think the major problem overall here is this notion of absolute.
    This concept itself must be tackled if there is any headway to be made when it is involved.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Glaucon,
    2 questions:
    Would you consider unconsciousness to be a state of conscious zero?

    If not why not?

    Also at what point does zero become anything other than zero?
     
  20. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    actually its not " nothing " that is absolute or zero

    it is the very question itself


    actually I disagree

    is not physics based on the reality of the physicalness of things

    existence

    we can't even have a discussion of the constant of zero without the constant of physical existence

    totally

    erroneous

    the properties that everything has is fundamentally ;

    space> a place to manifest > breadth , expansion > depth , height and movement

    or everything is three dimensional
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2009
  21. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    the opposite of something

    is nothing

    it has no space , breadth , depth and movement
     
  22. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    so how then do you find nothing ?

    you can't

    beause nothing never can or could exist

    inotherwords nothing has NO potential to become anything for infinity
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    flame away by all means....




    your opinion has been made redundant by your opening remarks. Think again...
     

Share This Page