# Can you completely destory one of the three dimensions of breadth,lenght and depth?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by river, Jun 29, 2017.

1. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,018
But it isn't convenient to separate out zero from the other numbers - which is why nobody but you seems to do it.

2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,091
I am only going by the true definition of the a priori fundamental value of zero, from Webster;
Such as zero Kelvin.
I realize that it is used in other applications, but those uses are relative for practicality.
0 C = 273.15 K, but when using it a thermometer denotes a temperature which produces a state of change in H2O from liquid into a solid. But that is 273.15 K removed from a true zero temperature. It's convenient, but not a true measurement of the value of temperature which begins @ 0 K (the absence of any temperature value)
Again from Webster;

Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. ### river

Messages:
9,791
So why is this relevant to the OP ?

6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,091
Don't ask me, see post # 181 and 196

Last edited: Aug 15, 2017

Messages:
5,091
9. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,018
Webster is wrong, as demonstrated in this thread. Zero is a position on a scale of values. It can be placed at any position on that scale, depending on the application. It definitely does have a value.
All numbers are relative for practicality.
0 K is not the absence of any temperature value. It is a measure of the kinetic energy, like any other temperature.

10. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,091
I am only going by the true definition of the a priori fundamental value of zero, from Webster;

Go argue that with Webster's and International System of Units (SI)

Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
11. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
I do not dispute your generalist statement about relative aspects of numbers..but

0 K in its true meaning is much more than that. It is zero in true sense, if you change the scale like you are suggesting, and make 0 K as 100 K, then I am afraid anything below 100 K will be devoid of any physics.

Write4U likes this.
12. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,018
Webster only talks about the general usage of the word, not the meaning used by science and mathematics.

Again, the fact that a given real quantity can be represented by either 0 or 32 indicates that the numbers 0 and 32 are both legitimate values.

13. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,018
No, it is one specific case, not a general "true meaning".

14. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,091
That's double speak. and completely arbitrarily relative assumptions. The mathematical value of zero is by its a priori state, is always less than any comparative value of anything.
It just makes the existence of something possible, but it has no causal value, it is merely probabilistically permittive timeless condition..

15. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
Ok, what is (- 2 K) then. Or for that matter what is T < 0 K signifies?

16. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,091
Yes, and when we have no kinetic or any other kind of energy, then we have a state of zero, including temperature.

Any temperature is a degree of warmth, starting at zero K. There is no -1 K. Zero, a cardinal number without value.
0 K is the baseline of all possible measurable states of temperature and therefore also the baseline of kinetic or any other kind of energy which has a causal thermodynamic effect, always in the direction of warmer relative to
pure cold @ 0 K........

17. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,018
Obviously false. Zero is more than any negative number.

Messages:
3,018
Undefined.

19. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,018
Zero is not a "state". It's a measure of the state. The state still exists even if it measures zero.

20. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,091
A state of nothingness, per definition. If we were to use temperature as a dimension of energetic spacetime, then we cannot ever get to 0 Kelvin as long as there is thermodynamic activity. Zero Kelvin is the absence of any kind of physical energy (which creates heat)

21. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,018
But zero and nothing are not the same. I thought you understood that.

22. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,642
This is a bit silly, isn't it?

Zero is obviously a number, because it can be used to answer questions that are answered using numbers.

"How many bananas do you have?"
"Seventeen."
"Zero."

Obviously, 17 and 0 are fundamentally alike in terms of what they are.

Zero is a number, not a place holder for the absence of some other thing.

23. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,091
With all due respect, I must disagree.
The first answers indicates the possession of 17 bananas
The second answer indicates the absence of possession of any bananas.

Zero bananas is not a number of bananas, it is the absence of bananas. I am not disputing that zero is a number. In fact it is a Cardinal number, but it has no value in and of itself as indicated on the chart of Cardinal numbers.

On the chart it shows the value of zero as a blank space, i.e. the absence of value, and confirmed by the definition in Webster dictionary.
a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity

However, it does also qualify that zero may be used for various applications.
6 : something arbitrarily or conveniently designated zero

Does that not sufficiently answer all other arguments?

Last edited: Aug 18, 2017