Nothing from Something?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Nothingness is defined as 1) the condition or quality of being nothing; nonexistence. 2) empty space; a void. The American Heritage College Dictionary (3d Ed. 1993). Notice that the definition includes the word "quality", i.e. property, and the phrase "empty space". Your denial that nothingness has properties and that empty space is not nothingness flies in the face of the definition of nothingness itself. Take note that there is nothing in the definition of nothingness that claims that nothingness cannot exist. You are making up your own definition of nothingness, I'm afraid.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Like I said nothingness is not a very usable word. People use it for all kinds of shit.
    Pick "nonexistence" from the first definition.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Read what I said. Existence is not a property. If you don't understand that or can't refute it, give up. A unicoprn has properties. If you found a real unicorn its properties would not change; you would simply have confirmed its existence. Is that so difficult to understand ?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    You do not understand the definition. Nothingness is non-existence. The " "is" is not a property; it's a statement of non -existence and nothing more.

    You are wrong to take " quality" for a property in this instance. Compilers of dictionaries not unreasonably expect people who use their products to have some degree of understanding of the language. Many concepts cannot be expressed other than in sentences because they cannot be defined in a word or two.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2008
  8. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    And I said that the ability of zero to co-exist with another zero is a property. By your way of thinking, 0+0 could not exist. Well, it does in math.
     
  9. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    I can't be bothered withy ou any longer. You are changing your ground. You originally said existence is a property and I said it is not. By my way of thinking, you can write as many zeros and plus signs as you please but don't tell us that existence is a property; it is not. In addition , something which does not exist, i.e., nothing , can not be said to have propereties, as you have repeatedly been told.
     
  10. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    You are quite incorrect. The Additive Property of Zero states that no matter what number x represents, x + 0=x. If x=0, then 0+0=0. This shows that zero's ability to co-exist side by side with another zero to which it is added is, in fact, a property of zero, i.e. the Additive Property of Zero. See http://books.google.com/books?id=G7...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
     
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    John, you are right !
    How could I have been so blind..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Of course the universe comes from nothingness..

    Everyone else, please agree with him.
     
  12. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    I am glad you agree that zero indeed does have the property of being able to co-exist side by side with another zero to which it is added.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    All numbers have that property, that they can be added. That's what a field is, harking back to my first post in this thread.

    So far you've shown you don't understand maths or physics and all you can do to back out of that is say "It's an analogy!!" as if that makes you right. Where have you shown you actually know anything about maths or physics? Your entire stance revolves around "It's an analogy!" and "If you can't answer the question, my attempt at an answer is better!". Both sound an awful lot like the two Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked on my door yesterday morning and tried to talk me out of my 'faith in science'.

    They, like you, didn't succeed.
     
  14. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    No, not all numbers have that property. Only zero has that property. You can't take, for example, number 1, and add number 1 to any other number x, and end up with x.
    I am not a mathematician, nor a physicist. I am a philosopher. However, I did indeed take advanced courses in mathematics and physics in college, so I do have a basic understanding of both fields.
     
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    In modulo arithmetic you have that x+n = x modulo n.

    And what about multiplication? 1*1 = 1, just like 0*0 = 0. Wooooow, it's like magic man!
    An example of 'a little knowledge is a dangerou thing'. So you know basic algebra and now you think you can explain the beginnings of space-time, quantum field theory and relativity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    So what? The point is that zero has the very property I claimed it had from the beginning. And now, I guess you agree. However, if you would like to point out how my theory is inconsistent with space-time, quantum field theory and relativity, I am all ears.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Noone disagrees with 0+0=0. Find me a post where myself or CptBork has said otherwise.

    And besides, it's not your claim, it's a defining property someone else developed.
    What theory? You have no working model, no derivations, no results, no predictions, no workings, you have a result you hardly understand yourself, 0+0=0, and from that you have assigned all kinds of meanings and significances to the equation which it doesn't actually have. QFT and relativity make use of 0+0=0 but it doesn't mean that they are derivable from 0+0=0 or that 0+0=0 has ANY physical meaning at all. The mathematical equation 0+0=0 has no physical meaning at all.

    If you have a theory, an actual working theory, then I would like to see you derive, from your founding postulate(s) how to compute the precesion of the orbit of Mercury, thus showing your theory is able to explain relativity.
     
  18. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    I will agree if someone can explain one thing that puzzles me. Are some nothings ( 0s ) bigger or smaller than others ?
     
  19. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Apparently lol
    I kinda wasn't being serious though..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I thought that if everyone just agrees with his nonsense the thread will die.
     
  20. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    You are totally confused. Zero ,0, is a symbol and ,as such it can be said to have properties. Nothing is, as the word says, no thing ,so it does not exist. How do you describe the properties of somethng which does not exist ?

    You have still not come to terms with my statement that existence is not a property. To say that a black cat exists does not change the properties of the cat. It is simply a statement that the cat "is".
     
  21. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    So, am I to understand that you cannot find any inconsistency between my theory and space-time, relativity or quantum field theory? As for whether my theory can make predictions, it does predict an interaction between space and matter. And we all know, that Einstein's theory that matter warps space has been proven by light bending around the Sun.
     
  22. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Yes.
     
  23. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Well, that seems to be the crux of the problem. You say nothingness doesn't exist. I say nothingness does exist, and due to its existence, multiple nothings exists, and due to the existence of multiple nothings and their collissions, matter exists. This seems to be a point of philosophy - not science, i.e. whether nothingness exists. It seems to me that nothingness has a far better claim to existing than somethingness. After all, why should there be anything at all? In light of the fact that something does exist, but nothingness has a much better claim for existence, the natural conclusion is that somethingness came from nothingness. Given the fact the science has failed to explain the existence of somethingness, regardless of how complicated its theories can get, that's pretty good evidence that somethingness came from nothingness.
    I've already proven to you that zero has an additive property, and that property supports my analogy to 0+0=0. Your argument that existence itself is not a property is just a reformulation of your argument that nothingness itself doesn't exist. Well, I disagree, and I doubt anything you know about science or mathematics can prove nothingness does not exist.
     

Share This Page