Universal Constant -Science and philosophy collide

true, but it can be described in mathematics as zero [ if applicable ] IMO

Why do you see the distinction between zero and nothingess as being "terminal" to the notion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I had this major discussion once before about relative zero and absolute zero.

relative zero - -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
where as absolute zero is best described as: [...]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed.
There is a difference between the thing itself, and its description.

To me, the two notions are plainly different. They may cross over in scope, usually by usage (or mistaken usage), but they are not interchangeable.
'Nothingness' covers a far-ranging scope conceptually, while zero (as we know) is defined by, and only valid within, a particular ruleset.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

points taken.

A while ago I noticed how mathematics and physics rely incredibly on the reality of zero for both fields to function adequately in reality.

I asked the question:
Can mathematics prove the existance of that which it so heavilly relies upon, that being zero?

No one I asked could answer this fundamental question yet I did actually find a way to do so....

And in doing so discovered that mathematics can actually describe this notion I am proposing in this thread.

The issue is that when it comes to the philosophy of mathematics mathemetics can only be used to describe that which has substance and not that which has no substance. Hence the field of calculus was derived with the use of infinitesimals and the need to deal with infinities and notions of zero. [ Zenos paradox's ]

Therefore dawing the distinction between infinite reduction of substance and zero.

Hence we have the use of the word "infinitesimal"...the smallest size yet greater than zero.

I found that by using this process one could show absolute zero or absolute nothingness by default and not directly [ default = deductive reasoning]

In doing so the underpinning constant that entangles the entire universe can be described. IMO.
Why is it a constant?
Because it is the only non-thing that is common to everything that exists regardless of dimensional space time co-ordinates. Always has no-existed and always will no-exist.


This is also supported by the simple solution to what distances exist if time = 0 [t=0] inother words distance is zero if t=0

So if t=0 absolutely nothing exists.

We then can draw a space time diagram of zero dimensionality that includes linea time. [ that being t=0 ]

In other words zero has been further qualified to include time or t=0 and not just distance.

 

sorry about all the editing

 

Very much so.
It's a critical element. Gotta love the Null Set.

Check this out; it's an excellent book: http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476

Which is why the good Mr.Leibnitz invented it (calculus that is..).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

True.
However, note that being used as such comes with restrictions: to wit, the element itself (zero, in this case) is entirely contingent upon the system in which it is designed to be used. So, strictly speaking, the approach here is on valid insofar as mathematical descriptions go, and is therefore, subject to those inherent limitations.

 

you may recall the robot analogy for objectivity thread?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89885

replace the need for radio transmission btween robots and environment with zero entanglement and see how that would extend to the metaphyical questions of objective reality.
and you will also see how zero dimensionalism also includes the human mind and perception. [ aka universal consciousnes due to universal unconsciouness]

 

What all this means is that as Bishadi has mentioned rather colorfully, everything is essentially one...... by way of entanglement, thus by being one we have the universal contant of gravity and the same applies for objective reality.
thus we can go on to derive a physical definition of that which is often referred to as God with a multiplistic volition or focus

 

entangled energy between mass, is that misunderstood phenomenon called gravity..

 

The effect of gravity IMO is dimensional collapse as 3 dimensions seek to return to zero dimension.. It is [the effect] in fact the differential between zero and distance over the inverse square.

We have in the background zero dimensional entanglement yet our mass and matter is spread over three dimensions due to the fourth [time] and all it wants to do is collapse thus gravity is always attractive to everything of substance.
energy is simply time....take out the time and we have zero.
It takes time [ energy] to resist the effect of gravity [ dimensional collapse]

 

which is why when ever you apply energy [ time - effort ] to an entangled set of half particles the entanglement is broken and replaced with the background entanglement.

 

in metaphysical terms this is why when ever you try to change or overtly influence someone elses decision you will meet resistance.
[aka self determination violations]

 

but at least you 'now' know a little more about entanglement (learning and don't even realize it)

i could care less what people think of me

either you want to comprhend or you don't

if i was concerned about me, they would no longer call the big prize 'Nobels', they would be called Bishadi ..........

just as most every religion on the globe is waiting for an idiot....... you just don't comprehend how it all comes together, just yet!

 

certainly the world is concerned about ego and blatant arrogance no doubt about it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"I don't need to know what I already know", is a famous wisdom from somewhere...not sure where but...just need to learn how to translate what I know into English....

 

would rather have people hate me and contribute real knowledge, than being the old ted haggart...... rich on money not earned, people kissing his hand.... and ending up in a hotel room with dope and a boy (he is living a complete lie).

Really think about it; folks like you make a person work harder

such as I was a man of the world 5 years back, in which a single paycheck could buy a porche or house

but a promise was made to retire and write from age 40 on.

Now i work harder (12-18hrs a day), than i ever did chasing the buck.

It is a choice.......... not for making people happy, but to be honest with myself and of thanks and 'appreciation' for being alive.

 

and self delusion

 

and what I call God consciousness....which has blown out your ego

 

speaking of work...catch ya on the lap top

 

is that like a quack trying to say zero is a constant?

perhaps that is based on the zero comprehension of reality, all ego'd up with the ideas of someones magazine column

 

Socrates was famous for that in (damn I have a good memory) the Meno.


Can we learn that which we do not know? He argued that if w ereally do not know it, then we will not be able to recognize this knowledge when we learn it. If I do not now know what 7689 times 4547 is, how can I distinguish the right answer from the wrong answer when I see it? If I can tell the right answer from the wrong one, then, Socrates insisted, in somesense I must already have known the right answer. On the basis of such an arguement, Socrates came to the conclusion that learning is impossible- that is, it is not possible to acquire true knowledge that one does not already have. Either one learns what one already knows, in which case one does not learn, or one has no way of learning anything, since one has no way of recognizing the truth of what one is trying to learn.

The significance of all this, for Socrates and Plato, was that one does nota ctually learn anytyhing new, but must have all possible knowledge within oneself, and that what we call leraning is really nothing but recollecitng true knowledge that we already have within us.

The stimulus of certain occasions, such as conversations with Socrates, only have the effect of jarring our memories, so that we become aware of something we already know.