Nothing from Something?

[John J. Bannan]

Exactly. That, and the fact that zero does not equal nothingness. It represents not anything of something.


I know you do, and you're wrong.
Nothingness, by definition, does not exist.


Sure, if I believe in your faulty and illogical premises I'd have to say I agree. But I don't.


Nothingness is just a concept, and not a very usable one at that.
It does not pertain to anything in the real world.
I'll just say it once again: Nothingness does not exist by definition, and by logic.
If you don't agree with the definition you should make clear what it exactly is you are referring to as nothingness.

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.

 

[Enmos]

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.

Like I said nothingness is not a very usable word. People use it for all kinds of shit.
Pick "nonexistence" from the first definition.

 

[Myles]

You are confusing the concepts of nothingness and multiple nothingnesses. I can imagine nothingness as a lack of anything. We can debate all you want over whether the lack of anything is itself a property. However, my theory concerns multiple nothingnesses. If nothingness alone is itself a state of existence, then surely multiple nothingnesses must be derived from that fact. In other words, to be a state of existence, there must be a boundary of existence. The boundary of existence for nothingness is what creates multiple nothingnesses.
The number zero is a symbol for the state of existence of nothingness. Once you admit the state of existence of nothingness, then you can repeat that state of existence by adding zeros together. Thus, you get the equation 0+0=0. It seems to me that your objection is that although the number zero does admit the state of existence of nothingness, you deny that nothingness in reality could have a state of existence. Am I correct in understanding your objection?
The point I am making is that in the equation 0+0=0, the singular zero can also exist as a state of multiple zeros added together. This raises the possibility that nothingness can exist in a state of multiple nothingnesses. In other words, nothingness itself becomes a state of existence from which multiple nothingnesses can arise. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether nothingness itself can exist. If it can, then nothingness can be a reference point for its own multiplication. I say nothingness itself can exist, and therefore, its state of existence is what creates the boundary that makes multiple nothingnesses possible.
We are really only arguing over whether nothingness itself can exist. I can imagine it to exist, because I can imagine a state consisting of the lack of anything. I am not sure why you don't believe nothingness could exist. The fact that nothingness alone exists is what creates multiple nothingnesses, which in turn creates matter and our existence. Indeed, our argument seems to be over whether zero exists in reality. I say it does. It isn't hard to imagine that nothingness itself exists, and because of its existence multiple nothingnesses were created which in turn created matter and the universe. In fact, I don't see how you could imagine nothingness didn't (doesn't) exist, when there is no reason to suspect that matter came from somewhere else.

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 ?

 

[Myles]

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.

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.

 

[John J. Bannan]

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 ?

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.

 

[Myles]

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.

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.

 

[John J. Bannan]

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.

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

 

[Enmos]

John, you are right !
How could I have been so blind..
Of course the universe comes from nothingness..

Everyone else, please agree with him.

 

[John J. Bannan]

John, you are right !
How could I have been so blind..
Of course the universe comes from nothingness..

Everyone else, please agree with him.

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.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

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.

 

[John J. Bannan]

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.

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.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

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!

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.

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.

 

[John J. Bannan]

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.

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.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So what? The point is that zero has the very property I claimed it had from the beginning. And now, I guess you agree.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Myles]

John, you are right !
How could I have been so blind..
Of course the universe comes from nothingness..

Everyone else, please agree with him.

I will agree if someone can explain one thing that puzzles me. Are some nothings ( 0s ) bigger or smaller than others ?

 

[Enmos]

I will agree if someone can explain one thing that puzzles me. Are some nothings ( 0s ) bigger or smaller than others ?

Apparently lol
I kinda wasn't being serious though..
I thought that if everyone just agrees with his nonsense the thread will die.

 

[Myles]

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

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".

 

[John J. Bannan]

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.

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.

 

[John J. Bannan]

I will agree if someone can explain one thing that puzzles me. Are some nothings ( 0s ) bigger or smaller than others ?

Yes.

 

[John J. Bannan]

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".

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.