10 Great Questions of Philosophy

[Quantum Quack]

Well have you developed a theory where non-existence is your starting point ?

The point that I was attempting to make is that zero or nothingingness is indeed nonexistent, yet we utilize all the time.

Zero provides the basis of equivalence 1+1=2, 2-(1+1) = 0
Zero grants the equal sign validity.
The human body utilizes it's center of gravity constantly... [ask any walker, runner, sitter, sleeper, gymnast etc...]
Would you deny this point?
The center of Gravity [mass] of all objects of mass must be absolute zero dimension.
Draw your own conclusions from that..
So indeed, I have started from non-existence yet existent and worked outwards to 4 dimensions.

 

[Lakon]

The example give is about a 3 dimensional object called a ruler. common usage.. probably have one on your desk. Your desk is also a 3 dimensional object , with a center of gravity [ mass ]. In fact any/evey object of mass has a center of gravity.
Do you dispute this fact of existence?

The center of gravity can NOT be ascertained exactly due to infinite reduction. This creates inherent instability of all things. It is impossible to balance things exactly [Micro scale] thus absolute rest is impossible in this universe and the uncertainty Principle is a natural outcome.

"Where exactly is the center of gravity of a cloud or the sun or the moon or the Lagrangian point between the Earth and the sun?"

What value does it have?
Does it exist ?

QQ, one thing at a time. Slow down. I agree with your example of a 3d ruler. The centre of it, due to infinite reduction, cannot be established ? OK. My point is, you can say exactly the same thing for any other point / plane section of the ruler. What if you put a bit of chewie on the end of the ruler ? The centre of graviry shifts .. same .. same .. get it ?

So what are you saying in relation to this, and restricted only to this, without launching off into the greater complexity of aurgument ?

 

[Lakon]

Because Nothing for infinity could never manifest anything , for nothing also has no space ( room to allow manifestation of anything to become on any level , from the sub-atomic to the macro )

But all this assumes something .. which is obviously the case. Why manifest ? Why infinity ? Why something instead of nothing ?

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ, one thing at a time. Slow down. I agree with your example of a 3d ruler. The centre of it, due to infinite reduction, cannot be established ? OK. My point is, you can say exactly the same thing for any other point / plane section of the ruler. What if you put a bit of chewie on the end of the ruler ? The centre of graviry shifts .. same .. same .. get it ?

So what are you saying in relation to this, and restricted only to this, without launching off into the greater complexity of aurgument ?

Ok..so we understand each other so far... yes.. a 3 d object has a center of gravity (COG) that can not be located exactly [ infinite reduction ] yet that center of gravity [ zero ] exists.

The COG of the Planet Earth is constantly changing location as the mass of the planet shifts around. Yet it is there but can not be located with absolute precision.


Essentially I am suggesting that zero is the only "thing" that exists and does not exist simultaneously. [therefore a paradox]
It is definitely there but can never be located. [ in absolute terms ] because:
1] As you say a shift in mass changes that location [ infinite variability of mass disposition] and
2] To find zero, infinite reduction has to be applied which means that it can never be found with absolute precision.

Example:
To find the exact center/middle of a length of string is impossible except by infinite reduction. Yet the length of string definitely has a center.

ie. 4.999999999e inches---->0<----4.9999999999e inches for a length of 10 inches

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is actually really simple... possibly looking for complexity makes it difficult?

If you draw a circle on a page you know it has a center..ok?

Is that center actually able to be located absolutely exactly?
Yet it is definitely there somewhere..

 

[Lakon]

It is actually really simple... possibly looking for complexity makes it difficult?

If you draw a circle on a page you know it has a center..ok?

Is that center actually able to be located absolutely exactly?
Yet it is definitely there somewhere..

But you seem to be stuck on the centre. It is not a unique point. You can say the same for every other point.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But you seem to be stuck on the centre. It is not a unique point. You can say the same for every other point.

so?

the "point" is that zero both exists and non-exists simultaneously where ever you look for it...

cut to the chase...
From your own understanding

Does zero exits or not?

 

[Lakon]

so?

the "point" is that zero both exists and non-exists simultaneously where ever you look for it...

So, we've moved forward a little, in that you've resiled from your focus on the centre as been a unique point. Good.

cut to the chase...
From your own understanding

Does zero exits or not?

Simple answer, I don't know. The words 'zero' and 'nothinng' are loaded with so much ambiguity it is difficult to talk about it. Very difficult.

I have a basket in front of me. It has zero apples in it. It also has nothing (else) in it. In this sense both words describe an absence, ie, a concept of no thing.

It then becomes semantics to talk about whether 'no thing' exists or does not exist.

I feel anyone wishing to discuss whether zero (or anything for that matter) exists or not, should first and foremost, give a short, clear, precise definition of the word. This however, seems difficult to do.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So, we've moved forward a little, in that you've resiled from your focus on the centre as been a unique point. Good.

In the 6 or so years I have spent with this subject not once have I ever considered zero to be a unique point.
ie. [ where is the center of an infinitely large volume = any where you choose to put it ]

Simple answer, I don't know. The words 'zero' and 'nothinng' are loaded with so much ambiguity it is difficult to talk about it. Very difficult.

I have a basket in front of me. It has zero apples in it. It also has nothing (else) in it. In this sense both words describe an absence, ie, a concept of no thing.

It then becomes semantics to talk about whether 'no thing' exists or does not exist.

I feel anyone wishing to discuss whether zero (or anything for that matter) exists or not, should first and foremost, give a short, clear, precise definition of the word. This however, seems difficult to do.

it doesn't have to be that difficult.... we use nothingness all the time, when we sleep we are unconscious when we write on a blank page we use it and so on... so it exists, if anything, for it's utility. However it is definitely immaterial and of no substance and this is the whole point of setting up a possible way to understanding the paradox of ex-nihilo logically and rationally.

People often subscribe to the question of first cause. The first event that created everything. Yet zero as with religious notions of God, only exists by it's effect. Being zero means it can never be shown to be the cause as it doesn't exist yet it's effect is every where... [a paradox - proof of God as a causation is impossible to be found, the same problem exists for proving zero]

As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, if needed, there is NO direct way to mathematically prove the value zero, as zero can only be proved by default of proving everything else.


There is nothing complex about understanding zero or nothingness, in fact it is by far easier to understand than that of somethingness... which is why I guess science hasn't bothered to much with it except now that they have progressed to quantum entanglement across "zero" distance that happens to have a 3 dimensional value in 3 dimensional space.

Now that zero has finally achieved recognition as being fundamentally important to the future of science we shall hope fully see some keen minds working on it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ River,
You gotta realize that logically : zero = (-)infinite energy + (+) infinite energy.
The only thing missing in the above is time..

Possibly the main question though of "ex-nihilo, [when using a linear time perspective] is what created an imbalance [a schizm] that generated "time" and therefore the phenomena of entropy [which requires that the balance be eventually restored]

 

[Lakon]

In the 6 or so years I have spent with this subject not once have I ever considered zero to be a unique point.
ie. [ where is the center of an infinitely large volume = any where you choose to put it ]

Earlier you were making a big song and dance about the COG of a ruler .. and other objects, as though this was important to the zero issue. I pointed out to you, that that COG is no different to any other .. point, plane, or whatever. I think you've now accepted this.

it doesn't have to be that difficult.... we use nothingness all the time, when we sleep we are unconscious when we write on a blank page we use it and so on... so it exists, if anything, for it's utility. However it is definitely immaterial and of no substance and this is the whole point of setting up a possible way to understanding the paradox of ex-nihilo logically and rationally.

People often subscribe to the question of first cause. The first event that created everything. Yet zero as with religious notions of God, only exists by it's effect. Being zero means it can never be shown to be the cause as it doesn't exist yet it's effect is every where... [a paradox - proof of God as a causation is impossible to be found, the same problem exists for proving zero]

As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, if needed, there is NO direct way to mathematically prove the value zero, as zero can only be proved by default of proving everything else.


There is nothing complex about understanding zero or nothingness, in fact it is by far easier to understand than that of somethingness... which is why I guess science hasn't bothered to much with it except now that they have progressed to quantum entanglement across "zero" distance that happens to have a 3 dimensional value in 3 dimensional space.

Now that zero has finally achieved recognition as being fundamentally important to the future of science we shall hope fully see some keen minds working on it.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I think, neither do you. Too many issues. You're all over the place. Not to worry.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Earlier you were making a big song and dance about the COG of a ruler .. and other objects, as though this was important to the zero issue. I pointed out to you, that that COG is no different to any other .. point, plane, or whatever. I think you've now accepted this.



I have no idea what you're talking about, and I think, neither do you. Too many issues. You're all over the place. Not to worry.

Do you think I should let you get away with it?


Regardless of your ineptitude to understand basic logic and rational, the COG IS indeed very important to the issue of ex-nihilo [more so than any other mundane zero point]. If you can not understand the relevance or the distinction..not to worry...

I guess we are not all Werner Heisenberg's are we?

Simple question which you fail to be able to deal with:
Does zero exist?
and if so in what form does it exist : material or immaterial or both?
I started a thread just to help you and others clarify their thoughts about it...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...rial-immaterial-or-both&p=3117499#post3117499
Unfortunately I don't think I can simplify the question and therefore the answer any further for you Mr Lakon

Am I being deliberately arrogant?
Yep!
With out question...

Lakon, you are not alone. The solution to ex-nihilo I believe is incredibly simple. Yet for thousands of years philosophers and scientists have not been able to deal with the simple question:
Does zero exist or not?
and if so in what form does it exist : material or immaterial or both?
Which then leads to the understanding required.

You can accuse me of arrogance, bullying, insanity, confusion or what ever however the situation regarding zero or nothingness remains the same.

 

[Lakon]

Do you think I should let you get away with it?


Regardless of your ineptitude to understand basic logic and rational, the COG IS indeed very important to the issue of ex-nihilo [more so than any other mundane zero point]. If you can not understand the relevance or the distinction..not to worry...

I guess we are not all Werner Heisenberg's are we?

Simple question which you fail to be able to deal with:
Does zero exist?
and if so in what form does it exist : material or immaterial or both?
I started a thread just to help you and others clarify their thoughts about it...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...rial-immaterial-or-both&p=3117499#post3117499
Unfortunately I don't think I can simplify the question and therefore the answer any further for you Mr Lakon

Am I being deliberately arrogant?
Yep!
With out question...

Lakon, you are not alone. The solution to ex-nihilo I believe is incredibly simple. Yet for thousands of years philosophers and scientists have not been able to deal with the simple question:
Does zero exist or not?
and if so in what form does it exist : material or immaterial or both?
Which then leads to the understanding required.

You can accuse me of arrogance, bullying, insanity, confusion or what ever however the situation regarding zero or nothingness remains the same.

Ahhh .. right, not to worry.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Actually even though these postings may seem to be pretty useless.. they have helped me understand why discussing zero or nothingness in an ex nihilo context in a rational manner is virtually impossible. This I thank you for...

 

[Lakon]

Actually even though these postings may seem to be pretty useless.. they have helped me understand why discussing zero or nothingness in an ex nihilo context in a rational manner is virtually impossible. This I thank you for...

QQ - no discussion with you is useless. All are of some value.

 

[river]

So you just offer a contra with out supporting it?
Is that how to have a discussion?

Never said ex-nihilo creation was a starting point.

What I did say was that by understanding the paradox of nothingness [ zero] both existing and non-existing one has the ability to start to grasp the nature of ex-nihilo in the "eternal" present present moment.

"So zero exists as immaterial and doesn't exist as material. In fact one could state That "Zero is the only non-existent "thing" in this universe".

The idea of or concept of zero (0) originated in accounting back in the Babalyon days ,( found in the book , history of mathematics ) it was a business concept so you could of course keep track of trading and what you have. Perfectly logical since you start with say 10 , now have 2 and so on

So zero was about the material things you do have and the quantities and what you don't have

So if you had zero wheat , that of course does not lead to the conclusion that wheat is extinct as a crop , just that YOU don't have any

 

[paddoboy]

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.

 

[paddoboy]

Though I'm probably 90% certain the answer is in the affirmative, from where I sit, the greatest unanswered question is "Does ETL [both microbrial and Intelligent] exist somewhere, sometime, and what a Earth shattering, momentious occasion it will be when contact is made.

If that can be known with certainty, in the near future, I will die a happy man!

 

[river]

Though I'm probably 90% certain the answer is in the affirmative, from where I sit, the greatest unanswered question is "Does ETL [both microbrial and Intelligent] exist somewhere, sometime, and what a Earth shattering, momentious occasion it will be when contact is made.

If that can be known with certainty, in the near future, I will die a happy man!

It has already happened , its just that the mainstream media has been shut down , upon reporting these events for 50 to 60 years

The best books to buy are from mostly the 1950's

Because at that time the media was far , far , far less controlled by the military and business

 

[paddoboy]

It has already happened , its just that the mainstream media has been shut down , upon reporting these events for 50 to 60 years

The best books to buy are from mostly the 1950's

Because at that time the media was far , far , far less controlled by the military and business

I'm afraid I'm not into conspiracy theories as yet,as much as I wish it were true.