It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Pepsi
what about 1 = 0.5 + 0.5
or 1 = 0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 + 0.2 = 0.2*5
or smaller steps:
1 = 0.01*100 = 0.001*1000
or infinite series of :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . n=infinity
1 = lim(d->0) SUM | ( d )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . n=0
==> 1 = lim(d->0) lim(n->infinity) [ d * n ]
in other form:
1 = d + d + d + d + ................ , where d goes to nothingness
which means 1 is the sum of infinite number of infinitely small elements.
Originally posted by zike
The problem is that you can't define 1 out of any other number. In math you just have to assume that 1 is given. From the number 1 you can then construct every other natural number 2,3,4... and so on by induction. Given the natural numbers you can construct the rationels, reals, complex numbers etc. But the number 1 is not constructable. It's just something you have to take for granted in math that it exists... Everything in math is based on that.
Originally posted by pepsi78
In the begining there was 1
Originally posted by albie
Why would I want to watch a video about scientific bluster? These nerdy twits think they know so much, trying to get one past us about particles manifesting spontaneously.
NO I WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT IT!
I'll take common sense over w4nk maths anyday.
Originally posted by Frosty
-1 is equal to e^((i)(pi)). So 1 is equal to -(e^((i)(pi)), no? But this is something we should not be playing around with, yet, for some of us.
Is it possible to take the number ten and divide it into two parts, one of which multiplied into the other will yield the result 40?
Originally posted by pepsi78
even 0.2 comes from 0.1
Originally posted by I_s_i_s
I dont understand that question?
Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Originally posted by pepsi78
even 0.2 comes from 0.1
Why we cant say 0.1 comes drom 0.2 ?
I can construct the whole numbers from 2:
take half of 2 and you get 1
double 2 to get 4 .
you can use 2 to get all other numbers.
What are numbers anyway?
Numbers are relative , you have to think about variables and ratios rather than constants.
For true understanding of numbers we have to understand infinity and nothingness first. Between 1 and 0 there are infinite number of elements so we cannot realy know what is the first number after 0.
For true understanding of numbers we have to understand infinity and nothingness first. Between 1 and 0 there are infinite number of elements so we cannot realy know what is the first number after 0.
1 = d + d + d + d + ................ , where d goes to nothingness
which means 1 is the sum of infinite number of infinitely small elements.
Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Pepsi
My point is :
For true understanding of numbers we have to understand infinity and nothingness first. Between 1 and 0 there are infinite number of elements so we cannot realy know what is the first number after 0.
and
1 = d + d + d + d + ................ , where d goes to nothingness
which means 1 is the sum of infinite number of infinitely small elements.
Please respond to the above and forget about 2 coming from 1 or 1 coming from 2.
Actually If you study my point of view you can come to a stange possibility of 1 coming from 0 , or everything came from nothing.
Originally posted by pepsi78Seriosly how do we obtain 1
The notion of infinity does mean a consciousness could have formed instead of a universe. Even a total atheistic quantum mechanic has to believe this.
Something from nothing? Impossible
Always existed? Impossible
Originally posted by Produkt
Sure ya have albie.
Rather pathetic explanations. How can one believe on thing existed in nothingness but not believe that perhaps there never was an absolute nothingness. Where did god come from if religous folk don't accept something from nothing or perhaps something just always was? It's a contradiction.
Trace a circle around a ball. Now imagine neither you nor the ball are going to die out. Imagine your going to keep existing in the physical form you are now. Define howto determine you tracing your finger around that ball isn't a concept of infinity. I know this has been brought up before... Infinity is a hard concept to grasp. Your last post just shows that.
Originally posted by Produkt
'm not talking about getting something from nothing. I'm not talking about an absolute nothingness before the big bang. We have no evidence that an absolute nothingness can even exist! We can never produce an absolute nothingness in this universe. Quantum physics forbids such a silly notion as absolute nothingness. Not even the space in between galaxies or super clusters of galaxies is composed of absolute nothingness. The vaccuum of space outside our universe, another prime example that absolute nothingess doesn't exist. WE defined absolute nothingness.
Can anyone show me absolute nothingness? Can anyone show me that absolute nothingess existed before the univserse? Can anyone show me how it's possible for god to exist in absolute nothingness, but impossible for something to just always have been there?
I understand what your saying pepsi. Mathematical infinity can start from 0 going back -n infinity and going + infinity. You can't keep counting in either direction, always adding one extra zero at the end. There is no potential end to how many zero's you can add onto the end of a number.
The notion of infinity does mean a consciousness could have formed instead of a universe. Even a total atheistic quantum mechanic has to believe this.
No, not really, first a person does'nt have to believe anything if they dont want to, like how you are refusing to believe in infinity.
Secondly, a consciousness could not form instead of a universe, a consciousness (corporeal or non-corporeal) would have to manifest in a place, now I suppose it is possible for a universe to form, and through some strange way become conscious, but that's highly unlikely (not impossible).
Something from nothing? Impossible
No, it's not impossible, highly improbable on a macroscopic scale yes, but on a quantum scale, I would'nt say it's a rare happening.
Always existed? Impossible
Originally posted by albie
Like I said before, if some energy had always been around then it would have had an infinite amount of time to become a universe, which means that this universe has existed an infinite amount of times. Presuming this energy exists everywhere, there would be universes everywhere in the infinity of space. If you think about it, every inch of space would be solid matter. Rock. That's just one of the logic problems of the quantum version of nothingness. That's why scientists discount it. Hence there had to have been a time where nothing existed. Which isn't possible either.
Why can't you just accept there is no answer?