Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by smithjustinb
Your point makes perfect sense to me. No doubt about that.
I believe it will be possible to make more correct calculations when more dimensions are taken into the aspect.
The minds of many mathematicians are most certainly locked into the 3D way of thinking.
What is infinity in the 3D world may not be infinity in the higher dimensions.
If mathematics is the universal language, I strongly doubt that humans have the slightest grasp of how it really works.
Mathematic understanding is flawed due to its one and only uncertainty that is to divide any number(n) by zero. In that operation, the answer is determined as undefined.
Originally posted by 547000
Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by smithjustinb
Your point makes perfect sense to me. No doubt about that.
I believe it will be possible to make more correct calculations when more dimensions are taken into the aspect.
The minds of many mathematicians are most certainly locked into the 3D way of thinking.
What is infinity in the 3D world may not be infinity in the higher dimensions.
If mathematics is the universal language, I strongly doubt that humans have the slightest grasp of how it really works.
Really? They're locked into 3D thinking? What about n-dimensional space and non-Euclidean geometry?
Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by quackers
An absolute vacuum would however contain zero particles (perfect). I said zero would be as valid as infinity, not that it was a valid infinity.
A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.
I agree.
an absolute vacuum would most definitely still contain "something".
What happens if you have a glass container with this "absolute vacuum" inside, and you shine a light at it?
Then this "absolute vacuum" would contain photons.
Or just the fact that you were able to observe this "absolute vacuum" with your eyes... The same thing..
What about the fact that our entire "nothingness" probably is made up of "something" (M-Theory). How does that work with an "absolute vacuum" that contains absolutely nothing?
In what dimensions should this "absolute vacuum" be measured in? Only 3? Aha, so only the dimensions that humans can perceive counts? But should not an "absolute vacuum" be absolute in all dimensions? How else can it be "absolute"?
So the only way to even get close to an "absolute vacuum" would be not monitor it in any way, in any dimension? But how do you then know?
Some kind of Erwin Schrödinger version comes to mind.edit on 31-8-2011 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by quackers
An absolute vacuum would however contain zero particles (perfect). I said zero would be as valid as infinity, not that it was a valid infinity.
A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.
I agree.
an absolute vacuum would most definitely still contain "something".
What happens if you have a glass container with this "absolute vacuum" inside, and you shine a light at it?
Then this "absolute vacuum" would contain photons.
Or just the fact that you were able to observe this "absolute vacuum" with your eyes... The same thing..
What about the fact that our entire "nothingness" probably is made up of "something" (M-Theory). How does that work with an "absolute vacuum" that contains absolutely nothing?
In what dimensions should this "absolute vacuum" be measured in? Only 3? Aha, so only the dimensions that humans can perceive counts? But should not an "absolute vacuum" be absolute in all dimensions? How else can it be "absolute"?
So the only way to even get close to an "absolute vacuum" would be not monitor it in any way, in any dimension? But how do you then know?
Some kind of Erwin Schrödinger version comes to mind.edit on 31-8-2011 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)
First i have to say something about how you view this.
-You can not view a vacuum inside a glass to understand this. You have to view the glass within a vacuum.
Than you can ask you self: How did it get there? It would get there by a very long process.
If you view a vacuum from this angle, you will figure out that a vacuum have all the dimensions. Because the vacuum have created all the particles within it self.
"The dimensions we can observe". "The glass you mention" Everything that exists as particles and make up all the different physical dimensions. All this must exist inside the vacuum. Nothing can exist out side of the absolute vacuum.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Ah ok. Thanks for the heads up. I see your point.
So you mean that this "absolute vacuum" is a nothingness that can not exist within anything?
In that case an "absolute vacuum" could not exist in our universe, since there would be something outside it?
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
Ah ok. Thanks for the heads up. I see your point.
So you mean that this "absolute vacuum" is a nothingness that can not exist within anything?
In that case an "absolute vacuum" could not exist in our universe, since there would be something outside it?
Correct;
Our total existing universes and all the existing particles must exist inside the vacuum.
The vacuum created all the particles that formed our existence.
We can not create a absolute vacuum within our universe because the force of finite mass-energy is to strong. To be able to create a absolute vacuum within our universe we would need to create a force that is greater than the absolute vacuum, and that is not possible. Because we must use the existing particles to create this force. And non of the particles that exist are greater than the vacuum that created it.
Again to understand this. You can draw a dot on a piece of paper. The dot is the particle/our universe, everything else surrounding the particle/our universe is the vacuum.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
Well, math has generalized higher dimensions. Merely giving a philosophical argument does not prove that infinity is 0. They're more like complete opposites. They aren't even both numbers. Infinite is a process but zero is a number. Not specifically to you, but to to sophist arguments most people are using.
Originally posted by ProfessorVeritas
What about Rodin math?
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
Cocktail philosophers rarely have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to mathematics and mathematical sciences. The reason you cannot divide by zero is because you can claim any number is equal to any other number when using the property that 0*a=0 for any number a. Infinity in calculus is actually taking the limit as a number increases beyond bound. You cannot divide by these, but you can divide by numbers with these limits, because the limit approaching 0 is not the same thing as the number being 0. Without a rigorous understanding of mathematics how can people presume to explain why it's wrong? All this is showing is that math education in general is terrible.
Originally posted by spy66
A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.
Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
Cocktail philosophers rarely have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to mathematics and mathematical sciences. The reason you cannot divide by zero is because you can claim any number is equal to any other number when using the property that 0*a=0 for any number a. Infinity in calculus is actually taking the limit as a number increases beyond bound. You cannot divide by these, but you can divide by numbers with these limits, because the limit approaching 0 is not the same thing as the number being 0. Without a rigorous understanding of mathematics how can people presume to explain why it's wrong? All this is showing is that math education in general is terrible.
Cocktail-philosophers and narrow-minded mathematicians Everything is relative. Though I do really like the word cocktail-philosophers, ha ha you are funny.
I am not arguing with your point, I only say that I can see further than it.
And all this "you can not", "this is impossible" and "that is not allowed". Ok, math is the "truth", math is the perfect "language" etc etc. But based on humans conception of what should be.
There are no such thing as; impossible.
As for my own mathematical education, it was absolutely great and with excellent options. The thing that was the faulty factor in the equation was I.
Originally posted by quackers
Originally posted by spy66
A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.
If a vacuum contained particles then it would not be an absolute vacuum. Now, as an absolute vacuum is only possible in theory, it remains a possibility untill disproven. That being the case, the existance of zero is required to represent this possibility. No?
Originally posted by 547000
Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
Cocktail philosophers rarely have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to mathematics and mathematical sciences. The reason you cannot divide by zero is because you can claim any number is equal to any other number when using the property that 0*a=0 for any number a. Infinity in calculus is actually taking the limit as a number increases beyond bound. You cannot divide by these, but you can divide by numbers with these limits, because the limit approaching 0 is not the same thing as the number being 0. Without a rigorous understanding of mathematics how can people presume to explain why it's wrong? All this is showing is that math education in general is terrible.
Cocktail-philosophers and narrow-minded mathematicians Everything is relative. Though I do really like the word cocktail-philosophers, ha ha you are funny.
I am not arguing with your point, I only say that I can see further than it.
And all this "you can not", "this is impossible" and "that is not allowed". Ok, math is the "truth", math is the perfect "language" etc etc. But based on humans conception of what should be.
There are no such thing as; impossible.
As for my own mathematical education, it was absolutely great and with excellent options. The thing that was the faulty factor in the equation was I.
Actually you can prove something is logically impossible given premises. It's proof by contradiction a number is an object with certain basic properties. If we agree with these properties we can prove some results are logically absurd. Math is not like science where it is inductive, but it is deductive. Math is heavily logical, even more so than philosophy.
Proof that division by 0 is logically impossible
Let us assume a does not equal b.
Let us agree that any number added 0 times is 0. If you count something no times you haven't counted anything.
Hence 0*a = 0
0*b = 0
But then 0*b = 0*a.
Dividing by 0, we get a = b.
But by our hypotheses a does not equal b. Hence division by 0 is logically impossible given our premises.
It's the same logical rule as reductio ad absurdum of philosophy, but with less filler. In fact the logic taught in philosophy is a subset of mathematical logic. Normal philosophers, okay, they know the difference between logical and illogical, but cocktail philosophers are ones just using sophistry to beg the question.
If you are arguing that math should be illogical and mystical, well, the laws of physics would not be applicable to the real world. You could argue left is right, up is down, and opposites are the same. Someone could argue nine is a sacred number, others seventeen and so forth. But we see a logical consistency to the world.edit on 1-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)