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 Mister_Bit
Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Mister_Bit
Numbers, letters, words, language are all man made entities defined by man whereas zero(nothing) and infinity(infinite) just are.
And I will disagree...zero is a man made denomination...introduced by man and equated into mathematics by man...infinity...well another way of describing what man does not understand...but a man made expression all the same...would we agree on that?
I'd agree only in the way that "infinity" or "zero" could just have easily been named "roger" or "geoffrey" the "physical" article ZERO is nothing.
Infinity in my opinion is equal to "more than nothing" and all the possible "physicals" that could be rather than something unknown and not understood.edit on 28-8-2011 by Mister_Bit because: (no reason given)
assume everything is not created nor destroyed, but they keep on changing, thats why you got zero.
Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Mister_Bit
Numbers, letters, words, language are all man made entities defined by man whereas zero(nothing) and infinity(infinite) just are.
And I will disagree...zero is a man made denomination...introduced by man and equated into mathematics by man...infinity...well another way of describing what man does not understand...but a man made expression all the same...would we agree on that?
I'd agree only in the way that "infinity" or "zero" could just have easily been named "roger" or "geoffrey" the "physical" article ZERO is nothing.
Infinity in my opinion is equal to "more than nothing" and all the possible "physicals" that could be rather than something unknown and not understood.edit on 28-8-2011 by Mister_Bit because: (no reason given)
The only thing is that 'nothing' doesn't have its place in reality. There never was 'nothing'. It is impossible for something to come from 'nothing'. However, it is possible for something to come from something that has the potential for that something to come which is infinity. Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by smithjustinb
Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?
Tell that to someone who has ZERO hair on his head. Just because his hair was something before it was hair doesn't mean he has infinite hair. The man is bald.
And frankly, I think they would be offended if you told them they had all the hair in the world...
Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by requireduser
assume everything is not created nor destroyed, but they keep on changing, thats why you got zero.
I suppose in that case....infinity is valid too...as things are constantly changing...so you are in agreement with our OP that mathematics as we know it is not correct?
Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Mister_Bit
Numbers, letters, words, language are all man made entities defined by man whereas zero(nothing) and infinity(infinite) just are.
And I will disagree...zero is a man made denomination...introduced by man and equated into mathematics by man...infinity...well another way of describing what man does not understand...but a man made expression all the same...would we agree on that?
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by smithjustinb
Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?
Tell that to someone who has ZERO hair on his head. Just because his hair was something before it was hair doesn't mean he has infinite hair. The man is bald.
And frankly, I think they would be offended if you told them they had all the hair in the world...
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by smithjustinb
The farther along in math courses you get, the more you play with concepts of math and unreal/imaginary numbers.
I couldn't help but notice, in a number of my classes, the concept of 'i' being very similar to quantum superposition. I must admit that my discipline in math is quite poor - math tends to be rather magical to me until there are shapes or physical concepts for me to link it to (probably why I found Geometry to make child's play out of Algebra).
In either case, the only real correlation I can find between the concept of zero and the concept of infinity is that of non-attainability. To truly get nothing, you have to not have anything - including an observer to experience said nothing. To truly have infinity, you must be capable of bearing witness to everything within a continually expanding set of parameters ("Because it's the song that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends...").
To go any deeper than that is to challenge math of the known and experienced universe with the philosophy of origins and status of the universe. I would wager the forum population with the education and disciplines in math to even hold such a conversation, competently, is a very select few. I would have to google the hell out of every post made, that is for sure.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by smithjustinb
In either case, the only real correlation I can find between the concept of zero and the concept of infinity is that of non-attainability. To truly get nothing, you have to not have anything - including an observer to experience said nothing. To truly have infinity, you must be capable of bearing witness to everything within a continually expanding set of parameters ("Because it's the song that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends...").
The first evidence we have of zero is from the Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, some 5,000 years ago. There, a slanted double wedge was inserted between cuneiform symbols for numbers, written positionally, to indicate the absence of a number in a place (as we would write 102, the '0' indicating no digit in the tens column).
John Wallis (1616-1703) was one of the most original English mathematicians of his day. He was educated for the Church at Cambridge and entered Holy Orders, but his genius was employed chiefly in the study of mathematics. The Arithmetica infinitorum, published in 1655, is his greatest work. (Cajori p183)
The symbol for infinity, first chosen by John Wallis in 1655, stands for a concept which has given mathematicians problems since the time of the ancient Greeks. A case in point is that of Zeno of Elea (in southern Italy) who, in the 5th century BC, proposed four paradoxes which addressed whether magnitudes (lengths or numbers) are infinitely divisible or made up of a large number of small indivisible parts. (Brinkworth and Scott p80)
Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb
The first evidence we have of zero is from the Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, some 5,000 years ago. There, a slanted double wedge was inserted between cuneiform symbols for numbers, written positionally, to indicate the absence of a number in a place (as we would write 102, the '0' indicating no digit in the tens column).
origin of zero....
The symbol n!, called factorial n, was introduced in 1808 by Christian Kramp of Strassbourg, who chose it so as to circumvent printing difficulties incurred by the previously used symbol thus illustrated on the right. (Eves p132)
origin of infintiy...
So...now we have something to talk about....right?
And that is exactly what I am saying. And based on what you said, given the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed, then we do have the opportunity of riding the wave into infinity. But there is nothing within the realm of possibility that will allow us to get to a point of nothing.
Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb
So...now we have something to talk about....right?
Our own era's physical theories about the big bang cannot quite reach back to an ultimate beginning from nothing--although in mathematics we can generate all numbers from the empty set. Nothingness as the state out of which alone we can freely make our own natures lies at the heart of existentialism, which flourished in the mid-20th century.
I believe you are playing semantics and devil's advocate here just for fun.
Based on the links provided, not really.