You bank account could go into a negative range, that's a real world concept, but again it's purely numbers. And that's why I said this needs to be examined from a mathematical perspective. You can't have "negative something" in the physical world because we are trapped in the positive world. To enter into the negative world would mean annihilation. We could be in the negative world actually - but that's irrelevant because the side opposite which ever side you're on is going to be the negative side from your perspective.
Anyhow, I also firmly believe you can't have "less" than nothing, so therefore negative anything to me is just a manmade equation and doesn't exist in reality.
If however negative numbers exist then that must be because it is "less than something" rather than "less than nothing"
i.e You could NEVER be able to give me -40 apples, it's physically impossible but in a manmade mathematical structure you could "owe" me 40 apples.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit
You bank account could go into a negative range, that's a real world concept, but again it's purely numbers. And that's why I said this needs to be examined from a mathematical perspective. You can't have "negative something" in the physical world because we are trapped in the positive world. To enter into the negative world would mean annihilation. We could be in the negative world actually - but that's irrelevant because the side opposite which ever side you're on is going to be the negative side from your perspective.
Anyhow, I also firmly believe you can't have "less" than nothing, so therefore negative anything to me is just a manmade equation and doesn't exist in reality.
If however negative numbers exist then that must be because it is "less than something" rather than "less than nothing"
i.e You could NEVER be able to give me -40 apples, it's physically impossible but in a manmade mathematical structure you could "owe" me 40 apples.
Why is that? 0 represents a nil value. 1 has a measurable value, it represents a quantity of 'something'. The natural number set starts at 1 and goes to infinity (increasing by units of 1). The integer set includes 0 and the negative numbers (-∞ to 0 to ∞). 0 is the absolute neutral state, the "origin point" on the real number line, as I think they say in mathematics. It has not measurable value and represents a nil quantity.
I think we need to separate the number zero from meaning NOTHING
That is human mathematics.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit
Why is that? 0 represents a nil value. 1 has a measurable value, it represents a quantity of 'something'. The natural number set starts at 1 and goes to infinity (increasing by units of 1). The integer set includes 0 and the negative numbers (-∞ to 0 to ∞). 0 is the absolute neutral state, the "origin point" on the real number line, as I think they say in mathematics. It has not measurable value and represents a nil quantity.
I think we need to separate the number zero from meaning NOTHING
Interesting, but I'd argue that the "nothing" they witnessed was actually something we don't understand yet or can't quantify in our mathematical theory.
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Stephen Hawkins wrote a book about this, and dedicated the first episode of his show(Curiosity) on it. It's part of Quantum Field Theory.
And it's already been witnessed happening in quantum physics. Nothing, inevitably makes something, but the somethings total out to 0.
Of course, it'll sound ridiculous to those who believe in a different cause, such as a deity. Even though there's a big contradiction there. If something can't come from nothing, and can't exist without being first created, the universe can't exist without an outside cause. That cause is a god, who either came from nothing, or existed forever without ever being created.
The difference with believing that something can truly come from nothing, is that it has actually been witnessed, and it's not self contradicting. And yet it's that belief that's treated as ridiculous, instead of the self contradicting and far assuming other one.
~
In defense of the the deity argument, there is the final drawback claim of a theist who accepts that everything as is could of happened within the laws of physics. And that is that their deity had to write the laws of physics for them to be there.
That makes no sense to me. But, I'm throwing it out there as it's the only real counter argument(Besides "Science is a lying conspiracy!") to what you're calling 'The Theory of NoThing'.
Though, I'll also throw out that if the laws of physics need an explanation, an infinite amount of them exist besides certain deities writing them.
Exactly. It 'isn't' there waiting for you. Not only is it not there, it is less than not there. That's why when you add something to the negative value it will climb back towards 0 until going back into the positive range.
In actual fact there is not negative 40 sitting in a vault waiting for me
Actually, I think you will find mathematics is much more than a simple man made structure. Sure, we may use man made symbol to represent the ideas of numbers, but the concepts behind those numbers are universal. The most fundamental aspects of nature can be explained with pure mathematics; to a precision which is astonishing. Numbers can explain how atoms functions up to how massive objects in the Universe function.
We need to look beyond "man's mathermatics" and look at it outside of that structure.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit
Why is that? 0 represents a nil value. 1 has a measurable value, it represents a quantity of 'something'. The natural number set starts at 1 and goes to infinity (increasing by units of 1). The integer set includes 0 and the negative numbers (-∞ to 0 to ∞). 0 is the absolute neutral state, the "origin point" on the real number line, as I think they say in mathematics. It has not measurable value and represents a nil quantity.
I think we need to separate the number zero from meaning NOTHING
Oh well forgive me for using the term incorrectly. I don't know if you are technically correct, but I'll take your word for it.
0 and nil are very different. Nil is undefined, or lacking a number quality. 0 is a number quality, and has a certain value as far as quantity.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit
Exactly. It 'isn't' there waiting for you. Not only is it not there, is less than not there. That's why where you add something to the negative value it will climb back towards 0 until going back into the positive range.
In actual fact there is not negative 40 sitting in a vault waiting for me
Actually, I think you will find mathematics is much more than a simple man made structure. Sure, we may use man made symbol to represent the ideas of numbers, but the concepts behind those numbers are universal. The most fundamental aspects of nature can be explained with pure mathematics; to a precision which is astonishing. Numbers can explain how atoms functions up to how massive objects in the Universe function.
We need to look beyond "man's mathermatics" and look at it outside of that structure.
No not quite. My theory is trying to rationalize how the Big Bang can simply happen without explaining where all the energy came from. It's trying to answer the question: how can everything in the Universe come from nothing as claimed in Big Bang theory? My answer is quite simple: you need negative things to balance out the positive things. So as the Big Bang was exploding and releasing stuff, in the alternate negative Universe, there was a negative Big Bang releasing an equal amount of negative-stuff, perhaps in a perfect mirror-image type way. But you started off with 'nothing'.
So if I get this right basically the Big Bang was more like the Big Split.
Where the negative and the positive ,which had been existing together, be came two separate entities (universes).
Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Interesting, but I'd argue that the "nothing" they witnessed was actually something we don't understand yet or can't quantify in our mathematical theory.
Well in layman's term....
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Interesting, but I'd argue that the "nothing" they witnessed was actually something we don't understand yet or can't quantify in our mathematical theory.
While, they are serious about not making miscalculations. But, every witnessed event has the slight possibility of being wrong. Failed understanding can mess things up.
However, that same logic easily applies to anything anyone else could propose as the origin of the universe. You don't just assume something's wrong from the onset.
Because of margin of error, I don't believe in anything 100%, not even that I'm typing this message in reply to you right now. However, both typing this message and the quantum phenomenon, I have no real reason to assume there's more than what's known. Yes, there's a slight possibility they are wrong, but it's far more likely they are right. And any other theory that was proposed, would have to have a chance of being wrong on the same principle. Though, all the other theories I've seen, they seem very much higher in the likely to be wrong area, and much lower in chance of being correct.
Like the Matrix. Assuming that's scientists aren't getting a key part of it, without evidence, is like assuming we're in the Matrix without any evidence. Very possible, but not a smart assumption when there's nothing to indicate it.