It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Does Zero (n0thing) Occupy Space & Time? Can n0thing be sumthing?

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:11 PM
Howdy peeps,

eYe recently asked a question on ATS concerning the Space-Time of Numbers:

Where's U'r Space-Time?

From the answers to that thread, it seems most believe the Space-Time of Numbers is the number itself and kNot in-between the number, which eYe agree with, but that creates a dilemma. If the Space-Time of numbers is the number itself, then Zero must also occupy Space & Time and if it does, how much Space-Time does it occupy, since that will apply to all numbers in their individual capacities?

eYe will offer up my rationale/proof and if you have anything to add, go for it, rather it be pro-or-con, please speak up, for the only way to correct the wrong is to know how the wrong thinks, in order to find the flaw in their logic, to then fix the flaw.

The Space-Time of Zero is finite:

All objects in the Universe occupy Space & Time and numbers are nothing more than numerical objects used to mathematically define that which occupies Space & Time, therefore, they must match that which they describe or it's like trying to define an orange using a peanut and that toad don't hop. The Space-Time of Numbers was assigned back when sum boys named Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc..., were kick'n about and the numbering system they were using was Roman Numerals, which has no Zero and without Zero, you cannot define Space-Time properly and Time itself is proof of that, considering Time is a linear constant, always moving forward in increments of finite and in defining Time mathematically, the Present is Zero, the Past begins from negative finite and the Future begins from positive finite, but if Zero doesn't occupy Space & Time, the Present never happens and a quote from Aristotle says it all:

"We may say a thing is at rest when it has kNot changed its position between now and then, but there is no 'then' in 'now', so there is no being at rest. Both motion and rest, then, must necessarily occupy time." - Aristotle

The Flow Sequence of Time is further compelling that the Space-Time of Numbers is the number itself:

Negative = Past
Positive = Future
Zero = Present

< -Infinite < -finite < 0 < +finite < +Infinite <

Zero must occupy Space-Time for Time to happen and the only amount of Space-Time Zero can possibly occupy is finite, thus, when the Space-Time of Numbers is corrected, finite sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, the numerology of the Flow Sequence of Time is:

2 : 1 : 2 = 2 + (1 + 2) = 23

"Time happens in finite, then chit happens!" - Old Toad Proverb

“Law of Time - Time is a linear constant, always moving forward in increments of finite and that which occupies Time, must also occupy Space and everything that exists at any given finite moment in Time, occupies the same finite moment at the same Time, for Time links all as One.”

Mathematics is nothing more than Numbers in Motion, thus, while at rest and while in motion, numbers must occupy Space & Time or a Warped Space-Time Paradox occurs. The Warped Space-Time Paradox is when the event's "motion" (Space-Time) occurs within the Space-Time in-between the numbers, then the event itself (number) happens after the fact, when both Space & Time must occur together and at the same finite moment as the number's motion or rest, thus, the number must always occupy Space & Time and is no different than a vehicle moving down the road. When that vehicle (number) is at rest in the driveway, it occupies Space & Time and while that vehicle (number) moves down the road, it occupies Space & Time and when that vehicle (number) reaches final destination and is at rest, it occupies Space & Time and while a number moves in mathematics, it changes to become the next number in sequence until it reaches its final destination and the equation is solved, but the car's number is also One the entire Time it is in motion and at rest, as is All that is. The Warped Space-Time Paradox results in a number moving thru Space-Time instead of moving in Space-Time. So while the number is at rest, it must necessarily occupy Space & Time at all finite points in space it exists and at all times, as well as when it is in motion. To further show that numbers themselves occupy Space & Time, Time itself is critical and the You're Always Right Paradox is a good example to use. The You're Always Right Paradox goes like this:

Ask anyone this question (verbatim): "I have a question for you - Are you always right?"

It's said that both Infinite and finite cannot be quantified but they think they've quantified an equation, known as a fraction, when they didn't. 1/2 does equal 0.5 and that is quantified and a number but when you take 1/3 and turn it into a supposed number of .3 to infinity, they need to see what that little line above the 3 is, it turns that number into an equation, just like the square root of 2 isn't a number, it's an equation, thus, they have kNot quantified 1/3 into a number and .9 to infinity (without finite) is kNot One. Another thing they need to realize is that if Infinite exists, so too does finite, because how can anything keep on going, forever getting bigger, but you can't go the other way and have something that is getting smaller, forever getting smaller? The Law of Opposites goes to the heart of the situation:

"Law of Opposites - opposites cannot exist without each other and if one exists, so too does the other, with the opposing opposites comprising Source and Source comprising the opposing opposites."

The Flow Sequence of the Universe shows that (note the Infinite Recycling/Creation/Growth aspect):

< -Infinite -1 : - 1 -finite 0 +finite +1 : +1 +Infinite >

Within Math there is sumthing known as Limits and Infinite’s limit is [(+I) + (+f)] or [(–I) + (-f)], while ±finite’s limit is Zero. So how is it possible for Infinite to exist (see George Cantor's work on Infinite) but finite doesn't exist? The fact that Infinite exists doesn't appears to be the problem, the problem is finite, so how are Infinite & finite related? They are inverted opposites and here are examples of inverted opposites:

I = Infinite
f = finite

1/1 - 1/1
2/1 - 1/2
3/1 - 1/3
4/1 - 1/4
I/1 - 1/I
f/1 - 1/f

So with that, these statements are true:

I/1 = 1/f
f/1 = 1/I

Considering zero is the only mathematical exception to inverted opposites (cannot divide by zero), then those statements are true and finite is kNot zero, or Infinite would then also be Zero and Georg Cantor's work with Infinite would be wrong. So finite is Infinite's inverted opposite and finite does kNot equal zero, but finite's limit is zero and finite does exist because Infinite exists, plus, they need to understand that when you divide by zero, you do kNot end up with an Infinite number. Zero is a mathematical contradiction and can be shown in a simple exercise:

"If you have a group of people and the combined amount of money they have is two dollars, what's the average each person has if the number of people is zero?"

When you divide by zero, a mathematical contradiction occurs and you do kNot end up with an Infinite number as many think, but that's because they think finite is zero when it is kNot. But when you divide by finite, the answer is an infinity equation/number. There's a simple equation that shows how inverted opposites "react" when multiplied by their existing counterpart (notice how zero is excluded):

When Y equals ± 1 to ± Infinite (respectively) then:

Y x 1/Y = 1

So when Y equals Infinite, its inverted opposite is 1/I or f/1 and then:

I x 1/I = 1

And when Y equals finite, its inverted opposite is 1/f or I/1 and then:

f x 1/f = 1

And from those, you get this:

1/f = I
1/I = f
If = 1
f = 0 + f
f = 1 - .9 to infinity (without finite)

Sew for the forgoing logical reasons, eYe say Numbers themselves occupy Space & Time and that Zero occupies a finite amount of Space & Time, as dew all numbers, and that n0thing can be sumthing and sumthing can be n0thing.

"Everything is Relative to Source and Source is Relative to Everything."

Ribbit

edit on 18-2-2012 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:31 PM
Didn't read through the whole blurb...

...but, the concept of zero and negative 'space' exists in the beauty of Islamic architecture, that takes full advantage of the concept of the negative deliniating the positive and vice versa...

In art theory, negative 'space' is as important as positive 'space', as it describes its boundaries, and in effect turns it into a 'thing'...albeit the fact that the 'thing' is not of the same nature as the positive 'thing'...it is...NOthing...so, yes...NO-thing can be a 'thing'...not material or discernible...but, nonetheless palpable in its 'absence'...

Akushla

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:32 PM
eYe got ann0yed at the sp3lling.

stopped before I developed cancer.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:33 PM
Everything is pretty much nothing

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:44 PM

If there is such a thing as "nothing", no one would know about it.

With love,

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:53 PM
"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."

Think William Blake sums it up quite well, eh?

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:25 PM
Absolute non-existence is WHY the Universe exists. Omnipresence, as required upon Itself to be true to that definition MUST exist even inside of absolute nonexistence. The "effort" to "travel" there in the infinite kinetic existence that is the Singularity. Infinite rate spherical division/subtraction.

It failed.

However, angular infinite rate kinetics of that Singularity is responsible for the upholding and genration of 2 foundational existences. Where that Singularity IS, as a complete set that is the "flight path" of that Singularity produces/upholds the infinite expanse. Where that same "flight path" of the Singularity as a complete set, where It IS NOT, produces the infinite impedence and "null". A generated non-existence.

To exist inside this generated non-existence, at the infinite expanse, the spherical implosion to reach it is the current of time. Infinite space (voltage) turns to be infinite time (current) all with the goal to reach the load (infinite impedence). The infinite expression that is the infinite Ohm's law. Our Universe.

Once the current of time impacts the infinite impedence, the explosive conversion generates/upholds the infinite spatial dimension of width. But since time 100% converts into space (again) it can only exist for an infinitesimal duration, (this is the present) thus it instantaneously implodes and converts back into time current, only now as all the past.

The current of time continues to flood spherically down and inward toward the infinitely kinetic, infinitesimal Singularity (as all the past). Time, prior to impacting the infinite impedence is all the future. The One Singularity is the infinite dimension of depth, the location of the Singularity under infinite angular kinetics is infinite height. Infinite width is because of the time current impacting the impedence.

Finites (us) are needed as proxies to serve as conciousness sinks THROUGH WHICH infinite consciousness can witness and absorb... nothing, THE nothing, silence, absolute nothingness thereby omnipresence now possesses and occupies absolute nothingness.

The entire Universe exists because Omniscience decided to be True to Self and go on a "road trip".
edit on 18-2-2012 by tkwasny because: Typo fix

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:26 PM
I understand your post in a sense, but I have to say that you're trying to manifest something that is abstract. Numbers as we use them didn't exist before us. Their properties did, their properties define our reality, but the numbers themselves did not. How could a number manifest a physical space-time, when the number itself is what we use to define our measurement? Space-time exists without measurement, we don't need to observe it in order for it to exist. It exists, and if we measure it, it continues to exist. But according to the theory, space-time is bent by matter. Numbers have no mass. Mass is quantified by numbers.

You state that the numbers must match that which they describe. I have an example that nullifies this idea. The dual nature of light. Light behaves as though it is both a particle and a wave. The measurement of light as a particle assumes certain properties such as speed, direction, intensity, etc etc. By your logic, these numbers 'match' what they're describing. But these numbers do not describe the properties of light as a wave. They cant. Speed, direction, intensity, can not and do not define amplitude or frequency.

We as humans cannot visualize a '0' in time. We can attempt it, but we cannot stop the flow of time. We, in our experiences through our lives, will never experience a 0 in time. I can't say for afterwards, because that depends on what you believe(or choose not to). To say that an instance in time represents a 0, may be theoretically possible, but we can only use 0 in our measurement of time as an anchor point relative to some specific event (resetting the military clocks to 0 at the passing of midnight) The only moment in understood existence that anything can assume a true time value of 0, is either at the beginning or end of existence. Time becomes 0, when your ability to perceive time has moved past the linear aspect.

One great example of this is the number line in relation to earths horizon. Looking down the horizon of the earth, down the tangent plane in which your position is defined, the earth appears to be flat. Looking down the number line with your position anchored at the origin, the number line appears to be flat as well. But when you move off the earth, when you perceive the earth at a perspective that is not bound to a tangent plane, you clearly see that the earth is spherical. Perhaps, and this is just a theory, if you were to move your perspective off a tangent of the number line, you might see that it is actually a curve. Following this, you might eventually find that the number line is actually a gigantic circle. My backing fact of this is the Poincare` Conjecture which has been proven.

From my studies on this, my understanding of it in a simple form is that the simplest shape in nature is that of a circular analog. Essentially, in 1 d space, the simplest shape is a point. in 2 d space, the simplest shape is a circle, a sphere for 3 d, a hypersphere for 4 d, and so on. So why would nature, in all of its simplicity and wonder, break one of its own founding rules in the properties of numbers? Why would the number line be straight, when nothing in reality itself is truly straight? This might be a bit counter-intuitive for most, and I strongly suggest researching this for yourself as its implications are absolutely fascinating. But, back to the point.

The 'Law Of Time' as quoted/stated in your post, seems partially irrelevant. Naturally, at time A, all things that exist in time A, coexist simultaneously within the same moment of time. You're only working with moment A. Back to my statement that in practice, we cannot stop time.

The Warped Space-Time Paradox is when the event's "motion" (Space-Time) occurs within the Space-Time in-between the numbers, then the event itself (number) happens after the fact, when both Space & Time must occur together and at the same finite moment as the number's motion or rest, thus, the number must always occupy Space & Time and is no different than a vehicle moving down the road. When that vehicle (number) is at rest in the driveway, it occupies Space & Time and while that vehicle (number) moves down the road, it occupies Space & Time and when that vehicle (number) reaches final destination and is at rest, it occupies Space & Time and while a number moves in mathematics, it changes to become the next number in sequence until it reaches its final destination and the equation is solved, but the car's number is also One the entire Time it is in motion and at rest, as is All that is.

Again, you are comparing that which is manifest, with that which is abstract.

The Warped Space-Time Paradox results in a number moving thru Space-Time instead of moving in Space-Time.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:26 PM
Would that not imply that numbers, an abstract construction of the human mind used to describe things in nature, have an ability that they themselves cannot define? Would that not imply that the number 1 has a hyperdimensional property of being able to move outside the plane of time itself? To move through something, is not the same as moving within it, is what I took from that. Am I correct? Is swimming through a river, any different than swimming in a river?

"I have a question for you - Are you always right?"

You state that the answer is always yes. Which can not be the case. To always be right, means that no matter what conversation or argument you've had in your life, you have never stated or made an incorrect answer. Or that your method of handling something is always the correct one. Which as we all know, can not be the case. To say yes, is to nullify the answer you just gave. To say no, is honest.

The answer is almost always No but the correct answer happens to be Yes, and the reason is simple. As humans, we are always right, from our perspective (see original question) and anytime you doubt anything or change your mind, you go from being right to being right and even when you realize you're wrong about something, guess what, you're right and even when you're wrong about something but don't know it, you're right. So no matter what, you're always right and it's been proven all throughout life, especially science

"Law of Opposites - opposites cannot exist without each other and if one exists, so too does the other, with the opposing opposites comprising Source and Source comprising the opposing opposites."

While I don't disagree with this, there are a few exceptions. What is the opposite of time? What is the opposite of space? What is the opposite of mass?(Not Matter, mass)

Your next statement about the limit of infinity negates itself. The very definition of infinity is that it has no limit. Has no end. There is no boundary for it to retain a specific value. Finite comes from the infinite. subdivide infinity, you might say you come up with infinity. This may not be the case. Lets say that the universe is endless, it has no boundary. From this, one can say that there is infinite space within the universe. By the common logic, if you subdivide something infinite, it is still infinite. But if space is infinite, how much space is contained within a 2 car garage? Its not infinite.

My closing argument is this. Space-time is defined as a sheet, that bends around matter. So the shape of space-time, and its very existence requires matter. Numbers have no matter, they are absolutely abstract. So therefore, a number cannot morph space-time. Numbers don't get time, they don't lose time, they don't require it. Numbers cannot occupy space, they are abstract. So with this, how could a number occupy/obtain space-time when it exists without either?

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by IAMIAM

If there is such a thing as "nothing", no one would know about it.

With love,

There you go again, thinking that because you don't know about sumthing, the "proverbial" nothingness, no one can know about it.

eYe know about it and eYe know where it resides and eYe also know why it's where it is and where it came from.
This thread is just a piece of Toad's TOE, wherein, eYe explain that "nothingness" and more.

Ribbit

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by andy06shake
"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."

Think William Blake sums it up quite well, eh?

To be able to see the Universe in that grain of sand, its contradictory nature in a rose, its simplicity in a daisy, to then be able to explore its Infiniteness in only a second, and all of it is within the grasp of anyone that wants to know the truth.

That's what Blake said!

Pee On!

Ribbit

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by tkwasny

The entire Universe exists because Omniscience decided to be True to Self and go on a "road trip".

And where'd She go?

Where did Dorothy go?

Ribbit

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Cryptonic

I understand your post in a sense, but I have to say that you're trying to manifest something that is abstract. Numbers as we use them didn't exist before us.

That was your opening statement and your ultimate demise, because humans, YOU, didn't exist before numbers existed.

You humans! When are you going to learn you were intentionally created dumb as a door nail!?

Ribbit

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:26 PM
speaking of nothing makes it something.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:26 PM
Nothing is perfect...
...nothing lasts forever.

(AIN)

The Infinite Void becomes aware of itself...
...and expands to create a space which is not itself.

(AIN SOF)

It then contracts to fill that space with itself...
...becoming everything and nothing.

(AIN SOF'OR)

I'd like to think Whitcomb was onto something there.

~ Wandering Scribe

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Cryptonic
Would that not imply that numbers, an abstract construction of the human mind used to describe things in nature, have an ability that they themselves cannot define? Would that not imply that the number 1 has a hyperdimensional property of being able to move outside the plane of time itself? To move through something, is not the same as moving within it, is what I took from that. Am I correct? Is swimming through a river, any different than swimming in a river?

"I have a question for you - Are you always right?"

You state that the answer is always yes. Which can not be the case. To always be right, means that no matter what conversation or argument you've had in your life, you have never stated or made an incorrect answer. Or that your method of handling something is always the correct one. Which as we all know, can not be the case. To say yes, is to nullify the answer you just gave. To say no, is honest.

Why don't you first correct your Logic, since you don't have a clue what you talking about?

I clearly said the answer of YES is BASED on YOUR perspective, not the actual truth. Duh!

What you don't realize is you are sumwhere in the neighorhood of 90% wrong, give-or-take 3%, with that which you think is the truth, and that is all encompassing.

You are a product of this Matrix and it is Constructed of much that is wrong, thus, you are full of wrong.

Ribbit

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
Nothing is perfect...
...nothing lasts forever.

(AIN)

The Infinite Void becomes aware of itself...
...and expands to create a space which is not itself.

(AIN SOF)

It then contracts to fill that space with itself...
...becoming everything and nothing.

(AIN SOF'OR)

I'd like to think Whitcomb was onto something there.

~ Wandering Scribe

The Perfection in Imperfection Paradox goes hand-in-hand with the first one.

eYe've never heard those before but they are Pee On!

Thanks for sharing!

Ribbit

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:45 AM
Emptyiness (no thingness) is form (something).
youtu.be...

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:42 AM

Mathematics is nothing more than Numbers in Motion, thus, while at rest and while in motion, numbers must occupy Space & Time or a Warped Space-Time Paradox occurs.

"Mathematics is the futile quest for certainty, the language of the doubtful and insecure".
Atlasastro.

Thats why they never really add up.
Omega doesn't mean one Iota.

Muhahahahahahahahaha. MMMMMuuuuhahahahahahahahahaa.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 01:42 PM

There you go again, thinking that because you don't know about sumthing, the "proverbial" nothingness, no one can know about it.

eYe know about it and eYe know where it resides and eYe also know why it's where it is and where it came from.
This thread is just a piece of Toad's TOE, wherein, eYe explain that "nothingness" and more.

Ribbit

If there is an "IT" for you to know about, then "IT" is something, not nothing. "IT" is an "IT", not nothing.

I never said I knew anything about something.

But, I know everything about nothing.

With Love,

edit on 19-2-2012 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)

top topics

3