When can Zer0 + Zer0 = 0ne?

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by tkwasny
"Zero" is a relative place-holder. Absolute non-existence (true zero) is self-annihilating upon recognition or consideration by any consciousness. Because of this, and Omnipresence cannot be true to Its own definition of existing absolutely everywhere, the Universe needed to be created so that relative non-existence (zero) can exist and Omniscient consciousness can possess it through finite proxies, namely, us.

That is true of Zero, but what of Double Zero? Double Ought?

Would kNot the implosion of 00 be the creation of Everything?

The creation of the One?

Ribbit

edit on 24-2-2012 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

The infinite division, as a spherical geometric strike of effort, by omniscience in the attempt to occupy absolute non-existence is the cause for the Singularity existing. A structure composed of infinite kinetic Mind trying to occupy absolute non-existence with Itself.

It IS the infinite spherical implosion in the effort toward zero. Spherical division/subtraction.

Sew then, how can a Singularity be a Singularity, if it has two sides and a middle?

The answer of CourSe is SourCe Middle is the Singularity and the two sides comprise SourCe Middle.

Dew you think We've lost'em yet?

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and God was the word.

Nothing is perfect; nothing lasts forever. The Infinite Void becomes aware of itself, and expands to create a space which is not itself. It then contracts to fill that space with itself, becoming everything and nothing.

0 (The Word / the aware Infinite Void) + 0 (God / Non-Void Expansion) = 1 (God as Word / Everything and Nothing).

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
But it goes inline with Double Ought.

Zero x Zero = 00 = 0^0 = One

With that, then:

Zero + Zero = 00 = 0^0 = One

1. Are you making a distinction between 0, and the word 'Zero'?
2. 0 x 0 = 0^2, not 0^0
3. 00 is just stupid, multiple consecutive 0s serve no purpose except as place holders, so multiple 0s are equal to just one 0.
4. 0 x 0 = 0
5. 0 + 0 = 0

This is what no child left behind has done.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
The fibonacci sequence.

Still not sure how the 1 is originally formed though....

-8, 5, -3, 2, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8

A wise man once said....

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have something if you want to be with me."

Guy was a mathematical genius.

Physicists have discovered a strange characteristic of quantum communication channels. If two quantum channels each have a transmission capacity of zero, they may still have a nonzero capacity when used together. This effect, which has no classical counterpart, reveals a new complexity in the fundamental nature of quantum communication.

LINK

duality. circles are symbols that represent one whole. -0+0=1. Think ven diagram. Then think of a torus. See that there in the middle? its the one.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and God was the word.

Nothing is perfect; nothing lasts forever. The Infinite Void becomes aware of itself, and expands to create a space which is not itself. It then contracts to fill that space with itself, becoming everything and nothing.

0 (The Word / the aware Infinite Void) + 0 (God / Non-Void Expansion) = 1 (God as Word / Everything and Nothing).

~ Wandering Scribe

eYe can live with that but the werd was ONE kNot God/SourCe, because God/SourCe is ONE.

When does 1 equal 7?

O = 15
N = 14
E = 5

15 + 14 + 5 = 34 = 3 + 4 = 7

ONE = 7

Ribbit

Originally posted by circlemaker

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
But it goes inline with Double Ought.

Zero x Zero = 00 = 0^0 = One

With that, then:

Zero + Zero = 00 = 0^0 = One

1. Are you making a distinction between 0, and the word 'Zero'?
2. 0 x 0 = 0^2, not 0^0
3. 00 is just stupid, multiple consecutive 0s serve no purpose except as place holders, so multiple 0s are equal to just one 0.
4. 0 x 0 = 0
5. 0 + 0 = 0

First of all, you need to understand Symbolic Math.

Second of all, go back to #1.

Third of all, if you ignored #2, then Symbolic Math uses symbols and the Zeros are symbols of the Universe, with the two Zeros as One, linked by Time.

Ribbit

The distance between any two points is always 1. The distance between each number in sequence is always one. Since zero is the space between negative 1 and positive 1, the zero itself is "1".

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


That all comes down to semantics. The Word, and God are two separate things in Jewish mysticism, because the Word, called the Ren, or the Name, comes from the Egyptian mystery schools, which Christian and Jewish mystical theology is largely based upon. Modern Christian interpretations place the Word and God as one-and-the-same though, because theological doctrine decrees that God is the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Alpha-Omega with no Iota between or before.

I do like one equally seven. Now, when does 6 + 5 = 9?

Stumped? Here:

I I I I I I

+

I I I I I

=

N I N E

~ Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

That all comes down to semantics. The Word, and God are two separate things in Jewish mysticism, because the Word, called the Ren, or the Name, comes from the Egyptian mystery schools, which Christian and Jewish mystical theology is largely based upon. Modern Christian interpretations place the Word and God as one-and-the-same though, because theological doctrine decrees that God is the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Alpha-Omega with no Iota between or before.

I do like one equally seven. Now, when does 6 + 5 = 9?

Stumped? Here:

I I I I I I

+

I I I I I

=

N I N E

~ Scribe

eYe think the better equation would be:

7 + 4 = 9
or
3 + 8 = 9
or
3 + 1 + 3 + 4 = 9

As to what you said:

"theological doctrine decrees that God is the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Alpha-Omega with no Iota between or before."

Pee On!

The only thing eYe'd change is the middle & last part:

"God/Source is the Unmoved Mover, the First and Last Cause, the Middle and in-between that, the Alpha-Omega with n0thing between nor before or after."

Ribbit

Originally posted by Fromabove
The distance between any two points is always 1. The distance between each number in sequence is always one. Since zero is the space between negative 1 and positive 1, the zero itself is "1".

The interesting thing about the distance between any two numbers in sequence is it is One, but it's the originating number whose distance is transversed.

Going from One to Two, you transverse One to get to Two.

Going from Two to Three, you transverse Two to get to Three.

etc . . .

Sew in transversing from Negative One to Positive One, you transverse Negative One and Zero to get to Positive One, thus, you transverse Two to get to One.

+2 + (-1) = +1

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


0.499 + 0.499 = 0.998 Rounded to whole numbers in a computer spreadsheet would give 0 + 0 = 1

Also, 0^0 = 1. Any number to the zero power equals 1. So there is that. 0^0 +0^0 = 2 though, so that doesn't work.

The most common definitions of zero are the "absence of quantity." Therefore, the absence of anything plus the absence of anything, means you still have nothing.

ze·ro
   [zeer-oh] Show IPA noun, plural -ros, -roes, verb, -roed, -ro·ing, adjective
noun
1.
the figure or symbol 0, which in the Arabic notation for numbers stands for the absence of quantity; cipher.
2.
the origin of any kind of measurement; line or point from which all divisions of a scale, as a thermometer, are measured in either a positive or a negative direction.
3.
a mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.
4.
naught; nothing.
5.
the lowest point or degree.

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

maybe the poster of the video is implying that the fact that there is the possibility of there being two "nothings" in one place, could only mean that there would be "something" there to distinguish the two "nothings" between each other?


edit: example: a line drawn down the middle of a blank piece of paper.

edit on 24-2-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)

The line that differentiates nothing and something is what one is....

if that makes any sense.

Nothing can't be, without something.

The divide between the 2 would be the number 1.

Just trying to figure it out.

reply to post by LucidDreamer85



"Nothing can't be, without something."





without something, wouldn't only nothing be?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LucidDreamer85

 

"Nothing can't be, without something."


without something, wouldn't only nothing be?

For n0thing to exist in the sumthing realm, it would have to be sumthing but for n0thing to exist in a n0thing realm, it could kNot be sumthing, it is only n0thing.

Sew n0thing can exist as sumthing in this realm but n0thing would exist as n0thing outside this sumthing realm.

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


so you view the universe as a contained and connected realm only consisting of somethings?

because we exist as something,,,,, something can only exist as something, and it just so happens to exist in the form of the universe, and we just so happen to exist in the way we are being....

the idea of absolute nothing is irrelevant because we are something...

the happening of the universe is a system as a whole and each part is related to the entire system in the way that, it is what exists......

but this system is vaster inwards and outwards as no one or no thing could imagine.... and it is divided infinitely as related and uniform and one as it is.... its components are completely separate,,, and when there can be a level of distinction made of an individual, a one, a body, planetary or a persons, this unique grouping system is made up of infinite separate parts.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

so you view the universe as a contained and connected realm only consisting of somethings?

because we exist as something,,,,, something can only exist as something, and it just so happens to exist in the form of the universe, and we just so happen to exist in the way we are being....

the idea of absolute nothing is irrelevant because we are something...

the happening of the universe is a system as a whole and each part is related to the entire system in the way that, it is what exists......

but this system is vaster inwards and outwards as no one or no thing could imagine.... and it is divided infinitely as related and uniform and one as it is.... its components are completely separate,,, and when there can be a level of distinction made of an individual, a one, a body, planetary or a persons, this unique grouping system is made up of infinite separate parts.

Contained? No! Defined? Yes!

The idea of absolute n0thing is relevent, for WE (the Universe) IS growing into that absolute n0thingness.

As to vastness, while vast, it isn't as vast as one might think or imagine, but that is always subject to change over time.

To understand, imagine the Infinite finiting itself. Would the Infinite kNot then be defined, although once Infinite? Then imagine that once Infinite Being, growing back into its once self? That would make its limit Infinite, although finite at any given moment in time.

The Law of One is applicable:

"You are only One once."

The "once" folds back onto the "One" infinitely, thus, making the equation 1^I, thus, the One is Eternally One.

Is Life eternal? Yes!

Is human Life eternal? Human Life isn't true Life, so the answer is No!

Ribbit