Does Zero Exist?

Watch this please:

"The Story of 1"

reply to post by IrnBruFiend


Zero is . . . a symbol. Just like infinity. A placeholder. If it was a number, you would be able to carry out all of the basic mathematical operations with it. Unfortunately, you cannot divide by zero. Those who do get another placeholder (infinity).

As for the application of zero: There is no such thing as nothing. This is why scientists cannot reach a true vacuum, or absolute zero. There was SOMETHING before the Big Bang. Whether you call it Consciousness, or Spirit, or God . . .

Oh, and the shortest length is the Planck length, or 1.616199(97)×10^-35. The smallest length of time is a Planck second, or 5.39121×10^−44 seconds. Look up the Planck scale.

Just my two frank cents,
Seraph

ETA: In before "links please": click here.

reply to post by IrnBruFiend


Math is a series of transformations with respect to an initial identity that we initially accept as being tautologically true (or false).

For instance, if we say:

2 + 2 = 4

We could instead write,

4 = 4

This is a tautology. It's a restatement of 4. Any time we encounter a tautology we can simplify. So instead of writing 4 = 4. We could instead now just write,

4

This principle is how all of mathematics works. We keep one thing invariant and modify the left or right-hand side of the equation to reflect the other. This is curious because it means at zero when we have:

+0 = -0

The component that's tautological is 0. It's a restatement. What isn't a restatement is + or -. So if we're to simplify we would either get,

+ = - (when 0)

Or,

0 = 0 (quantitatively, canceling the + and -)

Both of these statements intuitively make sense, because on the number-line 0 is the moment when + and - meet. This then shows us that 0 is both positive and negative.

So is zero something? Yes. It's quite literally (+ ∧ -).

However this only tells us about the "additive identity element" as cardinal zero. It doesn't tell us what the empty set is.

Without going in to too much detail "zero" as a class of concepts is in essence an ensemble of several mathematical properties (including notions of the empty set (∅), the additive identity element, the idea of nothingness as perhaps a contradiction represented by ∅ ≠ ∅ , et cetera). This is a useful way to think of "zero" because the properties would appear to relate to one another, over the functional arguments + and -, by way of a truth table. Thus as an extension of these interconnections the results then map to a spherical formal system similar to the logical connectives as illustrated in a Hasse diagram,



If you're interested in a more technical treatment here's a paper that goes over the idea in greater detail (Zero as a Sevenfold Truth Table Mapped to a Spherical Formal System). I hope that this makes some sense!

to me, this question is absurd then it is a liar out of evil free will

you cant ask if zero exist when u have no reason to know zero at all

from where do u got the concept of zero to care about its existence?

all u know is object matters and energy above matters that u relatively witness being

where is the zero that u mean? the paradoxe is only the zero you want to force being existing in concept from proving that it doesnt exist in fact

the evil free will that i can see there, is your subjective mean to be an absolute source of matters from bringing matters u know to zero, where then there cant b but u existence as the source of whtever u want absolutely
so killing the relativity of matters existence in fact and in concept in any way, while meaning to take advantage from being energy as never objective to turn it to exclusive source of matters inferiority

energy is above matters yes but it is not about u nor ur gods, history of humans prove superior civilisations before to now, so humans didnt evolve to become source of themselves matters from what they never were

i have the answer for here but i dont want to give bc the question is not right

but to end right what i said last about energy superiority, i would say that true energy by definition wont mean matters possessions to exist, while in truth energy superiority in fact is bc of matters superiority objectively, so it is a way to relativize object superiority when superiority is only to truth conception exclusive positive superiority

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
I think that it does. I think it's simply a number value given to the concept of nothing. For example, if I have a loaf of bread and I eat it, then I have 0 loaves of bread, or no bread.

What really boggles my mind is the concept of negative numbers, because how can you have less than nothing?

Math is very context sensitive so negative numbers aren't always applied in the same way, or at all. Example: If you treat the surface of water as 0 then the positive numbers can extend above and the negative numbers below. Whereas if the bottom of the pool is considered 0 we'd only have positives to work with.

Theoretical: If you have 1 loaf of bread your antimatter counterpart would have -1 (which from their perspective would be just 1). Eat it and you both have 0.

Where did (0) originate from? Some say that the Italian mathematician Fibonacci brought the number (zero) to the western civilization.

Link: www.scientificamerican.com...

Just a thought but , ok How about a value of -10 and a value of 10
-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 where is the middle where is the transition of -1 to +1
The temperature water freezes at when it is at the value of zero.When water turns to steam would it also have to pass threw the value of zero from the transition from water to steam. Then when steam cools it turns to condensation (water).

reply to post by circlemaker


maths by definition is a tool to count relative facts for relative existence, maths dont know absolute, so that tool cant b used to conceive truth

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
Moreover, I have wondered about the Big Bang theory in relation to this. If there was a Big Bang, does this imply the universe began with 0, or nothingness, into everything more than 1? Furthermore, everything in the universe is made out of energy. The first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only transit from state to another. Does this imply energy has always existed, and perhaps 0, or nothingness, in the physical universe has never existed? Can zero exist? Is everything created from nothing, or at least 1 of something? Can zero exist and not exist?

edit on 20-1-2012 by IrnBruFiend because: (no reason given)

I think this depends on how well mathematics represents the reality we perceive within the universe,and how well we understand mathematics representing the universe.

As with the Big Bang theory that before it there was nothing,and then there was nothing is illustrated as you said by 0 and 1 respectively, but if through division we realize zero may not exist then that might mean it never did,which proves the Big Bang theory false,and other theories like the one in which the universe has always existed therefor 1 is always true.

Interesting thing is the universe doesn't appear affected by all this,as we can still grasp the concept true or not,suggesting it also does not affect us.Or is our perspective contaminated already as we try to rationalize or realize these concepts by thinking in the parameters of what we call mathematics to illustrate the reality we think we perceive?

Fascinating concept nonetheless.

my opinion its a man made concept. Its not real. If it doesnt add up it doesnt exist. Thats just my opinion thow. I honestly think its not even worth investigating fully into.

Chapter 1

1.The Tao that is voiced is no longer that of eternal Tao.
The name that has been written is no longer that of eternal name.

2. The nameless is the beginning of the cosmic universe.
The named is the mother of the myriad creatures.

3. Being at peace, one can see into the subtle.
Engaging with passion, one can see into the manifest.

4. They both arise from a common source but have different names. Both are called the mystery within the mystery. They are the door to all wonders.

Lao-Tzu

reply to post by OmegaSynthesis


what mystery?? how do u justify mystery by absolute lies result or justify absolute lies by mystery result

where absolute lies are then truth is knowledge abuse so no mystery there still at all possible in concept or fact

physics is science that mean objects positive superiority existence constancy
maths is science that mean individual free moves positive superiority concept constancy

both sciences are indirectly meaning relative positive superiority so are not in truth nor to

reply to post by IrnBruFiend


I read your thread during the afternoon, local hour and have been thinking on & off about the questions you posed since. Here are some of my opinions (I can't stress opinions enough).

To the best of my understanding numbers in general are a prioritic in nature, or maybe it's accurate to say that numbers precede experience that tell us of their existence. I believe this is true of mathematics in general; hence, its status as the purest science. Besides that mathematics is not about numbers, but axioms and theorems derived from axioms. From the standpoint of pure mathematics I speculate that numbers are simply a consequence of axioms. That said, it's probably true that ideas about numbers preceded axiomatic methods. I don't know whether this is certainly true, but my stab-in-the-dark intuition compels me to believe this.

The one wrinkle I'm familiar with in terms of pure mathematics centers on Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (IT). I'm by no means an expert on this subject matter, but to the best of my understanding Godel's IT showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves." (Nagal, Newman, "Godel's Proof").

IT applies to Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory; Z-F Set Theory is the language of mathematics. I doubt there is a man or woman alive today capable of explaining or realizing the ... full implications of this theorem, and by full I mean those implications that step outside of pure mathematics & into philosophy. At any rate, that's my opinion.

Mention of IT is intended to suggest that pure mathematics is not broken per se, but its pureness of truth is not consistent. So to ask, "Is math always correct?" is, I think, context dependent. Math's logical rigor is a boon, but at a fundamental level (i.e. a level that matters little to the majority of practitioners of mathematics) it is in some sense a bane as well. From my perpsective that's odd, but so is the fact that you can divide a circle's circumference by its diameter and arrive at pi regardless the size of various circles (sidenote: I doubt this was discovered a priori, but by experimentation alone). In any event I mean odd in cool way, but it's still damn odd nonetheless.

Does zero exist? My mind refuses to believe that there is such thing as "nothing", presumably representative of zero. My reasoning is that from a reference standpoint of meaning it's not possible to definitively define "nothing", but allude to its sense meaning. In other words I'm not, hmm, confident that someone can prove a prior or positivistically that "nothing" exists. For that matter I reckon it could be argued that integers don't really exist either, but I tend to lean toward the opinion that in some weird metaphysical way they might. As for zero itself I think of it in terms of limits and infinity. That's formal education for you I guess, but the ideas about the limit is powerful and compelling.

Do I think zero and infinity exist? I don't think zero exists. It's certainly a useful idea, but I don't think it exists. As for infinity I purposely choose to say nothing (pun intended).

reply to post by absolutely



Chapter 2

In the world,
Everyone recognizes beauty as beauty,
Since the ugly is also there.
Everyone recognizes goodness as goodness,
Since evil is also there.

Since Being and non-being give birth to each other,
Difficulty and ease complete each other,
Long and short measure each other,
High and low overflow into each other,
Voice and sound harmonize with each other,
And before and after follow each other.

Therefore the sage
Lives in action less engagement,
And preaches wordless doctrine.

The myriad creatures
Act without beginning,
Nourish without possessing,
Accomplish without claiming credit.

It is accomplishment without claiming credit that makes the outcome self-sustaining.

Lao-Tzu

If you want to understand the essence of nothingness as a whole. I Recommend reading the whole 81 chapters of the Tao Te Ching. Great philosophy, timeless and full of wisdom.

Chapter 43:

What is softest in the world penetrates what is hardest in the world.
Non-being enters where there is no room.
From this I know the riches of non-action.
Wordless teaching and the riches of non-action is matched by very little in the world.


Peace
OS

What you mean by "exist" is something I'm not certain about. Zero is just a value on the real number line between positive and negative values. When speaking of physical quantities, units need to be provided to connect it to the physical manifestation that it represents, otherwise it is just an abstract idea.

To wit: clearly, we know 0 degrees Kelvin "exists" as a potential state in nature. Zero (0), exists as a symbol.

Originally posted by freedomSlave
Just a thought but , ok How about a value of -10 and a value of 10
-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 where is the middle where is the transition of -1 to +1
The temperature water freezes at when it is at the value of zero.When water turns to steam would it also have to pass threw the value of zero from the transition from water to steam. Then when steam cools it turns to condensation (water).

All these numbers are positive in relation to absolute zero.

-10 is only negative in comparison to +10. If you add these to values you get a value that even each other out "0".
But "this" zero is positive compared to the absolute zero. Because, you actually have -10 + 10 = 20 values in total.

Not easy to comprehend if your not trained to think about the difference between fictional numbers and actual things.

Another example is:

-5 + 9 = +4

In total you actually have 14 items. Many think that 5 of the items just vanishes when you do the equation. But that is not the case, but that is how your thought to think.

Sorry if this has already been asked, but, about that Cantor Set... Why is it that the last 3 rows are identical? Why don't they continue to be divided all the way down??? It annoys me that I don't know the answer to this. Now I guess I should read through the thread... Perhaps the answer has already been requested and given. If not, then, what the hell's the matter with you people?! What the hell's the matter with ME??!

Consciousness of nothingness is why the Universe exist as a conglomerate of finites. Omniscience knowing to be true to the function of omnipresent, the Presence must even exist inside of absolute non-existence. Since this was the "rock too heavy for God to lift" a solution was required.

The infinite trail of omniscience efforting to go into absolute non-existence is the kineitic structure that is the Singularity. A mathematical kinetic "sphere" of infinite division and subtraction. As they say in Maine: "you can't get thar from he-ah". So multiple dimensions of finites to serve as consciousness proxies (tools) was established to possess non-existence (we call it emptiness and silence)

Originally posted by 3n19m470
Sorry if this has already been asked, but, about that Cantor Set... Why is it that the last 3 rows are identical? Why don't they continue to be divided all the way down??? It annoys me that I don't know the answer to this. Now I guess I should read through the thread... Perhaps the answer has already been requested and given. If not, then, what the hell's the matter with you people?! What the hell's the matter with ME??!

I agree with you. The OP must have shown a wrong image, because what the OP should be showing is a doubling time of each unit as they are split down the line.

The image should have looked something like this:



EDIT: the OPs image does show the dobouling time. There is nothing wrong with it.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by 3n19m470
Sorry if this has already been asked, but, about that Cantor Set... Why is it that the last 3 rows are identical? Why don't they continue to be divided all the way down??? It annoys me that I don't know the answer to this. Now I guess I should read through the thread... Perhaps the answer has already been requested and given. If not, then, what the hell's the matter with you people?! What the hell's the matter with ME??!

I agree with you. The OP must have shown a wrong image, because what the OP should be showing is a doubling time of each unit as they are split down the line.

The image should have looked something like this: