andreasjva

How so? The finite definition of me is defined as a finite segment of time. It is composed of a quantity of time, which is not finite, but defined by the number of Earth orbits around the sun, and the number of revolutions of the Earth while orbiting the sun. That's the finite definition of me. Is that wrong? It's more of an abstract concept of finite applied to my existence through time.

I only acknowledged that x as defined by a finite decimal value is meaningless. I don't think the logic is meaningless. x can only be a dynamic value, not a finite value, because I am not finite while I exist. As I suggested, we define finite in segments of time, which is an abstract usage. Hypothetically speaking, we could find a means of traveling at C, and if that were the case, I may no longer be definable as a segment of time. Time is a quantified dynamic value we perceive as a finite value.

Of course it behaves mathematically. We use math to understand how the universe is behaving. It follows principles of math. e=mc^2.

I completely agree. Still, what is x? It's not finite.

Well, that's kind of what I've done. The potential for me to exist is 1. My existence is x. And my death is 0. The only things finite about my existence is the potential and my death, and neither are truly present in my existence. They lie just outside of the state of me. 1>x>0

Sorry, I thought that would have been obvious. All the things that keep me conscious and/or alive. I maintain the state of me by eating and drinking fluids, and expelling excess. If I stopped eating and drinking, or expelling the excess, I would obviously come to a fairly abrupt end. That is the state of me. I need to keep adding energy to my state to keep it going for as long as possible. Eventually my body will stop functioning no matter what I do, and the state of me will no longer exist. All the parts used in maintaining the state of me will decay, some taking much longer than others, and will eventually transform into something else. The majority of me is typically water, for example, so that will simply evaporate and rain down on everyone left behind who can confirm my existence. Abstractly, we can define the state of me as existing over a finite segment of time, but my entire existence was the embodiment of continual change, and not really finite in the truest definition of the word. I was not static, absent of change, fixed in value, etc. I only reach a finite state in my death, when my existence becomes 0, mathematically speaking. What was I?

Not exactly. We tend to use the term frequently, and the more I've thought about it the less I understand how we apply it to things, or what exactly it means. I am considered a finite being, because I have a beginning and an end. That seems more of an abstract definition or application of the term. The universe is driven entirely by mathematics. In math, a finite value is fixed, final, absent of change, static, etc. There is no gray area. The universe doesn't think, so it doesn't apply concepts to things as we do, or get conflicted with the duality of a definition. It follows the laws of math precisely, and never makes a mistake. To the universe, finite can only mean finite in the mathematical sense. If it didn't, e=mc^2 would be meaningless to us. We tend to use the term in a more abstract manner. Yes, my existence is finite, but that's not really a fixed value in reality, it's a virtual definition over a segment of time. I don't know where to the draw the line, logically speaking. If the universe is following mathematics, and it is, there must be some inherent rudimentary understanding of 0 and 1. Not that I am implying the universe understand anything. What I mean is, all math can be accomplished within the space of 0 to 1. They are required minimum values to behave mathematically. Obviously, we wouldn't want to do it that way. I may be finite in time, but I'm still a work in process right now. My time is not up. So, what am I now? Somewhere in between finite and infinite? My finite segment of time won't be completed until I'm dead.

Of course I'm not a number, but then again I'm not finite either. I don't become finite until I die. So what am I in between conception and death?

Well, numerically, a static value is absent of change. 0 if a finite value, therefore, it cannot change. If it could, x=x would make little sense to anyone. The state of me is finite, right? But how finite is it really, is the question. You could look at it as, my potential to exist as a state is singular finite value of 1, because I will be a completely unique individual at conception. I'm sure there is probably an infinite number of variables leading to my singular existence, but I am unique. We define the length of my life in terms of finite values. For example, I am 54 years, 24 days, and about 12 hours old, approximately. 54 does not mean though. This is merely a virtual definition of my age, which is derived from a segment of time, which is also not finite. When I cease to exist at some point in the future, which is a certainty, the state of me now possesses the finite value of 0. What is finite? Numerically, finite values do not change. My life is nothing but change from the time of conception until the time of my death. I only see two finite values associated with my existence. The potential for me to exist as 1, and my death as 0. We seem to be moving backwards in time. The clock starts running backwards as soon as we exist.

No, this is just a hypothetical question for the meaning of nothing, as we might apply 0 to it. The question is much more fundamental. It's a very simple question on the surface. 0 is a finite value in x=x.

My cat passed away about 2 years ago. I can prove my cat doesn't exist anymore as the state of my cat. Unless you want to get into biblical views or something, which I don't really subscribe to. But who knows, right?

Okay, the state of my bank account is >0. The state of the universe is >0. ???

I'm really talking about both, and how we apply numbers to things. 0 from our perspective is more or less a relative perspective, isn't it? If I had 0 dollars in my bank account for example, that would only be real to me as a numeric value.

I'm trying to move forward. I just never imagined it would be so difficult for anyone to understand the meaning of nothing, and how 0 applied to nothing would be so difficult to accept. Hierarchically speaking, a null universe would be at the top of all null values as we perceive things.

It would be a complete collapse of both dimension and time. Hypothetically speaking. No, not really I suppose. But we need to label it in some way to have a discussion about it. 0 quite literally means nothing, numerically speaking. 1-1=0