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

No, I'm not suggesting it would be a future state. Everybody seems to have some desire to think beyond the simplicity of the question. absence of change

That was already answered satisfactorily by the moderator. I saw no need to elaborate. A null set is valid. I'm not quite sure where the confusion lies. Nothing is quite literally, nothing. Applying a finite value of 0 to nothing does not make it two things. Labeling it the state of the universe does not make it two things either. Nothing is nothing. Yes, I also agree, you have a logic problem. 0 does not equal 1 or 2. 0=0 It's a very simple question.

In a roundabout way, it appeared you did not want to participate. Which is fine. No hard feelings. I don't know what you're having trouble following. If the universe lacked both space and time, we could apply the absolute finite value of 0 to it. And hypothetically speaking, could that state of the universe ever morph into something else? Does x=x? It's not a complicated question. You seem to be overthinking it.

Agreed. Let me rephrase that sentence. Thank you. It would be the truest application of 0. An absolute finite state of nothing. I suppose it could depend on how you look at potential. Something that is impossible could mean infinite potential in time. I think anyway. It's not inconceivable that nothing could exist as the state of the universe, although I would agree, it is impossible. We're here after all. That has to count for something more than nothing.

Yes. A universe lacking both space and time would by definition, lack existence. It would be the truest definition of nothing, or 0, correct? Try not to overthink it. It is as simple as it sounds. I'm not trying to pull a gotcha either. It's a sincere question. I'm not being a dou...e...

A set needs more than 1 value or thing, so I don't think the term "null set" would be applicable. It's nothing. What are you having trouble understanding?

A hypothetical universe which lacks space-time. All values = 0. Dimension = 0. Time = 0. It's 0 in the truest sense of the definition, nothing.

No. It's a null universe. Nothing exists. 0. As I said, hypothetically speaking. It's a hypothetical null universe, with a value of 0. It's a null universe possessing only one single finite value of 0. It's the only integer, so it's a set of 1 in x=0 which really doesn't make it a set, but I suppose we could also say it's an integer mathematically. Yes, absolutely. I assume you are agreeing that if x=0, then 0=0 is all this hypothetical state of the universe could ever be?

First question. I will lay this out in a series of questions, so please try to follow this thread as it evolves. 0 applied to the universe represents a state of the universe that is absent of both space and time. This is a naturally absolute value, which we can also be identified as a finite state. Although theoretically impossible in our universe, it could also be considered theoretically possible, giving it potential. Given the impossible nature of this state, however, it's potential would be infinite over time from our perspective. Mathematically, it can be represented as x=x, where x=0, because it is only equal to itself in comparison. Nothing more mathematically can be said about this state. Would you agree with the above statements? Does anyone believe this state can be anything else but 0, should the universe ever reach this state? Hypothetically speaking of course.

I do understand it Phi. Nothing is etched in stone, not even the math technically. Still, the math is almost impossible to dispute, and in some cases, impossible. I personally consider it true overall, and don't question it mostly. Some theory is simply closer to the truth than others. Where one decides to slide a theory along the "unknown" scale is a matter of human reasoning and/or choice. I don't question the premise of theories in a more general sense, but I do put them in a scale. Still, theories are essentially educated guesses, whether anyone accepts that statement or not. Some guesses are better than others. An observation is made, tests are done, math is worked out, and someone makes a determination of what that represents. Of course it gets run through the peer review process over and over again until it finally gets labeled as an official theory and everyone agrees it's a safe guess. Dark energy is a great example of what I consider a highly speculative theory. We have an observation. We have supporting math. And the theory of "Dark Energy" is born. All we really have at the core of the theory is an indirect observation of galaxies moving away at an accelerated rate. I understand exactly why it would be labeled as energy, but I'm not sure that really fits a big bang model. We've never observed anything remotely like it in the real world. Things don't explode then speed up over time. Anyway, I'm not trying to go down that road of questioning particular theories, because I know a bunch more theory gets heaped on the pile to explain the core theory. I simply slide the probability to the middle for Dark Energy, until further physical evidence is obtained. And that observation of acceleration places the big bang in question to me. I have a lot sitting in the middle. I'm just trying to understand it for my own personal desires, and I really am not all that interested in the scientific methods or mentality. Clearly I'll never be a scientist, so why bother acting like one? It is much easier to wipe the slate clean and examine these things for myself. I don't believe anyone has it right, but I think we're very close. It's nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone or any theory. I work from the assumption they're all flawed in some manner. Science tends to work on the assumption they're all mostly confirmed and correct. Strange couldn't have articulated the scientific mindset any better actually. "But to use the word "unkown" to describe something known with a high degree of certainty is just stupid". Anything science tends to consider a "high degree of certainty" is typically not questioned, because it is considered "stupid", until someone stumbles upon something contrary to the accepted consensus. Personally, I think it's not only prudent to consider most things unknown in science, I also think it really agrees more with your own statement that, "The reason we NEVER want to assume we know a truth in science is because we'd stop looking if we thought we had reached "The Answer" or "Truth"". In many cases looking in from the outside, science seems to have committed to "The Answer" in theory as "Truth".