A Problem of Logic

[andreasjva]

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.

Edited January 16, 2019 by andreasjva

[Ghideon]

I have some trouble following the logic, so I have some questions:

If I combine:

4 hours ago, andreasjva said:

0 applied to the universe represents a state of the universe that is absent of both space and time. 

and:

4 hours ago, andreasjva said:

Does anyone believe this state can be anything else but 0, should the universe ever reach this state?

can I draw the conclusion that by removing all space in the universe and stopping time it follows that all the energy and/or matter in the universe is squeezed into a singularity? I would then say that the result is "infinite density", not something I would use "0" to describe.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, andreasjva said:

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. 

x=x is true for any number, not just zero. 

There is a lot more, mathematically, that can be said about zero. For example, it is one of the axioms of the set-theoretic definition of integers. It is the additive identity for the integer field. And so on. 

I cant make much sense of your first point. 

5 hours ago, andreasjva said:

Would you agree with the above statements?

No

[andreasjva]

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

can I draw the conclusion that by removing all space in the universe and stopping time it follows that all the energy and/or matter in the universe is squeezed into a singularity?

No. It's a null universe.  Nothing exists.  0.  As I said, hypothetically speaking.  

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I cant make much sense of your first point. 

It's a hypothetical null universe, with a value of 0.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

For example, it is one of the axioms of the set-theoretic definition of integers. It is the additive identity for the integer field. And so on.

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. 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

x=x is true for any number, not just zero. 

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? 

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

It's a hypothetical null universe, with a value of 0.

The value of what is zero?

What is a “null universe”? One that doesn’t exist?

There are vacuum solutions to the Einstein Field Equations where the energy of the universe is zero. Is that the sort of thing you mean?

20 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

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. 

Sounds like the null set, but I don’t really know what you mean?

[andreasjva]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

What is a “null universe”? One that doesn’t exist? 

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. 

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

 I assume you are agreeing that if x=0, then 0=0 is all  this hypothetical state of the universe could ever be? 

I don’t know what it would mean for the state of the universe to be 0=0. So, no, I don’t agree. 

[andreasjva]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sounds like the null set, but I don’t really know what you mean?

A set needs more than 1 value or thing, so I don't think the term "null set" would be applicable. 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don’t know what it would mean for the state of the universe to be 0=0. So, no, I don’t agree. 

It's nothing.  What are you having trouble understanding? 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

A set needs more than 1 value or thing, so I don't think the term "null set" would be applicable. 

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_set

7 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

It's nothing.  What are you having trouble understanding? 

What do you mean by "state of the universe"?

0=0 is not "nothing" it is an equation. It has the same truth value as 1=1 (if taken as a logical predicate).

Are you just talking about a universe that doesn't exist or something else?

 

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I have some trouble following the logic,

 

4 hours ago, Strange said:

I cant make much sense of your first point. 

 

I am having more trouble following than both of you put together.

So

10 hours ago, andreasjva said:

First question.

If that was the first question, please dont ask the second one.

[Strange]

10 hours ago, andreasjva said:

0 applied to the universe represents a state of the universe that is absent of both space and time. 

If there is no space and time, that means that the universe does not exist? 

10 hours ago, andreasjva said:

This is a naturally absolute value, which we can also be identified as a finite state. 

What do you mean by "absolute value"? This has a meaning in mathematics, but it is not clear if that is what you mean.

What do you mean by "finite state"? 

10 hours ago, andreasjva said:

Given the impossible nature of this state, however, it's potential would be infinite over time from our perspective.

How are you defining "potential"? I would have thought that if something is impossible then its potential is zero.

[andreasjva]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Are you just talking about a universe that doesn't exist or something else?

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...

[Strange]

1 minute ago, andreasjva said:

Yes.  A universe lacking both space and time would by definition, lack existence. 

Ok. So you are talking about a universe that doesn't exist. That seems fairly pointless. There is nothing to say about it.

1 minute ago, andreasjva said:

It would be the truest definition of nothing, or 0, correct?

It could be an example (not a definition) of nothing.

It is not a definition of zero because that is a number and numbers are not defined by physical objects - not even ones that don't exist.

[andreasjva]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not a definition of zero because that is a number and numbers are not defined by physical objects

Agreed.  Let me rephrase that sentence.  Thank you.

It would be the truest application of 0.  An absolute finite state of nothing. 

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

How are you defining "potential"? I would have thought that if something is impossible then its potential is zero.

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.      

Edited January 16, 2019 by andreasjva

[studiot]

I asked for an explanation, in my roundabout way.

Please provide it as per the rules of this forum.

[andreasjva]

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

If that was the first question, please dont ask the second one.

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.    

[studiot]

2 hours ago, andreasjva said:

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Sounds like the null set, but I don’t really know what you mean?

A set needs more than 1 value or thing, so I don't think the term "null set" would be applicable. 

Exactly a null set would be inapplicable yet you include an incorrect statement about sets.

You also seem unclear as to whether this universe of yours has 1 value or no values, since you have contradicted yourself by saying both.

 

3 hours ago, andreasjva said:

It's a null universe possessing only one single finite value of 0.

If it is a universe with a single value, finite or otherwise, it is automatically two things.

The universe and the value.

Yet another logical contradiction.

Yes I agree, you have

Quote

A Problem of Logic

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by studiot

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, andreasjva said:

No. It's a null universe.  Nothing exists.  0.  As I said, hypothetically speaking.  

Bold by me:

11 hours ago, andreasjva said:

Does anyone believe this state can be anything else but 0, should the universe ever reach this state?

It looks like you speak of a future state of the universe. Currently the universe contains some energy and mass, universe is not empty. 

11 hours ago, andreasjva said:

0 applied to the universe represents a state of the universe that is absent of both space and time. 

If, hypothetically speaking, universe can reach this state, what happen to the energy and matter?

[andreasjva]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Exactly a null set would be inapplicable yet you include an incorrect statement about sets. 

That was already answered satisfactorily by the moderator.  I saw no need to elaborate.  A null set is valid.

 

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

If it is a universe with a single value, finite or otherwise, it is automatically two things.

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.  

 

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes I agree, you have 

Quote

A Problem of Logic

Yes, I also agree, you have a logic problem.  0 does not equal 1 or 2.  0=0

It's a very simple question. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

It would be the truest application of 0.

It could be an application of 0. But only if you define what has the value zero. 

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

An absolute finite state of nothing. 

What do you mean by "finite state"?

(You are using words in a way that seems to make sense to you but I don't know what you intend by them.)

25 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

It's not a complicated question. 

It is just poorly defined. So poorly defined as to be meaningless. And what is the point of the question anyway.

If you don't get to the point soon, then this thread might not last long.

 

12 hours ago, andreasjva said:

Does anyone believe this state can be anything else but 0, should the universe ever reach this state?

As the universe has space, time and energy, how could it ever reach your hypothetical state of being non-existent?

Your questions make no sense.

[andreasjva]

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

It looks like you speak of a future state of the universe. Currently the universe contains some energy and mass, universe is not empty.

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. 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

What do you mean by "finite state"?

absence of change

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

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.  

If the universe lacked both space and time, is it actually a universe?

And how is "apply the absolute finite value of 0 to it" supposed to make sense?

[andreasjva]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

As the universe has space, time and energy, how could it ever reach your hypothetical state of being non-existent?

It would be a complete collapse of both dimension and time.  Hypothetically speaking. 

Just now, swansont said:

If the universe lacked both space and time, is it actually a universe?

No, not really I suppose.  But we need to label it in some way to have a discussion about it. 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

And how is "apply the absolute finite value of 0 to it" supposed to make sense?

0 quite literally means nothing, numerically speaking.  1-1=0

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

It would be a complete collapse of both dimension and time.  Hypothetically speaking. 

That has no meaning to me.

27 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

No, not really I suppose.  But we need to label it in some way to have a discussion about it. 

You need a label for "nothing"?

27 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

0 quite literally means nothing, numerically speaking.  1-1=0

But we aren't talking about numbers. We're talking about a universe.

[andreasjva]

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you don't get to the point soon, then this thread might not last long.

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.