A Problem of Logic

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

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.   

You're trying to make it apply to a universe, and that's not making sense.

[andreasjva]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

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

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. 

[swansont]

Just now, andreasjva said:

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. 

A bank account does not have spatial dimensions, nor does it lose them (or the time dimension) when the balance is zero, so that's not really a helpful analogy.

 

[andreasjva]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

A bank account does not have spatial dimensions, nor does it lose them (or the time dimension) when the balance is zero, so that's not really a helpful analogy.

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

[studiot]

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour 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.  

 

1 hour 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.  

 

It is clearly not a simple question since understanding it eludes several people with higher degrees and from different continents.

Quote

A null set is valid.

If you must introduce set theory then you must also distinguish carefully between the set and its members. They are not the same thing.

Therefore using set theory, you always have more than one thing.

Quote

Labeling it the state of the universe does not make it two things either.

Actually, it does and this does not have anything to do with set theory or whether you use it or not.

A thing and a label you chose to apply to that thing are necessarily different things.

That is basic English.

Quote

Applying a finite value of 0

Similar basic English implies that if you use the word value for something the value is (in principle) transferable to something else, or changeable.

So if something has a value of zero it could become a value of 1 or 2 or some other number.

But you then have to prove that the thing ceases to exist (if it existed in the first place) after its value is changed.

What you are doing is trying (unsuccessfully) to combine two subjects with different properties into one.

That just doesn't work and is the downfall of many a proposition.

Edited January 16, 2019 by studiot

[Ghideon]

 

49 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

No, I'm not suggesting it would be a future state. 

Ok. Maybe language issue, what does the following mean? 

12 hours ago, andreasjva said:

, should the universe ever reach this state?

I understand the above as something happening in the future, not something in the past or at the current time. When trying to follow your logic it makes a difference (to me, at least) if you are speculating about an earlier* state of the universe or a future state of the universe. 

 

*) "before" big bang? If that has any meaning I don't know.

 

[andreasjva]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

But you then have to prove that the thing ceases to exist (if it existed in the first place) after its value is changed.

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?    

[Strange]

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

Everybody seems to have some desire to think beyond the simplicity of the question. 

Maybe you need to ask a simple, clear and unambiguous question. After all this time, I have no idea what you are asking.

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

1 hour ago, Strange said:

What do you mean by "finite state"?

absence of change

And there's the problem: you use words to mean something completely different from their usual meaning. I could never have guess that "finite state" means "absence of change". It is like saying "three bananas" means "dancing a waltz at midnight".

[andreasjva]

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

*) "before" big bang? If that has any meaning I don't know.

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. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

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

If it doesn't exist, why label it? And what is there to discuss?

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

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. 

You are making it difficult.

Quote

Hierarchically speaking, a null universe would be at the top of all null values as we perceive things.   

More incoherent words.

If a "null universe" is a nothing, how can it be above other nothings? You are making no sense.

Maybe you should just start again: what is your question?

3 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

The question is much more fundamental.  It's a very simple question on the surface. 

What is the question?

Quote

0 is a finite value in x=x. 

0 is a finite value. So are 1 and 2 and 3. All numbers are finite.

[scienceafrique]

If it exist, then it can't be 0.

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

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

Yes, I have confusion about such a statement, too. That should not be surprising, as I had already stated that a bank account is not a useful analogy for the universe.

2 minutes ago, scienceafrique said:

If it exist, then it can't be 0.

The two are not equivalent. Existence (or nonexistence) cannot be arbitrarily assigned a number.

 Saying a nonexistent universe is a 0 holds no more meaning than saying a piece of granite is a 3.

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

No, this is just a hypothetical question for the meaning of nothing, as we might apply 0 to it.

Hypothetical or otherwise this is not a simple question.

Philosophers have wrestled with it for millenia.

Personally I think that the question is unanswerable out of context.

And here's the rub.

The full context is necessary.

It's much easier to define and discuss something eg a football than nothing (at all).

[scienceafrique]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, I have confusion about such a statement, too. That should not be surprising, as I had already stated that a bank account is not a useful analogy for the universe.

The two are not equivalent. Existence (or nonexistence) cannot be arbitrarily assigned a number.

 Saying a nonexistent universe is a 0 holds no more meaning than saying a piece of granite is a 3.

I guess you're right... so what is a zero universe?

[andreasjva]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I could never have guess that "finite state" means "absence of change".

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.   

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, scienceafrique said:

I guess you're right... so what is a zero universe?

You're asking as if it's an answerable question. I don't know that such a thing has meaning.

1 minute ago, andreasjva said:

 The state of me is finite, right? 

That's another question without meaning. The "state of you" is not a number, so to say it's finite is meaningless.

 

[andreasjva]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's another question without meaning. The "state of you" is not a number, so to say it's finite is meaningless.

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?   

Edited January 16, 2019 by andreasjva

[Ghideon]

11 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

0 if a finite value, therefore, it cannot change

By ”finite” , do you mean ”final”?

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

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

The "state" of your bank account can be described by a number which represents the amount of money in the account.

What is the number 0 representing in the "state of the universe"?

40 minutes ago, scienceafrique said:

I guess you're right... so what is a zero universe?

What is an invisible green thought?

33 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

Of course I'm not a number, but then again I'm not finite either. 

Of course you are finite. You are certainly not infinite.

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

By ”finite” , do you mean ”final”?

Oh, very good.

[andreasjva]

36 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

By ”finite” , do you mean ”final”?

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. 

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course you are finite. You are certainly not infinite.

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. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by andreasjva

[swansont]

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

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?   

There are probably a lot of terms that don't describe your state. Then again, you haven't really defined what you mean by your state.

For example, you are alive. That's not a number. One day you will be dead. That's not a number, either. However, we could develop a model where we assign those values, but you have given no hint that this is your approach.

Further, there are many more properties which would describe your state, each of them orthogonal to the others. So even if you came up with a numerical scale to describe them, you would never have a single number at the end of it all.

[andreasjva]

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are probably a lot of terms that don't describe your state. Then again, you haven't really defined what you mean by your state.

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? 

Edited January 16, 2019 by andreasjva

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

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? 

When you keep referring to all of those things as "finite" and seem to want to assign a numerical value to it, no it's pretty far from obvious.

 

[andreasjva]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

For example, you are alive. That's not a number. One day you will be dead. That's not a number, either. However, we could develop a model where we assign those values, but you have given no hint that this is your approach.

Further, there are many more properties which would describe your state, each of them orthogonal to the others. So even if you came up with a numerical scale to describe them, you would never have a single number at the end of it all.

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

Edited January 16, 2019 by andreasjva

[swansont]

Just now, andreasjva said:

Well, that's kind of what I've done.  The potential of 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.  1>x>0

And that's within epsilon of meaningless. What would it mean to have an existence of 0.7? Of 0.7000000652?