Could Nothing Be Responsible For Our Creation

Could Nothing Be Responsible For Our Creation

Nothing has value, which therefore means it is something.

From: Doctor Pete Subject: Re:
The difference between 0 and nothing -Most mathematicians consider 0 to be a number, and "nothing" to be the empty set; they are related in that the empty set has zero elements in it; that is, the *cardinality* of the empty set is zero.

To explain a bit more in detail, I will give a bit of set theory at this point. We can think of "sets" as collections of objects. For instance, we can have a set like: S = {dog, cat, horse, car} I've used the braces "{ }" to group the objects together. Each object (dog, for instance), is called an *element*. Such a collection consists of "subcollections," or *subsets*. That is, there is a subset of the above set which consists of those elements which are animals. Mathematicians say: A = { x in S : x is an animal } = {dog, cat, horse} We read this as, "A is the set of all x in S such that x is an animal." So we say that A is *contained* in S.

Similarly, we can define another subset of S as: N = { x in S : x is a machine } = {car} Or we could have said: N = { x in S : x is not an animal } = { x in S : x not in A } = S \ A Here the backslash "\" is another notation mathematicians use, which is kind of like subtraction. What happens is we let N consist of elements in S which are not in A. Naturally, one might ask, what is E = { x in S : x is neither an animal nor a machine } ? Or, if we really want to be crazy, what is E = S \ S ? Well, it doesn't have any elements. Such a set is called the empty set, which is written as "{}" or a zero with a slash through it. Why this is not the same as 0 will become clear if we consider sets of numbers, rather than sets of objects.

For example, let S = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} What is the *cardinality* of S? That is, how many elements does S have? Clearly, it has 5. Mathematicians write this as |S| = 5. Now, consider the subset {0} of S. It contains a single element, 0. But it is not the empty set, for the empty set has *no* elements. Is the empty set a subset of S? Sure! To see why, ask yourself, "Is S a subset of itself?" Yes, because S contains itself, or every element of S is also an element of S (of course). Then S \ S must also be a subset of S. But this is, of course, the empty set. So both {} and {0} are valid subsets of S, but they are not the same.

To see an example of the difference between 0 and {}, we ask, "what is the value of x such that 5 + x = 3 + 2 ? Clearly, x = 0 is the answer. Now, what about "what is the value of x such that: x + 5 = 1, and x + 1 = 1 Obviously, there is no answer; that is, x = {}.

Now, hopefully, things are a bit more clear. The idea of "nothing" stems from this notion of a collection. Like eggs in a basket. If you had no eggs (nothing in the basket), then this is analogous to the empty set. The *number* of eggs in the basket is zero. So we can think of "nothing" as a term describing the set itself, whereas "zero" is a term not describing a set, but an element. The confusion between the two is a result of the fact that the number of elements in the empty set is 0.

the universe is here? Can it be true?

Mass doesn't just jump out of a top hat you know, even if there was a big bang, something had to have happened to let in gain its existence in reality.

The answer still remains either nothing, or indeed, something, but then what created that something?

This is the question you see. Can nothing inversely create something? It is a riddle that is impossible to solve unless the human race becomes intelligent to a Q like level.

You are making the assumption that there was ever a time when there was "nothing". This is a very big assertion indeed.