DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

1 - ...probability is about knowing not about happening...(when the wave collapses probability falls to zero)..now I guess your talking about equilibrium distribution on events as they unfold.

The probability wave describes the world we do not observe, so saying it does not describe what happens means that only what we observe happens -- if a giant wave is coming to you, just close your eyes.

Being about knowing without being about happening? Since knowledge is about happening, being about knowledge is being about happening.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - ...again, design imply´s time to design or wish for something to become...that which is already does not need a designer in order to be...it simply is there forever...Potential World is LAW itself made "thing" !
...not opposed to nothingness, which it is n´t, but as everything everywhere...

No comment on that one.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

3 - Don´t buy my theory just yet...I am certain it is incomplete...at the present time is more of an intuition then a theory...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Regards

2 Replies

@guigus,

I didn't know that. I thought any division by zero, was always equal to infinity.

1 Reply

@Neil D,

0 / 0 = 1, since 1 * 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 2, since 2 * 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 576, since 576 * 0 = 0
...
0 / 0 is any number, hence is indeterminate.

On the other hand, 1 / 0 = undefined, since nothing * 0 = 1.

As also:

1) "Nothing multiplied by zero is one" is true.
2) "Zero multiplied by zero is one" is false.
3) Nothing is different from zero.

2 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

The probability wave describes the world we do not observe, so saying it does not describe what happens means that only what we observe happens -- if a giant wave is coming to you, just close your eyes.

Being about knowing without being about happening? Since knowledge is about happening, being about knowledge is being about happening.

...you must be joking me...

Lets see if you can be accurate on this or not...From a given set of potential choices regarding one cause how many events do actually happen in our Universe ?
...it seams to me that it is not the case that you choose to do something and your action multiplies by two or three ensemble opposing events...either you just plain dumb or you did n´t read it properly...
Statistics regarding events analyse the distribution of probability´s but don´t in any moment prove that the chance of something happening is actually smaller then 100%...what they do is to suggest the potential distribution of probability, while you don´t know what actually will happen...otherwise the ongoing discussion of determinism versus indeterminism would be settled !!! (which it is n´t, even in QM...since parallel universes actually allow a deterministic approach to the problem)
...you certainly must know that as soon as the wave function collapses all other potential chances fall to zero while the remaining gets 100% chance...and that is being accurate !

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

1) "Nothing multiplied by zero is one" is true.

in here you will have to prove "nothing" is actually an operator...because so far we are debating if it is anything other then an obscure word concept which by its own definition cannot refer !!!

it seams to me then what you have is this :

---------------(nothing) x 0=1 which is nonsense ! aside plain dumb...

...now, it can be that you want forcefully define nothing as something which is a contradiction in terms, but that is your problem not my own...

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - ...again, design imply´s time to design or wish for something to become...that which is already does not need a designer in order to be...it simply is there forever...Potential World is LAW itself made "thing" !
...not opposed to nothingness, which it is n´t, but as everything everywhere...

Quote:

No comment on that one.

Either you fully understand and are able to question what it means potential or you don´t...

...somehow it seams to me that potential is just a way of saying we don´t know what actually will happen since several things seam possible up to what we know, which is limited...therefore potential refers at best to multiple ACTUAL parallel reality´s where initial condition change !...

...it regards a temporal approach to events...that which WILL HAPPEN somewhere forward, when it happens...but it may well be the case that it is there and we just don´t know from where we stand presently !
(it certainly seams so when we think for instance on Einstein´s non linear approach to Time in general Relativity)

So far your objection begs the question...it may be the case that you simply don´t understand the question...

PS - I Apologise in advance for my "tour de force" against your remarks, as they are n´t hill intended towards your person at all...most essentially they just figuratively convey a passionate colourful opposition onto your beliefs...in truth it simply is the case that I want to shake your level of awareness onto the problem at hand in a more intense manner...and that, bottom line, is about sharing !...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
1) "Nothing multiplied by zero is one" is true.

in here you will have to prove "nothing" is actually an operator...because so far we are debating if it is anything other then an obscure word concept which by its own definition cannot refer !!!

There is not need of proving that nothing is a mathematical operator, since "nothing multiplied by zero results in one" is not a mathematical operation, but a plain English sentence. Let me explain it better to you:

Nothing -- not any single number nor anything else -- multiplied by zero results in one.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

it seams to me then what you have is this :

---------------(nothing) x 0=1 which is nonsense ! aside plain dumb...

Why do you insist in transforming the sentence "nothing multiplied by zero results in one" in a mathematical operation? That sentence is an assertion about a mathematical operation, not a mathematical operation itself.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...now, it can be that you want forcefully define nothing as something which is a contradiction in terms, but that is your problem not my own...

Your problem is that you cannot understand plain English, just mathematics, and unfortunately to you what I am saying cannot be said in mathematical terms.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
The probability wave describes the world we do not observe, so saying it does not describe what happens means that only what we observe happens -- if a giant wave is coming to you, just close your eyes.

Being about knowing without being about happening? Since knowledge is about happening, being about knowledge is being about happening.

...you must be joking me...

Lets see if you can be accurate on this or not...From a given set of potential choices regarding one cause how many events do actually happen in our Universe ?
...it seams to me that it is not the case that you choose to do something and your action multiplies by two or three ensemble opposing events...either you just plain dumb or you did n´t read it properly...

Neither I am just plain dumb nor I read it improperly: as I said, in quantum physics the probability wave describes what we do not observe. It is you that are misunderstanding not me, but quantum physics.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Statistics regarding events analyse the distribution of probability´s but don´t in any moment prove that the chance of something happening is actually smaller then 100%...

So you are saying that quantum physics is incorrect. Physical reality says otherwise. According to the physical world, at least in the scale quantum physics operate, events have extremely accurate probabilities (that is, probability waves), which for decades they have behaved consistently with. And even if those probabilities (probability waves) are incorrect, the correct ones are certainly far from 100%. A probability of 100% is absolute certainty.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

what they do is to suggest the potential distribution of probability, while you don´t know what actually will happen...otherwise the ongoing discussion of determinism versus indeterminism would be settled !!! (which it is n´t, even in QM...since parallel universes actually allow a deterministic approach to the problem)
...you certainly must know that as soon as the wave function collapses all other potential chances fall to zero while the remaining gets 100% chance...and that is being accurate !

Once you get a tails, although the probability that you did get it may be 100%, the probability that you would get it remains 50%: it never changes (you are just trying to get away with counter-factual definiteness, which is what everyone ends up doing when defending determinism).

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - ...again, design imply´s time to design or wish for something to become...that which is already does not need a designer in order to be...it simply is there forever...Potential World is LAW itself made "thing" !
...not opposed to nothingness, which it is n´t, but as everything everywhere...

Quote:
No comment on that one.

Either you fully understand and are able to question what it means potential or you don´t...

...somehow it seams to me that potential is just a way of saying we don´t know what actually will happen since several things seam possible up to what we know, which is limited...therefore potential refers at best to multiple ACTUAL parallel reality´s where initial condition change !...

...it regards a temporal approach to events...that which WILL HAPPEN somewhere forward, when it happens...but it may well be the case that it is there and we just don´t know from where we stand presently !
(it certainly seams so when we think for instance on Einstein´s non linear approach to Time in general Relativity)

So far your objection begs the question...it may be the case that you simply don´t understand the question...

PS - I Apologise in advance for my "tour de force" against your remarks, as they are n´t hill intended towards your person at all...most essentially they just figuratively convey a passionate colourful opposition onto your beliefs...in truth it simply is the case that I want to shake your level of awareness onto the problem at hand in a more intense manner...and that, bottom line, is about sharing !...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

The idea of parallel universes is itself inconsistent. Hugh Everett's "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum physics and its descendants suffer all from the same inconsistency: the many worlds must not interact, so for whom would they be many? Their multiplicity would be forever, precisely, just possible. That's what happens whenever you try to get rid of possibility in favor of actuality: you fail (and possibility is what you find at the bottom of probability).

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

The idea of parallel universes is itself inconsistent. Hugh Everett's "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum physics and its descendants suffer all from the same inconsistency: the many worlds must not interact, so for whom would they be many? Their multiplicity would be forever, precisely, just possible. That's what happens whenever you try to get rid of possibility in favor of actuality: you fail (and possibility is what you find at the bottom of probability).

1 - no...it is not just Everett´s...
Its is M Theory these days...the dominant explanation around !

2 - Possibility and actuality is a matter of perspective on whom is referring to whom on this concern...a matter of knowledge and not of proof...

3 - ...I see no point in continuing this discussion any further once to my judgement you can´t see the nature of your own statements...I must therefore necessarily leave you to your own beliefs.

A Good day to you sir !

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
The idea of parallel universes is itself inconsistent. Hugh Everett's "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum physics and its descendants suffer all from the same inconsistency: the many worlds must not interact, so for whom would they be many? Their multiplicity would be forever, precisely, just possible. That's what happens whenever you try to get rid of possibility in favor of actuality: you fail (and possibility is what you find at the bottom of probability).

1 - no...it is not just Everett´s...
Its is M Theory these days...the dominant explanation around !

2 - Possibility and actuality is a matter of perspective on whom is referring to whom on this concern...

3 - ...I see no point in continuing this discussion any further once to my judgement you can´t see the nature of your own statements...I must therefore necessarily leave you to your own beliefs.

A Good day to you sir !|

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

To anyone else following this discussion, this time in plain English:

1) Nothing -- not any number, hence nothing, since numbers are the only objects we can multiply -- multiplied by zero equals one.
2) Zero multiplied by zero does not equal one, but zero.
3) Nothing is different from zero.

Since the first premise (1) is not a mathematical operation, neither the conclusion (3) could be so, and for the same reason -- that nothing is not a mathematical concept, unlike zero, which is just another way of saying that nothing is different from zero, confirming the conclusion (3).

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

nothing * 0 = 1.

Eh... what?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
nothing * 0 = 1.

Eh... what?

Please read the post just before your post above -- my last previous post, http://able2know.org/topic/152965-17#post-4547947.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Do you not see the contradiction of defining NOTHING as something that cannot be multiplied only to suggest to multiply it?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Do you not see the contradiction of defining NOTHING as something that cannot be multiplied only to suggest to multiply it?

Saying that nothing multiplied by zero equals one is by no means "defining" nothing. Neither is it "suggesting" anything. It is rather just recognizing that:

1) No number multiplied by zero equals one.
2) Only numbers can be multiplied by zero or any other number to get one or any other number.

Then, with what are we left for multiplying by zero to get one? Any "suggestion"? Any "definition"?

(You remember me of that guy saying: "But I had U$ 1.000,00 in this account! It can't be!" To which the manager answers: "Well, it is...")

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Hi Fil!

That is exactly how I see it my friend - An infinite cycle of events....as always, for always. Smile

Hence my 'Omniversal-Bond theory'.

See you soon!
Mark...

0 Replies

@Neil D,

Hi Neil!

Or just the one force - existing in all places at once, even?

Mark...

0 Replies

@Neil D,

Hi Neil!

Even the 'Big-Bang Theory' Commences with a quantum singularity in existence.

Mark..

0 Replies

@Neil D,

Hi Neil!

I suggest that - Death is only relative to the subjective consciousness of that which perceives said departed object to be in a state of animation or inanimation in the first place. Energy does not die, it just shifts position and form........Endlessly:)

Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

If you cannot face the question of whether zero is the same as nothing or not, then how could you successfully face the questions of death or the origin of the universe? Just asking.

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know