DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@JLNobody,

...I honestly wonder...and just how can no-thing to actually be a fundamental quality of whatever ???

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Are you arguing that the word, "nothing," pr0perly denotes a no-thing

No, that would be the fallacy of reification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Of course "nothing is not zero" means "everything is zero," which I already said more than once. Didn't you read it?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...I honestly wonder...and just how can no-thing to actually be a fundamental quality of whatever ???

You are not honestly wondering anything: this is just rhetoric. Nor for a moment you admit considering this. If you did, then you would be able to honestly follow my reasonings.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
Are you arguing that the word, "nothing," pr0perly denotes a no-thing

No, that would be the fallacy of reification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

What I am showing you is how to properly reason to conclude that being and nothingness are the same: nothing is. And since this follows from logically reasoning about nothing, it is no "fallacy." I suggest you stop repeating your fixed idea and start thinking.

0 Replies

Here is what you keep ignoring:

guigus wrote:

By saying "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is false, you are saying that "something multiplied by zero equals one" is true. However, the latter is false, hence the former is true.

0 Replies

Classic physicists protest against quantum physics admitting two particles to share the same existence. But mathematics already tells us that two numbers can be the same. Take the square root of four: it can be two or minus two, it doesn't matter -- as far as the square root of four is concerned, two and minus two are the same.

The same happens with the division of zero by zero, only then it is all numbers that are the same:

1 * 0 = 0, hence 0 / 0 = 1
2 * 0 = 0, hence 0 / 0 = 2
3 * 0 = 0, hence 0 / 0 = 3
Etc.

Now I am showing you that this goes beyond mathematics: being and nothingness are the same as well. But you simply refuse to just follow the most elementary reasoning, since it goes against your beliefs. Einstein was right (again): it is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Guigus, I think that either you are just trolling, or you are overthinking something that is very simple.
Here's an easy definition of "nothing":
Nothing- word that signifies absence of pre-defined thing.

Very often "zero" and "nothing" are interchangable. You can use either and the meaning of what you communicate will be understood correctly.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Guigus, I think that either you are just trolling, or you are overthinking something that is very simple.

I am certainly not trolling, and no matter how simple it is, you won't get it.

Cyracuz wrote:

Here's an easy definition of "nothing":
Nothing- word that signifies absence of pre-defined thing.

So all philosophers have to do is go to the dictionary! There is no longer any need to think!

Cyracuz wrote:

Very often "zero" and "nothing" are interchangable. You can use either and the meaning of what you communicate will be understood correctly.

Not if what I want to communicate is the difference between zero and nothing, don't you agree?

Although nothing and zero have both informal meanings, we are not discussing these here. Neither we are discussing the meaning of words, which would be at most etymology, never philosophy. Nothing and zero have rigorous meanings, which are the ones we are interested in, right? What we are discussing here are the concepts of zero and nothing, which are certainly different, as the following reasoning shows:

Nothing multiplied by zero equals one.
Zero multiplied by zero does not equal one.

If nothing and zero were the same, then they would be interchangeable in the two sentences above, so it would be the same to say:

Zero multiplied by zero equals one.
Nothing multiplied by zero does not equal one (everything multiplied by zero equals one).

Which it obviously isn't (which proves zero and nothing are different concepts).

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz, I like your reference to "nothing" as absence of a PRE-DEFINED thing. If the absent thing never came to our minds we could not refer to it as absent or not existing.

1 Reply

@guigus,

No, I am capable of thinking.

And what I am thinking is that there is no reasonable explanation to be found as to how precicely you get "Nothing multiplied by zero" to equal one.

In order for that to happen, there would have to be some attribute to "nothing" that would cause it to react to the *. And for "nothing" to have that attribute, it would have to have some value assigned to it, but then it is not nothing.

Applying mathematics to nothing is just like waving a hammer in the air. All you accomplish is to make people doubt your sanity.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

No, I am capable of thinking.

And what I am thinking is that there is no reasonable explanation to be found as to how precicely you get "Nothing multiplied by zero" to equal one.

I already explained it many times, and in two different ways:

Quote:

1) No number multiplied by zero equals one.
2) Nothing else multiplied by zero equals one, since only numbers can be multiplied at all.
3) Nothing multiplied by zero equals one.

Or:

Quote:

By saying "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is false, you are saying that "something multiplied by zero equals one" is true. However, the latter is false, hence the former is true.

Even though I was and keep being solemnly ignored by your brain.

Cyracuz wrote:

In order for that to happen, there would have to be some attribute to "nothing" that would cause it to react to the *. And for "nothing" to have that attribute, it would have to have some value assigned to it, but then it is not nothing.

What is this gibberish? First, nothing is not multipliable by anything. But even if it were, does 2 "react" to the multiplication sign when you multiply it be one? Who am I talking to?

Cyracuz wrote:

Applying mathematics to nothing is just like waving a hammer in the air. All you accomplish is to make people doubt your sanity.

Try reading it as a sentence about mathematics, instead of as a mathematical operation, and you will understand it. Or try this, which I am writing here for the 10th time, I believe:

Quote:

By saying "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is false, you are saying that "something multiplied by zero equals one" is true. However, the latter is false, hence the former is true.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Yes, that is just it. So perhaps we can say that "nothing" is a negative representation of "something".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, that is just it. So perhaps we can say that "nothing" is a negative representation of "something".

Nothing is ambiguous, it is contradictory, that's all. You can read the following sentence (as well as the previous) in two ways:

"Nothing multiplied by zero equals one."

In the first way, you are just recognizing that no number nor anything else can be multiplied by zero to give us one.

In the second way, you are saying that "something" called "nothing" can be multiplied by zero to give us one. However, this ambiguity is not a "fallacy": it is inherent to nothing itself. Nothing has these two faces, and it is a lost of time trying to escape this. It is just like mathematicians telling you that you can't divide by zero, that it is impossible, etc, while numbers themselves tell you otherwise:

1 * 0 = 0, hence 0 / 0 = 1
2 * 0 = 0, hence 0 / 0 = 2
3 * 0 = 0, hence 0 / 0 = 3

Likewise, a considerable part of classic logic consists in an exercise of denying logic itself, like many of you are doing here.

0 Replies

@guigus,

You said it. Many times. But you never explained it.

Quote:

No number multiplied by zero equals one.

Explain this please. How is that reasonable? Seems to be a random statement that is neither here nor there...

Quote:

By saying "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is false, you are saying that "something multiplied by zero equals one" is true. However, the latter is false, hence the former is true.

By saying the first you are by no means saying the second.
And if we conclude that the latter is false, that does not prove that the former is true. There just is no logical connection between the two statements, and the statements themselves are nonsensical.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You said it. Many times. But you never explained it.

Quote:
No number multiplied by zero equals one.

Explain this please. How is that reasonable? Seems to be a random statement that is neither here nor there...

It means there is no number that can be multiplied by zero resulting in one. In other words:

? * 0 = 1

You can as well replace "?" by "no number" or "nothing."

(Do you really need me to explain you that?)

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
By saying "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is false, you are saying that "something multiplied by zero equals one" is true. However, the latter is false, hence the former is true.

By saying the first you are by no means saying the second.

Now it is you that must explain us how the falsity of "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" does not entail the truth of "something multiplied by zero equals one." I'm so excited...

Cyracuz wrote:

And if we conclude that the latter is false, that does not prove that the former is true. There just is no logical connection between the two statements, and the statements themselves are nonsensical.

Oh, I see. But suppose for a moment they did make sense. Then, the falsity of one would entail the truth of the other, wouldn't it?

Now please notice how it was easy for you to suppose they made sense -- doesn't it ring you a bell?

1 Reply

A summary:

Since no number can be multiplied by zero to give us one, and since nothing else can, we can safely say that:

Code:Nothing multiplied by zero equals one.

To falsify this we must show either that:

Code:

1. There is a number that multiplied by zero equals one.



2. There is something else, other than a number, that:



(a) can be multiplied at least by zero -- as indeed there is:

a matrix -- which is not a number -- can be multiplied not only by zero,

but also by any other number.



(b) in being multiplied by zero, results in one -- which there isn't:

a matrix, if multiplied by zero, does not result in one,

nor does it any other mathematical object.

So, since 1) no number multiplied by zero equals one, since 2) no matrix or any other mathematical object can be multiplied by zero to give us one, and since 3) no non-mathematical object can even be multiplied by zero or any other number, we can only conclude that:

Nothing multiplied by zero equals one.

By saying this is false, we are saying at least one of the following:

1) There is a number that multiplied by zero equals one.
2) There is another mathematical object than a number that multiplied by zero equals one.
3) There is a non-mathematical object that multiplied by zero equals one.

Each one of which is false, for the already given reasons.

0 Replies

I can put it in an even friendlier way.

Let us assume a mathematician wants to refer students to the following three facts by uttering a single sentence:

Code:



1. No number can be multiplied by zero and produce one.

2. No mathematical object, be it a matrix or anything else,

can be multiplied by zero and produce one.

3. No non-mathematical object can even be multiplied at all,

let alone produce one in being multiplied by zero.

Then, our mathematician can use the following sentence, which embodies at once all those three meanings:

Code:



Nothing can be multiplied by zero and produce one.

0 Replies

As for the "fallacy of reification," according to that argument, I should not interpret "nothing" as being "something" in the following sentence:

Code:Nothing can be multiplied by zero and produce one.

And why? Because, according to that argument, "nothing cannot be something." However, if nothing cannot be something, then how can I say something about it, like "nothing cannot be something"? So that sentence renders, necessarily, not only meaningless, but utterly unthinkable. And you accusing me of talking nonsense...

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

It means there is no number that can be multiplied by zero resulting in one. In other words:

? * 0 = 1

You can as well replace "?" by "no number" or "nothing."

I do get this. It is not hard to understand. But that doesn't change the fact that it is just plain wrong.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN YOU MULTIPLY WITH ZERO AND HAVE THE OUTCOME BE ANYTHING BUT ZERO!

If you had said "no number * o= 0 then sure. That would be consistent with the operation the * actually signifies.

Quote:

Now it is you that must explain us how the falsity of "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" does not entail the truth of "something multiplied by zero equals one." I'm so excited...

Well, the first statement simply does not prove that the second is true.
"nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is wrong.
"something multiplied by zero equals one" is also wrong.
So how can two statements that are wrong lead us to the logical conclusion that one of them is actually right after all?
It can't. It just can't.

Here's a similar "logic proof":
If we agree that the statement "I can pull gold out of my ass" is false, then it follows that the statement "I can pull feathers out of my ass" is true. But we know the latter is false, so the former must be true.
Don't you see? It's even too dumb to be funny as comedy.

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know