DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

guigus wrote:

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.

Here it is

So to answer me you went directly to addressing the origin of the universe, right? Just consider this: first things first -- to address the origin of the universe, life, etc, you need the concepts of being and nothing, so they must have been already addressed, or you will end up like the Beatles in LSD ("Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"), as your last post so well illustrates.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Hi Guigus!

Of course they have already been addressed Smile

How could I possibly relate you to them had they not?

Just because you are unaware of the concusions drawn from such, doesn't mean they haven't taken place.

And the Beatles were not in 'LSD' - It was in them, but you really should make more of an attempt to stick to the thread - It is 'Does Nothing Exist', not 'Let's apply crazy analogies to those who dare differ with me'.

Nothing = zero? Wrong - zero = zero.

Mark Smile

2 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Guigus!

Of course they have already been addressed How could I possibly relate you to them had they not?

Just because you are unaware of the concusions drawn from such, doesn't mean they haven't taken place.

And the Beatles were not in 'LSD' - It was in them, but you really should make more of an attempt to stick to the thread - It is 'Does Nothing Exist', not 'Let's apply crazy analogies to those who dare differ with me'.

Nothing = zero? Wrong - zero = zero.

Mark

You are not properly addressing the concept of nothing -- if addressing it at all -- so you will not be able to address further questions, as your previous posts illustrate. If you are willing to address that concept at all, you must start by addressing it seriously -- the way you are doing it in the above post is just regrettable.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

And the Beatles were not in 'LSD' - It was in them...

They were on LSD (just like you), my mistake.

0 Replies

To refresh your memory about what we are discussing:

The word "nothing" means no thing, or no being: it means not any being, and since it means not only not any particular being but also not any other being, it also means not every being:

Code:Nothing is not any and every being.

But if we replace "nothing" by "not any and every being" in the sentence above, we get:

Code:Not any and every being is not any and every being.

Which means that any and every being is any and every other being. To avoid this, the meaning of "nothing" must be rather something -- called "nothing":

Code:Something called "nothing" is not any and every being.

Please notice we are not talking here about the word ("nothing") being something, but rather about such a word meaning "a thing" rather than "no thing" as the only way to escape saying that everything is everything else.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Given you have the stomach of a camel digesting every possible rational explanation I rather deal with you differently...point me to nothing Guigus...where is it ? Then we shall see if an invented relative word like that has any bearings at all...

1 Reply

@guigus,

Hello!

My you are a prick afterall it seems.

cya

0 Replies

Quote:

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Given you have the stomach of a camel digesting every possible rational explanation I rather deal with you differently...point me to nothing Guigus...where is it ? Then we shall see if an invented relative word like that has any bearings at all...

Just look around you: since being and nothingness are the same, everything you see is nothing -- that's what I am saying since the beginning.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

I don't think you are an idiot, just someone having a hard time in really thinking. So let us try another approach.

In set theory, there are reasons for zero being the same as nothing as well as reasons for the opposite:

1. The empty set is a set of cardinality zero: it has zero elements.

2. A set of which the only element is zero is a set of one element, of which the cardinality is one.

Now, if zero were nothing, then the empty set, which has no element, hence of which the content is nothing, would have zero as its only element, which it hasn't, so zero is different from nothing.

On the other hand, a set with no elements has zero elements, which is the same as having a content of nothing, so in this regard nothing is the same as zero.

Thus, according to set theory, zero is the same and also not the same as nothing.

2 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

Thus, according to set theory, zero is the same and also not the same as nothing.

That's because "zero" is a symbol we assign meaning to.
It can mean "nothing".
It can also mean a beginning, as in when counting the years of a person. If you count back to zero you get to the year he was born.
It can mean an end, when the gas tank of your car goes empty and the needle on the metre shows zero.
It can even mean a standard or reference point, as is the case with measuring temperature being linked to the freezing point of water. That point is zero, the boiling point 100. But we can also measure -100.

Zero is a very useful tool. Whenever it means "nothing", there is always a reference to which thing or phenomenon is being described as zero.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

I don't think you are an idiot, just someone having a hard time in really thinking.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Thus, according to set theory, zero is the same and also not the same as nothing.

That's because "zero" is a symbol we assign meaning to.
It can mean "nothing".
It can also mean a beginning, as in when counting the years of a person. If you count back to zero you get to the year he was born.
It can mean an end, when the gas tank of your car goes empty and the needle on the metre shows zero.
It can even mean a standard or reference point, as is the case with measuring temperature being linked to the freezing point of water. That point is zero, the boiling point 100. But we can also measure -100.

Zero is a very useful tool. Whenever it means "nothing", there is always a reference to which thing or phenomenon is being described as zero.

You keep confusing symbols with concepts: it is as a concept, not as a symbol, that zero is both different and identical to nothing. Again:

1. A set with no element is the same as a set with zero elements, by which no element is the same as zero elements.

2. A set with a zero element is not the same as a set with no element, so element zero is different from no element.

In both cases, we are not talking about the symbol of zero, but about its concept, which is, in both cases, the same concept: it just happens that the concept of zero is two different things (we cannot say it means two different things -- except as a pleonasm -- because we are already talking about a meaning -- a concept). If you still cannot see that, then just replace the word "zero" (or the symbol "0") by any (other) symbol -- say "$" -- so you can see that the concept remains the same:

1. A set with no element is the same as a set with $ elements, by which no element is the same as $ elements.

2. A set with a $ element is not the same as a set with no element, so element $ is different from no element.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
I don't think you are an idiot, just someone having a hard time in really thinking.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Well, reconsidering...

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus
You are, without a doubt, the dumbest person I ever encountered in all of my life.
You are even too stupid to realize when you are being insulted.
And connecting words and concepts together in a meaningful way is obviously beyond your capacity.
For the thousandth time you are promptly ignoring objections people raise and just continue to spew out more of your nonsense. Repeating something 90 times does not make it true.
I have actually tried to see if there is any sense to what you are saying, but I suspect its only a case of you refusing to admit to yourself and others that you actually don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are probably embarrased over the staggering stupidity of your ideas, and your narcicism won't let you face that, so you keep pushing until everyone can see that it's just a big tragedy. Everyone expect you, that is.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Don´t be so harsh...he just needs some more time to sink in some stuff that he refused to see for so long. Its more a matter of not wanting to accommodate the novelty, stubbornness, up to the infinite in his willing to say otherwise...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yes, it is harsh. But in this particular case, there are pages upon pages of documentation to support my assesment. It may be harsh to say it, but it would be cruel not to.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus
You are, without a doubt, the dumbest person I ever encountered in all of my life.
You are even too stupid to realize when you are being insulted.
And connecting words and concepts together in a meaningful way is obviously beyond your capacity.
For the thousandth time you are promptly ignoring objections people raise and just continue to spew out more of your nonsense. Repeating something 90 times does not make it true.
I have actually tried to see if there is any sense to what you are saying, but I suspect its only a case of you refusing to admit to yourself and others that you actually don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are probably embarrased over the staggering stupidity of your ideas, and your narcicism won't let you face that, so you keep pushing until everyone can see that it's just a big tragedy. Everyone expect you, that is.

Dear Cyracuz, it is you that are too dumb to realize that I did realize that I was (as I am) being insulted, while politely doing my best to don't do the same in return, which, as you can see (or cannot, who knows?), I cannot avoid anymore.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, it is harsh. But in this particular case, there are pages upon pages of documentation to support my assesment. It may be harsh to say it, but it would be cruel not to.

There are some people who simply cannot think, so they... insult. The result is that, instead of discussing my last argument, we are discussing who insulted who instead. Brilliant strategy of who has no argument, don't you think?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Instead of calling me stupid, answer to this, so as to show that it is not you the stupid one:

guigus wrote:

You keep confusing symbols with concepts: it is as a concept, not as a symbol, that zero is both different and identical to nothing. Again:

1. A set with no element is the same as a set with zero elements, by which no element is the same as zero elements.

2. A set with a zero element is not the same as a set with no element, so element zero is different from no element.

In both cases, we are not talking about the symbol of zero, but about its concept, which is, in both cases, the same concept: it just happens that the concept of zero is two different things (we cannot say it means two different things -- except as a pleonasm -- because we are already talking about a meaning -- a concept). If you still cannot see that, then just replace the word "zero" (or the symbol "0") by any (other) symbol -- say "$" -- so you can see that the concept remains the same:

1. A set with no element is the same as a set with $ elements, by which no element is the same as $ elements.

2. A set with a $ element is not the same as a set with no element, so element $ is different from no element.

0 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know