This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is our math wrong? Is it our assumption of zero, or absolute nothingness?
There are know phenomena out there such as the gamma ray burst that total destroys(use loosely your ego wants to argue this syntax error not the mind) our current math and physics(e=mc2). But instead of saying well maybe we got a key part of our math wrong we make it so the phenomena matches our math. This is my personal take on what I think might be wrong. I think it has to do with our assumption of zero. Seeing how you can never have absolute nothingness as a base or starting point. Conceptually the idea of zero is great. I want an apple. But i am in a complete void of apples. I don't have a single one. Not even applesauce! I have ZERO apples. But I do not need to know that you have zero apples to know when you have 1 apple. On the other had I do need to know that you have 1 apple to understand that now you have 2 apple. I could be wrong. It just something that bothers me.
Also I am not a math person it has always been something I struggled with in school those pesky numbers. However in College I excelled at Logic, but that has been some time ago.
I am not say this is the answer I just say that I think there is something fundamentally wrong with our math
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
bart hsi
Furthermore, the definition of the so-called "nature" needs to be clarified. All the measurements used by technology are nothing other than man-modified natural phenomenon. So do you consider zero gravity in a spacecraft as a natural phenomenon? Or zero ampere or charge in a battery as a natural phenomenon? What about the magnetic orientation in a particular place on earth? Even in the much artificial environment, we can't get away,from, say, I have zero shares of XYZ stocks, or have zero dollars in my bank account.
Mark Meijer 100+
Anyhoo... The point is all numbers and measurements are abstracts, zero included, and abstracts don't actually map onto reality, only onto eachother. It's all self-referential. Representation is itself an abstract notion, there is no such thing in reality.
Which is why all reasoning is circular, it is self-referential :).
But whatever. Your argument is basically "zero is useful". I don't think anyone is disputing that. But what is useful and what is true are two entirely different considerations.
Casey Christofaris 10+
I think maybe we should talk cs3@email.com
Mark Meijer 100+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
There is a special case. It's called "infinite regress". It creates an illusion that we are going somewhere rather than going in circles, an imaginary "sense of direction". But a straight line is just a circle of infinite radius. Practically, the radius is never infinite, it's just much larger than our view, so that we cannot see it. Like the radius of the Earth. How long did it take humans to figure out that the Earth is not flat and that, going in one direction, we will end up where we started? When we see the circularity, it means that our view expanded enough to see it. The sooner we realize that we go in circles, the sooner we can step out and move to a new place - perhaps, a bigger circle.
I have a gut feeling that this will be the case with our universe. This philosophy, certainly, applies to other circles in our life, e.g., circles of violence, obsessive behaviors, or addictions.
And this is another gem from you, Mark: "But what is useful and what is true are two entirely different considerations." Thanks.
John Frum 30+
There is a huge difference between self-consistency and circular reasoning.
"The point is all numbers and measurements are abstracts ... and abstracts don't actually map onto reality"
If you have a boy and a girl, don't you think you could distribute 6 candies of the same kind evenly between them?
Is it not a true claim if I claim that I can do that distribution?
Mark Meijer 100+
Boy is an abstract, and so is girl, 6, candy, distribution, doing, claim, and most significantly "I". So your claim works only in the abstract. It has no truth whatsoever outside of its context (context is abstract, and is made out of abstracts). You forget, Casey's question is about the difference between relative and absolute. Nothing you mention (or can possibly mention) has absolute inherent relevance as such. Precisely because all definition is arbitrary, from the absolute "perspective". So from that "perspective", there is no reason, there is no candy, there are no boys and girls, and no you to do any distributing.
I know that seems petty, so let's take it back to the relative. Because we all necessarily think in abstracts, you talk about "6 candies of the same kind" and you think if you give 3 to each child, that you have evenly distributed the total amount of candy at hand. But if you look at each of those candies, let's say atom for atom, none of them are identical. They'll all have different sizes, different shapes, different amounts of the various ingredients, etc. etc. Those are 6 completely different candies you have there, which happen to fall within certain (arbitrary) specifications to warrant being called "of the same kind". But that's all fiction.
There's no way for you to evenly distribute that candy. So yeah, already it's a false claim.
John Frum 30+
When one asks for a kg of sugar, one doesn't care which grains get selected. The same goes with candies or Samsung Galaxy S IIIs -- as long as they are whole. If one can exchange two objects with each other without making any difference to what happens after that, they are said to be identical. It doesn't matter if we're talking about candies or atoms of Oxygen-16. What difference do you suppose there are between atoms of Oxygen-16 in their ground state?
Mark Meijer 100+
And yet somehow people keep insisting that reality is made out of concepts. Well, in a way it is, but that's not quite it. As for difference between two ostensibly identical atoms, the very fact that there are two makes them different. If there were no difference at all between any two atoms, they would be the same atom, one atom. Again, they are identical in function, even appearance (depending on what is used to see them of course), but all of that is contingent, hence relative. Two atoms are as identical as identical twins. Which is to say, they are not, at best they are fungible. And again, you're not going to get this if you can't see past the abstractions in your head. You might start by questioning the whole notion of identity, it's useful but not true, and it's a biggie.
John Frum 30+
I even wrote down the definition for you.
Oxygen atoms, subatomic particles, etc. are not identical like "identical twins". Identical twins still have different fingerprints, epigenetic variations, etc. Subatomic particles are as identical as mathematical abstractions could be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation. In that literal sense, even I'm not identical to myself from just one second ago. Atoms (ground state) are not like that.
"the very fact that there are two makes them different"
That's just bizarre. Prove it!
Mark Meijer 100+
Told you you wouldn't get it if you can't see past abstractions. Identity only works in the world of abstractions. Snap out of it man.
- "In that literal sense, even I'm not identical to myself from just one second ago."
That's correct, and that's how "literal" we're getting here. That's what it means to look past abstractions. Remember the difference between what is practical and what is true? Is it starting to dawn yet that you're living in a world of concepts, fictions? That you are even yourself a fiction?
- "Atoms (ground state) are not like that."
Prove it. What you call atoms ARE abstractions, you're even referencing mathematical models now as if those were the actual atoms themselves. A model is an abstraction dude, and that's all you know about atoms. If you can't get that... Well, then we have nothing to talk about. As for ground state, if you're talking about comparing actual (not hypothetical) atoms at absolute zero temperature, first show me some, because temperature is one likely candidate for differences between any two atoms at any particular time. And then talk to Casey (the conversation starter), because the idea of absolute zero sounds like it might actually be on topic.
- "the very fact that there are two makes them different"
- "That's just bizarre. Prove it!"
They have two different locations don't they? They provide two distinct sense impressions don't they? And as said, temperatures. How about you prove that they're identical, and I don't mean having identical abstract models or being in hypothetically identical abstract states. If two Samsung Galaxy S IIIs are not literally identical, then how do you suppose their atoms are?
One atom can't be another atom. That's how simple it is. And one atom can't somehow share an identity with another atom, except in the abstract, because that's what identity is. To believe otherwise is bizarre, albeit common.
Mark Meijer 100+