TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

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

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 9 2012: Zero most certainly exists. And there are places all around us where nothing exists. If we freeze time so that not a single molecule in the universe is moving we'll find that none of them are in contact with any other. So then there must be blank spaces. If we were to say that zero doesn't exist then how could we quantify the number of things in those blank spaces? Yes, zero as a number raises logical problems, but that does not mean our math is wrong, it simply means it is incomplete. When Sir Isaac Newton was working on gravity he never really reached a point that made sense, his theory had things being pulled, which nature never does. Does that mean his theory was wrong? No, it means it wasn't done yet. Even today, we don't really know exactly how gravity works but again, that only means we're not done learning about it yet. Math is the same way. We developed math to describe natural phenomena that we already understood (adding 1 apple to 1 apple makes 2 apples). Then as we came to understand new things and wanted to quantify them we developed new types of math, a great example is calculus. We first have to understand a phenomena, then create ways to quantify it.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: That empty space you talk about is not empty just can not be seen with the naked eye.

      Technically all theory's are wrong and can never be proven right. So any theory is neither right or wrong.

      There are no 2 of anything in the universe, there are groups of thing but each is an individual representation of what is apple(x).
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2012: "Technically all theory's are wrong and can never be proven right. So any theory is neither right or wrong."

        Is that your theory?
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2012: That is "theory" it can only ever be proven wrong to some degree or another. So yeah theory's are never right or wrong. Only proven to be able to replicate the same process over and over again. Until proven wrong to some degree.
      • Oct 9 2012: I think you misunderstand the scale I'm talking about. The objects I mean to discuss are smaller than we can see even with aid. You said you excelled at logic so I'll deal only with that. There are varying degrees of sized things in our universe, so there must be a smallest thing. Right now we haven't seen the smallest thing but if there is no smallest thing there cannot be things of varying size (since once things are different sizes there are smallest things). So if everything is built up out of these smallest things and they are not connected (because if they were connected they would be the same thing) then there must be a space between them. If there were no space between these smallest things then motion wouldn't be possible except as a group. That is the blank space I'm talking about, the epically tiny distances between the smallest units of matter.
        You're correct, no two things are identical, but similarities cause things to fit into similar groups. For example: objects that have the quality of existence are things. Any object that can be said to exist falls within this group. Because of this group (which I don't see how it could be denied that objects that exist are things) we can quantify the number of things in a space. Say I have a space in which there are ten things that have the same exact size but every other property is different (thus satisfying that no two things are identical) and in the space there is enough room for 15 things. So there is 5 things-worth of blank space. Our universe is like this. Our observations have shown that 1) matter cannot be created or destroyed and 2) our universe is constantly expanding. Since new matter is never created there is always the same number of things in the universe but the amount of space is getting larger. If one quantity remains static while another rises then after a point the latter will always be larger. So if we don't have more space than things now at some point we will.
        • thumb
          Oct 9 2012: Good day Kris,

          "So if everything is built up out of these smallest things and they are not connected (because if they were connected they would be the same thing) then there must be a space between them." Would energy count as the connection? For we as organism "human" are not connected.

          "If there were no space between these smallest things then motion wouldn't be possible except as a group." Is this not how the human body function as a group? E pluribus unum.

          "That is the blank space I'm talking about, the epically tiny distances between the smallest units of matter." You that is matter has never touched any other matter ever. Our energy's touch other energy but we do not "touch" anything.

          "Say I have a space in which there are ten things that have the same exact size but every other property is different (thus satisfying that no two things are identical) and in the space there is enough room for 15 things. So there is 5 things-worth of blank space. Our universe is like this. Our observations have shown that 1) matter cannot be created or destroyed and 2) our universe is constantly expanding." Have you heard of filling a glass with, rock, sand, water? Even an empty glass is not empty! Matter does not exist energy can not be created or destroyed. I would suggest that the universe is a torus or at least a double torus (which looks much like a figure 8. Also torus's can be found everywhere.
      • Oct 9 2012: cont. Therefore, if there are not blank spaces now there will be. In these spaces there are zero things and nothingness.
        Now, your point on theory. From an epistemic standpoint it is flawed. Truth is an absolute. My opinion on the best and most concise definition of truth is "an accurate representation of reality". So what's true is true and what's not true is false. Theory's are statements of what the theorist believes to be true. So if the theory accurately represents reality then it is true, if it does not then it is false. A theory is incomplete when it partially reflects reality and partially does not. I'll give a few examples: If my theory predicts that Barack Obama is President of the United States it is true. If my theory predicts that George Washington is secretary of state it is false. If a theory predicts both of the former then it is true in some aspects and false in others and is incomplete. Further, all knowledge begins as a hypothesis, then becomes a theory, and once it is tested its truth is determined and it becomes knowledge. If we add in the stigma that all theory's are wrong and can't be proven right then we can't have knowledge. By that logic nothing this thread, including your initial argument, can be substantiated and then we all have to admit we're wrong. Hume would agree but I take other issues with his theory, which would be a bit lengthy to discuss. The point is, your "theory of theory" has logical flaws that can't be avoided. I hope this is a bit more clear than before. If any premises above seem to be flawed let me know and I'll write another novel for you.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Oct 9 2012: Mark,

        Until I find a point at least in this conversation where we greatly disagree, and I mean greatly. You can always talk or post on my behalf (I am always interested in seeing your perspective), your written words are far superior to mine. :) Please just keep doing what you do.

        An no worries I will always join in on the conversation :)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.