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.
Kris Christenson
Casey Christofaris 10+
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).
Sterling Spencer
Is that your theory?
Casey Christofaris 10+
Kris Christenson
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.
Casey Christofaris 10+
"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.
Kris Christenson
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.
Mark Meijer 100+
1 - "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"
That's where the trouble starts. What you perceive as independent things with connections or separations between them don't actually exist in that way. That's just an artifact of perception and thought. We think about reality in terms of things, but there are no things in reality. It's just a way of thinking about it. It's how perception works, not how reality works. There are no things, no smallest things, no largest things. All that is just a matter of arbitrary definition. Existence does not come in isolated parts.
2 - "similarities cause things to fit into similar groups"
Similarities are also artifacts of perception. What may be perceived as similar or dissimilar is a function of the instrument of perception used, and the terms in which the comparisons are based (which is really part of the process of perception, perception is not other than projection). So there are no similarities in things that cause those things to be grouped. It's just that WE see similarities in (perceived) things and WE group them accordingly.
3 - "Truth is an absolute. My opinion on the best and most concise definition of truth is "an accurate representation of reality"."
Truth can't be a representation of something else. That does not an absolute make... That's why no theory or equation or thought is absolutely true. And that's why all knowledge is false. And yes, that includes anything anyone can think, say or write. So if you wonder, "then why are we even talking?" That's just because people keep claiming to state the truth, and although I know there's no point in arguing, there is still this urge to get it out of my system. What's a guy to do ;).
So now on to Casey...
Mark Meijer 100+
No concept is the truth of reality, it's at best just a way to think and talk about it, symbolically, and necessarily with some kind of spin. So you can never get closer to the truth by just piling up and rearranging and inventing more concepts. There are many different ways to think about reality, some of which may make more sense from our usual point of view than others, but none of which are "the one right way". There is no one right way to capture reality in symbolic thought, it just can't be done.
So yes, a theory may be consistent to a point (and the further you take it the more contrived it gets), but no theory is THE truth. That's not a theory but a necessary impossibility.
Casey Christofaris 10+
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 :)
Mark Meijer 100+
Although in keeping with the apparent habit of writing mostly in terms of negation... I would maintain that nobody can really post on anyone else's behalf, at least in a private capacity. And I for one would not want to give the impression that that's what I'm doing. But for whatever it's worth, I'll write as and when the urge arises :P.