I'm not saying 0 is nothing (at least not always). Only that 0 has been known to cause fits in mathematics, because our language gets in the way of accurately describing existence. We're forced into workarounds because there is a disconnect between reality and how we represent reality in words/numbers.
Zero is a 'number', but it doesn't have the same properties as all other numbers. You can't break something up into groups of 0.
Irrational numbers can't be represented in decimal form. We can see the diameter of a circle, and have no way to measure it without the little pi symbol, because pi exists in reality, but is an impossibility in terms of representing it in decimal form.
So when you say nothing can't exist. What are we talking about? If you define it, then it becomes something. It's something that probably does not exist, but still something. Even odder, is I think it does exist in our mathematics. A set of numbers greater than 6 but less than 4, for example, contains nothing, no?
And then there's deciding if the universe is infinite. I saw you trying to deal with infinity in that other thread. It's hard enough to work with as a theoretical idea, imagine what it'd be in reality. I'd also like an explanation on quantum randomness, and how that can exist.
The point being there's so much unknown and counter-intuitive and paradoxical out there, that, to me, there's a lot of hubris in the claims grandizer is making with just 'logic'. Because logic has been failing us routinely in the 'what can and can't be' department throughout human history.
Zero is a 'number', but it doesn't have the same properties as all other numbers. You can't break something up into groups of 0.
Irrational numbers can't be represented in decimal form. We can see the diameter of a circle, and have no way to measure it without the little pi symbol, because pi exists in reality, but is an impossibility in terms of representing it in decimal form.
So when you say nothing can't exist. What are we talking about? If you define it, then it becomes something. It's something that probably does not exist, but still something. Even odder, is I think it does exist in our mathematics. A set of numbers greater than 6 but less than 4, for example, contains nothing, no?
And then there's deciding if the universe is infinite. I saw you trying to deal with infinity in that other thread. It's hard enough to work with as a theoretical idea, imagine what it'd be in reality. I'd also like an explanation on quantum randomness, and how that can exist.
The point being there's so much unknown and counter-intuitive and paradoxical out there, that, to me, there's a lot of hubris in the claims grandizer is making with just 'logic'. Because logic has been failing us routinely in the 'what can and can't be' department throughout human history.
