Forums → WEPR → A New Perspective
| 71 | 13122 |
Have any of you ever look at something think hard enough and it changes? I sometimes look at sandals for instance and think of it as just a platform for your feet to walk on with a strap, and it changes how it looks, If sometimes I look at someones face long enough and examine all details, the face looks different. It's not just limited to looks, if i think of certain ideas or thoughts they change as I take two steps to the left and five steps backwards (metaphorically). It's like that for a lot of things that would take a really long time to talk about. Is it just me who looks at the world differently sometimes? And just in case your wondering, I don't do drugs so that's not the answer.
- 71 Replies
@SkullZero1
Your first thought is not relevant. That's like saying I can put 0 water into my cup infinite times. 0 is nothing. Putting 0 into 1 is like putting nothing into 1.
Pretty much all you're saying is 'I can put nothing into 1 infinite times.'
Yes, I suppose I can't prove that the universe is finite. It's just that, the fact that the universe is expanding at incredible speed, and it's vastness now is already beyond human imagination just gives the notion that it will one day stop expanding.
Time could not exist in nothingness. If there is time in nothing - nothing is no longer nothing, as it has time.
Scientists have proposed that the universe is a cycle of big bangs and big crunches - it's a process: Big Bang < Universe expands < Universe contracts < Big Crunch < Big Bang again.
And so on...
-Skyla <3
@skyla
My first thought was plenty relevant, it's not like 0 is to big for the number, nothing can fit into a cup, and you can put zero water into a cup infinite time, hell thats what I'm doing right now.
Time in order to make sense HAS to have existed in nothingness, the big bang couldn't of happened when no time was moving, because nothing was could possibly be changing to cause the explosion. And if we were debating the term nothingness I meant as in nothing besides time itself. just because there is time doesn't mean there has to be something physical to fill it.
Also, i personally don't believe in the big crunch theory, give me some evidence, the fact that the universe is moving faster and faster if anything disproves that theory.
For those who want to look further into this please follow these links:
That, or you could read this. I would debate everything is finite. Just because it "can" doesn't mean it will. No one has counted or taken recognition of the largest number which mean there is no such thing. Just a belief that there is. Divide time into half, and half again and again. If it is infinite we would never get to the next moment or in more literal terms, second. Thus proves faulty of the definition of infinite. If we half it over and over and there is just that space left to increase, there is finiteness.
I've noticed many misunderstandings in this page.
and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is an infinate times bigger than zero
Zero is not a value. It is a placeholder. 0 does not exist. Infiniteness has to do with value. That is an oxymoron you are agreeing to SkullZero1.
@skyla
My first thought was plenty relevant, it's not like 0 is to big for the number, nothing can fit into a cup, and you can put zero water into a cup infinite time, hell thats what I'm doing right now.
0 is nothing. Nothing at all. But there are 2 irrelevancies in this statement. There is air in the cup. There are substances. If you mean liquid in the cup and you have not poured anything in yet, of course there is nothing in the cup! Thats because 0 is a placeholder.
Time could not exist in nothingness. If there is time in nothing - nothing is no longer nothing, as it has time.
Time is not of our understandings yet so we should get off this subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A response to the actual thread now: Yes, a new perspective. To me it means you have gotten more imaginative or you weren't paying enough attention at the moment you first looked at it. But notice this does not mean I find metaphorical or simile-related meanings in the information being looked at. Misinterpretations and looking far too deep is usually unwanted.
[quote] and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is an infinate times bigger than zero[/quote]
Zero is not a value. It is a placeholder. 0 does not exist. Infiniteness has to do with value. That is an oxymoron you are agreeing to SkullZero1.
Zero does have a value. Zero has a value of nothing. This may seem like an oxymoron, but a value can be nothing because a value is a worth, and if something is worth nothing than it is actually worth something: nothing. How can zero not exist. You are also contradicting yourself. If 0 does not exist how can it be anything (placeholder.)Zero shows something non-present. However since zero is nothing it is always in its infinite form (0*infinity=0), and always in its non-existant form. 0 is weird.
Thought about zero: -infinity + infinity = 0? I'll think about it.
Doesn't time represent change? Every second something in the universe is changing, it's inevitable. The universe is expanding constantly, for example - change.
In nothingness - there is no change, it's just stillness. Which means time did not exist in nothingness. Once the Big Bang occured, time came to existance. Ever since then, everything has been changing. Without time, matter can exist - but it would be instant - stars would form and die in an instant. Everything that is born will die in an instant. I don't know how to explain this, but you get the idea. It's like everything happens... in no time.
-Skyla <3
Time doesnt really exist as an entity Skyla, it was invented by man as a unit of measurement. It is just used to measure how long things take so man can organise things.
You are mistaken, woody_7007.
Time exists - it takes a certain amount of time for Earth to revolve around itself, whether humans exist to measure it or not.
-Skyla <3
chiliad_nodi, you were completely correct when you stated it was like an oxymoron. It is an oxymoron. You must be blind sighted as a placeholder CANNOT have a value. It HAS NO VALUE. Do not look into such like you were a philosopher or a retro-aged mathematician. Let me tell you this that it HAS NO VALUE. It divides the line of negative and positive integers. Without being negative or positive IT HAS NO VALUE.
Zero is not a value. It is a placeholder.
Alright, all this time I was thinking of zero as a number, now it's clear to me that it's just a place holder. That clears that up for me, now what you guys said makes sense [to me].
Time is not of our understandings yet so we should get off this subject.
First off, sorry, I can't help myself... Now on the subject of time, I had one of my thought sessions and I thought, we've (maybe just me...) been looking at time as something that always moves and might of had or not had a start. But now I'm thinking, maybe time is something we made up, that it's actually nothing but the steady ticking of a clock. Time is nothing but a concept we humans came up with, so if time is just a concept, it could be considered nothing, therefore nothing could exist in nothing, something [Who knows? Maybe God, then again maybe not.] just happened caused the [theoretical] big bang then more stuff happened until we came and called the thing that always goes when stuff is happening (sorry, no better way to describe it without the word time) time. Therefore time is nothing, nothing doesn't have to have a start, because it doesn't truly exist, just the concept. So in theory time started when us humans started recording it.
COMMENTARY ON PAGE 6
@ The_Masquerade: I hate to contradict you so directly but there are circumstances where the notion of zero is precisely that of a value. Peano's definition of the value of numbers would not work if zero were not a value notion. This is kind of important seeing as Peano's axioms on natural numbers defines how we count today, so it just happens to be kinda important that we acknowledge the work of those "retro-age mathematicians"!
Or you could say what Skull was saying: "Zero as a number has a value."
However! Seeing as I haven't read the previous posts, I'll also say that there are certainly times where it is very inappropriate to think of "zero" as a value in itself- and that would be in fields of moral theory. Unless you've got some quantitative method that purports to remain steadfastly absolute...and I tend to assert that none of these moral systems can ever be justified independently.
Now, how is it inappropriate to be thinking about time? Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about it, rather we shouldn't pretend to grasp it, but if we didn't make assertions that we had no complete certainty about there would be no further conversation.
That said,
Time exists - it takes a certain amount of time for Earth to revolve around itself, whether humans exist to measure it or not.
Uh, Skyla, I think you're the one who misunderstood woody here- time is measurable. Time itself is not observable- only the change in state that denotes 'time' is. Woody is therefore correct when he said that time doesn't exist as an entity. On the other hand, you're also correct when you said that time is representative of change!
This may appear to be semantic but it's important to continued discussion along these lines to get certain divisions correct so that you remain understood. By "exist" we mean "independent entity in itself", not the "we can talk about it" variety! Otherwise "x does not exist" can only be used as a logically trivial statement and that's a waste of linguistic expression D:
So in theory time started when us humans started recording it.
As for Skull's suggestion that's kinda nifty, but on the other hand, it just seems to make more sense that the notion of time can be retrospectively applied- it'd be a little problematic if we were to interpret that literally! "Oooh err, we can carbon date this to 25000BCE but I'm pretty sure time didn't exist as a notion back then."
@ Strop, I hope you forgive me for being so straight-foward.
Paragraph 1:
I like to learn but I dislike discrepancy between 2 of my teachings. I've read a page on Peano's axioms and theories on Wiki, yes Wiki, and if you prefer me to obtain my sources from another place but I think it's quite fine. But I only found one theory on natural numbers and that didn't state 0 had value, which it would've if it proved it. Also, I found a theory that went against yours, a simple one, at: a+0=a. That means there was no change because there was no value to represent the amount to be changed. a-0=a. It may be another story with other operations but with the 2 basic, its unchanging. I've also noticed many theories are just rules themselves that sometimes go against other rules by using a [few] rules. Loopholes, you may call them. But a basic rule I've been told is that data is absolute, there is no "maybe" it is that. It always is a value, just that it may be unknown. Retro-age mathematicians have great studies within the subjects of dimensions and zero and infinitives and negatives and what not but they're just theories. Also, I was using zero/0 as a representative of nothing so it is nothing but a placeholder. Sorry for unclarification SkullZero1 and Strop and all the rest to read this.
Or you could say what Skull was saying: "Zero as a number has a value."
Hmmm, I find that oxymoronic.... Zero as a number, to specific. As a number, it must have a value or a quantity. First definition in the dictionary.
Paragraph 3: Yes, I agree with this. But there are some things we can't comprehend in which I will bring to this discussion in this post.
@community
Lets discuss about dimensions now shall we? Pass the 3rd, however.
@The_Masquerade:
Wiki in this case is fine as the axioms are stated in their common form, and as far as definitions go this is either done correctly or incorrectly!
You know, with regards to interpretation of Peano's axioms, those are some really good points you've raised and I just might have to concede that you're more correct than I am on this count.
In general, however, while conceptual unitarianism (however you want to call it) is a fine thing, every system that has consistent parameters also has limitations, which is why it may be advantageous to actually be aware of several distinct frameworks that don't appear to be immediately translatable/commutable. In the case of thinking about zero, as an exercise it could be worth thinking about how zero might and might not have 'value', and in so doing considering what 'value' means.
As for dimensions, I'm only familiar with spatial transformations i.e. for 4-dimensional 'tesseracts' and 'hypercubes', one thinks of a series of 3-dimensional constructs that change over 'time' (this is what you're getting at, I bet!) That is to say, this is one analogy we can draw based on our understanding of our 3-dimensional spatial perception. Otherwise it can be difficult to relate to quantum arguments that claim that the universe can be thought of as running in eleven dimensions!
About dimensions, I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I'm going to list what each dimensions are known as, well some of them at least...
The Zero Dimension: A simple Point
The First Dimension: A Line
The Second Dimension: Lines involving the X and Y axis
The Third Dimension: Lines involving the X, Y and Z axises
The Fourth Dimension: Time as well as Terrasects in geometry
The more theoretical Dimensions:
The Fifth Dimension: Something to do with gravity (not sure) and in geometry
Tenth and/or Eleventh Dimension: The amount of dimensions involved within the M-theory
Twenty-six Dimensions: The amount of dimensions involved within the String theory
Infinity Dimensions: The amount of dimensions in the mathematical concept of "Hilbert Space"
I don't really know too much about the details within each dimension but those are the basic idea to each [at least up to the fifth one] of them.
you people worry too much over something that is just "there." don't think about it, just live it...
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that discussions do not necessarily have stock placed in them i.e. that we are pondering this now does not mean that it is essential to our sense of conceptual well-being.
There are some cases where people fail to make this distinction and having reached a dead-end in their investigations, go a little (or very) nuts. This is especially a risk for those who are given to such lines of thought and it is important to exercise caution and the awareness that 'the map isn't the road'.
On the other hand, thinking about these things are very useful because even if we only have our five senses (so to speak), these thoughts can still relate and change how we perceive reality.
You must be logged in to post a reply!