To infinity and beyond.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you said that zero is an ontological absurdity, that would apply to the nothing in the question of why something rather than nothing.

You then used non existent things as the equivalent of the nothing in the question but they are also analogus to the zero you are saying is an ontological absurdity, hence your contradiction.

After a morning of this, Sane, I’m afraid you have me in the position of “not knowing which cup the walnut is under”

To say that a physically non existent thing exists is an absurdity. That means we cannot “find it physically, I.e in nature.

That tells us nothing about why physics exists.

[Nearly Sane]

After a morning of this, Sane, I’m afraid you have me in the position of “not knowing which cup the walnut is under”

To say that a physically non existent thing exists is an absurdity. That means we cannot “find it physically, I.e in nature.

That tells us nothing about why physics exists.

And yet a nothing in the question why something rather than nothing is an ontological statement. I would suggest that your confusion is entirely self inflicted.

[jeremyp]

After a morning of this, Sane, I’m afraid you have me in the position of “not knowing which cup the walnut is under”

It's quite simple. You are claiming that zeros don't exist in nature. If it's true, this means we can answer the question "why something rather than nothing?" by pointing out that nothings don't physically exist and therefore something must be the answer. Suddenly we don't need to invoke a god because it turns out there always has been a something and there never was a need to create it out of nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's quite simple. You are claiming that zeros don't exist in nature. If it's true, this means we can answer the question "why something rather than nothing?" by pointing out that nothings don't physically exist and therefore something must be the answer. Suddenly we don't need to invoke a god because it turns out there always has been a something and there never was a need to create it out of nothing.

No, I can agree that there has to be something, that it always was. But I do not thane to agree to it being physical.
I also do not have to agree to it being a potential.

I thought all of that was implicit in my question to you “what is it about the universe that is necessary?” Or put it another way you seem to be agreeing that there must be an unactualised actualiser for all potential entities. I e. Physical entities.

In other words there is something that must exist but it cannot be contingent on nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I can agree that there has to be something, that it always was. But I do not thane to agree to it being physical.
I also do not have to agree to it being a potential.

I thought all of that was implicit in my question to you “what is it about the universe that is necessary?” Or put it another way you seem to be agreeing that there must be an unactualised actualiser for all potential entities. I e. Physical entities.

In other words there is something that must exist but it cannot be contingent on nothing.

Apart from what is a non physical thing, you've again just argued again that there would be something, as nothing cannot be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from what is a non physical thing, you've again just argued again that there would be something, as nothing cannot be.

Being a theist i’ve Never argued that nothing actually existed.

God is not dependent on non existent things. And neither are you or I. They have no effect.
I feel you are concentrating on getting one over rather than realising what you might have talked yourself into.

[Nearly Sane]

Being a theist i’ve Never argued that nothing actually existed.

God is not dependent on non existent things. And neither are you or I. They have no effect.
I feel you are concentrating on getting one over rather than realising what you might have talked yourself into.

Buggered if I know what you are attempting to say
 Not at all sure you know either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from what is a non physical thing, you've again just argued again that there would be something, as nothing cannot be.

This thread is about actual  infinities and zeroes existing physically. Which would be a neat trick if you could pull it off.

[jeremyp]

This thread is about actual  infinities and zeroes existing physically. Which would be a neat trick if you could pull it off.

Well we have shown actual zeros exist and current knowledge of the Universe strongly suggests actual infinities exist.

Job done.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well we have shown actual zeros exist and current knowledge of the Universe strongly suggests actual infinities exist.

Job done.

It will be possible then to attribute physical properties to zeroes then. Good luck with that one.

[Nearly Sane]

This thread is about actual  infinities and zeroes existing physically. Which would be a neat trick if you could pull it off.

Well it's difficult to say what it's about as your OP is just a ramble, and at one point you said it wasn't about zeroes, so now you've contradicted yourself again, but the idea that nothing could be, which is the basis of your why something rather than nothing question, is tangled up with actual zero, and in such a way that make your statements about it and zero contradictory.

[jeremyp]

It will be possible then to attribute physical properties to zeroes then. Good luck with that one.

Zero zebras have zero mass.

That was easy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Zero zebras have zero mass.

That was easy.

Unfortunately zero zebras is indistinguishable from zero elephants or the absence of hyenas or zero physical properties or indeed, the absence of physical properties.

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately zero zebras is indistinguishable from zero elephants or the absence of hyenas or zero physical properties or indeed, the absence of physical properties.

Why do you think it is unfortunate? It's still zero.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you think it is unfortunate? It's still zero.

It's unfortunate for anyone touting zeros as actual physical entities and then in the hope that establishing that  a real physical entity called a zero suggests that actual infinities exist.

[jeremyp]

It's unfortunate for anyone touting zeros as actual physical entities

Who's doing that? The question was "do zeros exist?" I answered it. There are zero zebras in the room in which I am typing this. Zeros exist.

Thinking about it: this room is a physical entity and contains zero zebras, so there we are: a physical demonstration of zero.

and then in the hope that establishing that  a real physical entity called a zero suggests that actual infinities exist.

I've demonstrated that physical zeros exist. It was you who claimed that zeros existing means infinities exist, not me.

Although, I will point out that the physical universe appears to be infinite in extent, according to the latest measurements. So there's that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who's doing that? The question was "do zeros exist?" I answered it. There are zero zebras in the room in which I am typing this. Zeros exist.

Thinking about it: this room is a physical entity and contains zero zebras, so there we are: a physical demonstration of zero.

I've demonstrated that physical zeros exist. It was you who claimed that zeros existing means infinities exist, not me.

Although, I will point out that the physical universe appears to be infinite in extent, according to the latest measurements. So there's that.

Then I think we have an issue over what the Question was and I rather think it had something to do with whether infinities existed in physical reality.
I am perfectly willing to accept a mathematical reality but that isn't physical reality.
So for folks on here otherwise obsessed by empirical evidence, you all seem peculiarly relaxed about it when it comes to Infinities and zero.

[jeremyp]

Then I think we have an issue over what the Question was

No we don't. You have an issue because your arguments have been demolished again but you can't admit it.

and I rather think it had something to do with whether infinities existed in physical reality.

And I've told you that current measurements from cosmology suggest that they do. Granted, something might happen that changes things but, as best we know at the moment: infinities do exist.

I am perfectly willing to accept a mathematical reality but that isn't physical reality.

You don't accept the evidence then. Just be honest and say that.

So for folks on here otherwise obsessed by empirical evidence, you all seem peculiarly relaxed about it when it comes to Infinities and zero.

The empirical evidence for zeros is incontrovertible. The empirical evidence for infinities is in favour. I don't have to be relaxed about empirical evidence because it is on my side.

[jeremyp]

I'll ask the moderators to close the thread, because you have now clearly lost. There's no point in carrying on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll ask the moderators to close the thread, because you have now clearly lost. There's no point in carrying on.

Courtiers reply.

[jeremyp]

Courtiers reply.

Jesus, you don't even know what that is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jesus, you don't even know what that is.

Jeremy.
Any body claiming empirical evidence for something that is indistinguishable from the Emperor's new clothes, in your case
Zero Zebras.....who then claims that evidence is so incontrovertible so as to merit shutting down any contrary view must indeed be making the Mother of Courtier's replies.

In terms of a universe which will expand forever, I'm not sure that will ever finally give empirical proof of an infinity and apparently we may never be able to observe but a section of the universe.

The evidence imv for an actual empirical observed infinity is not at hand.

Secondly infinities or the lack of them are not relevant to all arguments from contingency.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy.
Any body claiming empirical evidence for something that is indistinguishable from the Emperor's new clothes, in your case
Zero Zebras.....who then claims that evidence is so incontrovertible so as to merit shutting down any contrary view must indeed be making the Mother of Courtier's replies.

Good point. Somebody who is naked has zero clothes on. How you can claim that zero doesn't exist in the real world is a mystery.

Well, no, not a mystery. We know the reason you are desperate to deny it: it is because you have been unequivocally found to be wrong. In the fashion parade of intellectual ability, you are bollock naked.

In terms of a universe which will expand forever, I'm not sure that will ever finally give empirical proof of an infinity and apparently we may never be able to observe but a section of the universe.

It already has. If the Universe is expanding forever (and at increasing speed), it must be unbounded. i.e. infinite.

The evidence imv for an actual empirical observed infinity is not at hand.

You are blinded by religion. Your view is worth bugger all.

Secondly infinities or the lack of them are not relevant to all arguments from contingency.

The sure sign that Vlad has lost the plot: he descends into pointless nonsense about contingency.


Thanks for playing. You have lost.

[Outrider]

Any body claiming empirical evidence for something that is indistinguishable from the Emperor's new clothes, in your case.

You're suggestion, though, is that the child in the story is wrong, because there is no possible way for the Emperor to have zero clothes, because there are no actual zeroes. Which bypasses the point that you apparently don't understand the Courtier's reply, but it needed to be highlighted because it is pretty much the exact worst choice of a story you could make when the point is to demonstrate that there's nothing there.

Zero Zebras.....who then claims that evidence is so incontrovertible so as to merit shutting down any contrary view must indeed be making the Mother of Courtier's replies.

The courtier's reply would be suggesting that you wouldn't know your zebra from your elbow to make the judgement.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're suggestion, though, is that the child in the story is wrong, because there is no possible way for the Emperor to have zero clothes, because there are no actual zeroes. Which bypasses the point that you apparently don't understand the Courtier's reply, but it needed to be highlighted because it is pretty much the exact worst choice of a story you could make when the point is to demonstrate that there's nothing there.

The courtier's reply would be suggesting that you wouldn't know your zebra from your elbow to make the judgement.

O.

Let's be clear here. Zero denotes physical non existence.

To then attach physical existence to them is absurd.

A universe that begins and goes on for ever can be inferred from detecting the flatness of the universe but that, can only be extrapolated. Does that count as empirical fact? I'm not sure.

It seems to me that science is prepared to infer alternatives to that model e.g. the penrose model.

Contingency is about what has to exist and what can be potential, then exist, then not exist.