On Nothing in a void.

[Write4U]

Correction:

For what purpose would Trilobites already have eyes, and "zoning" for correcting chromatic aberration, unless they offered a survival advantage in their environment?

 

[NotEinstein]

Does it not follow that the ability to self organize demands some fundamental common denominators which allow the self organizing formation of recurring specific patterns in the first place?

Does it? Please provide evidence for this.

If not, why would mathematics be of any use at all?

It's possible some things can mathematically be described, while other can’t. You can't generalize without justification. Similarly, that some things are connected doesn't mean that all things are.

But all of that is still irrelevant, because that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about common denominators in natural phenomena, not some philosophical connectedness or mathematical-ness of the entire universe. Please try to keep on-topic.

 

[Michael 345]

Does it not follow that the ability to self organize demands some fundamental common denominators which allow the self organizing formation of recurring specific patterns in the first place

You can tip marbles from a container and make them form a pyramid if you form a square of marbles to tip them on to first

At the atomic level some things just naturally fall into place and fit

Physics rules

 

[Write4U]

We were talking about common denominators in natural phenomena, not some philosophical connectedness or mathematical-ness of the entire universe.

0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55. (xn = xn-1 + xn-2.)

This pattern turned out to have an interest and importance far beyond what its creator imagined. It can be used to model or describe an amazing variety of phenomena, in mathematics and science, art and nature. The mathematical ideas the Fibonacci sequence leads to, such as the golden ratio, spirals and self- similar curves, have long been appreciated for their charm and beauty, but no one can really explain why they are echoed so clearly in the world of art and nature.

https://math.temple.edu/~reich/Fib/fibo.html

The Lucas numbers are formed in the same way as the Fibonacci numbers - by adding the latest two to get the next, but instead of starting at 0 and 1 [Fibonacci numbers] the Lucas number series starts with 2 and 1. The other two sequences Coxeter mentions above have other pairs of starting values but then proceed with the exactly the same rule as the Fibonacci numbers. These series are the General Fibonacci series.

An interesting fact is that for all series that are formed from adding the latest two numbers to get the next starting from any two values (bigger than zero), the ratio of successive terms will always tend to Phi!

So Phi (1.618...) and her identical-decimal sister phi (0.618...) are constants common to all varieties of Fibonacci series and they have lots of interesting properties of their own too

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#section6

Consider an elementary example of geometric growth - asexual reproduction, like that of the amoeba.
Each organism splits into two after an interval of maturation time characteristic of the species. This interval varies randomly but within a certain range according to external conditions, like temperature, availability of nutrients and so on. We can imagine a simplified model where, under perfect conditions, all amoebae split after the same time period of growth.

So, one amoebas becomes two, two become 4, then 8, 16, 32, and so on.

We get a doubling sequence. Notice the recursive formula:

• An = 2An

This of course leads to exponential growth, one characteristic pattern of population growth.

We might be able to say that Naturally occurring Patterns display Mathematical regularities.

Perhaps the physics of the universe demand forms of mathematical functions, which we have been able to identify symbolically. i.e. in large spaces the probability of an event to occur might be random or per chance, but when an event occurs it must follow inherent universal physical laws (constants), which by necessity is of (what we call) a mathematical nature.

E = Mc^2, is another of these phenomena which is a universal mathematical constant.

IOW, any regularly pattern in nature contains a mathematical aspect to its shape (value) or function. IMO, it cannot be otherwise. The two are intrinsically connected.

In·trin·sic,
ADJECTIVE
1. belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
2. Anatomy. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) belonging to or lying within a given part.

Source: Dictionary.com

 

[Write4U]

You can tip marbles from a container and make them form a pyramid if you form a square of marbles to tip them on to first.
At the atomic level some things just naturally fall into place and fit

Physics rules ..........

This is what I meant abstractly by "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

However, I believe this is true at all scales, not just at the atomic level. But at large scales this movement (imperative) is affected by many more environmental conditions, thus might not be able to complete this function as precisely as at the atomic level and we observe a pattern which comes close but not perfect, i.e. an approximation.

Not all spirals follow the exact Fibonacci sequence, but they eventually do answer to Phi.

 

[NotEinstein]

0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55. (xn = xn-1 + xn-2.) https://math.temple.edu/~reich/Fib/fibo.html

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#section6


We might be able to say that Naturally occurring Patterns display Mathematical regularities.

Perhaps the physics of the universe demand forms of mathematical functions, which we have been able to identify symbolically. i.e. in large spaces the probability of an event to occur might be random or per chance, but when an event occurs it must follow inherent universal physical laws (constants), which by necessity is of (what we call) a mathematical nature.

Yeah, non of this addresses what we were talking about, so I'm just going to skip this off-topic part.

E = Mc^2, is another of these phenomena which is a universal mathematical constant.

No, that's an equation, not a mathematical constant. I suppose you're using the word constant non-mathematically here, even though you've explicitly prefaced it with the word "mathematical". See how confused your speech sometimes is?

And no, it's not certain that's a universal truth: it may be disproven in the future.

IOW, any regularly pattern in nature contains a mathematical aspect to its shape (value) or function. IMO, it cannot be otherwise.

I (of course) object to the word "contains"; if you replace it with "can be described by" I agree with your statement.

The two are intrinsically connected.

Do you believe there are things in nature that aren't intrinsically connected?

 

[Michael 345]

Do you believe there are things in nature that aren't intrinsically connected?

Not asked of me but if it was - balls and brains

 

[NotEinstein]

Not asked of me but if it was - balls and brains

 

[Write4U]

Not asked of me but if it was - balls and brains ......

You may be closer to the truth than you think, but not the way you are suggecting.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well the title is a mere attention getter.
I want to discuss nothing in general rather than placing it in a void.
The subject of nothing often comes up and yet it could be argued that nothing does not in fact exist.
Some say before everything there was nothing, some say there is nothing on the outside of the universe, some say they have nothing to say rather than to say something.
I ask what is nothing? How should it be defined?
Can nothing exist and does it take up space?
Is there nothing in a void or is a void nothing.
Can you say something about nothing.
Alex

Our use of the concept of nothing and of the word "nothing" just shows how versatile and flexible human languages and human thought are.

Most words clearly refer to some thing, or at least we use them and mean them as if they did, and be damned if we're wrong about that. But then the word "nothing" seems to refer to nothing. Oops! Sorry, I rephrase, the word "nothing" doesn't seem to refer to any thing. Hey, look, you just understood these two sentences as meaning exactly the same thing!

Yet, the first sentence says, "refer to". As if nothing was at the same time nothing and some thing. Would it be possible that the word "nothing" both didn't refer to some thing and yet referred to something that would be some kind of equivalent to nothing.

Well, yes, I think so, sort of. And it's kind of easy, really.

Still, I haven't read the whole thread so I'm going to make a break here and now and come back some other time to finish it off.

I almost said nothing.
EB

Note: I won't use any of the emoticons here because they're crap.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nothing exists because of something, just like zero exists only in relation to one.

Jan.

Yeah, and if there were no God, there would be no Atheists?

Kind of the same thing, I think.

Still, you're so close!

Maybe you could try and be just a wee bit more specific?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems to me that "nothing" is the general counterpart, in logic, of the zero in mathematics.

Zero and nothing are abstract concepts with definite meaning, but because just logic and mathematics can express such concepts does not necessarily mean that they can be actually found anywhere in the physical world. Indeed one might argue that the uncertainty principle would tend to argue against such a thing - as Michael implies above.

Yes, that's close, too.

I could criticise what you say, but I'd rather like you to go on your own all the way to an effective expression of the actual meaning of the word "nothing".

Can you do it?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That sorta makes sense....
I actually find "nothing" I mean no space, no time, no nothing! as hard to visualize as infinite.

Nah, it's very easy to visualise most of the time. We can all do it. Easy as pie. Maybe not in a few cases where we try to mean something special.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Give me an example of nothing without relating it to something.

That's just grazing. I guess it depends on what you mean by "relating to".

Referring to? Or something else?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You can only have nothing in the absence of something.

Ah, yes, we're in on the secret here. You know but you won't tell! Unless maybe we kneel and chant in praise of your wisdom? Typical.

Or, perhaps, it's indeed typical of the peripatetic teaching technique? Bait?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Give me an example of nothing without relating it to something.

Excellent.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

But that "nothing" is related to a quote.

True, but the post was good!

So, kudos for everybody here!
EB

 

[exchemist]

Yes, that's close, too.

I could criticise what you say, but I'd rather like you to go on your own all the way to an effective expression of the actual meaning of the word "nothing".

Can you do it?
EB

I do not know, but it isn't a problem that interests me enough to expend time on. I'm interested more in science than logic or mathematics. I'll be interested to read how you would express it, however.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If nothing exists please show me where it is because I think that there can be no place that does not contain something which eliminates nothing.
Nothing is a generalisation for "well there is something but it is too small or complex to explain so I say that it is nothing"


Alex

 

[arfa brane]

0 is a symbol. It stands for a number whose value is . . . nothing. Nothing is what you start with when you're about to count some things. "Starting with nothing" makes sense. If you have nothing, does it exist?

A space with nothing in it therefore has a symbolic representation (which isn't nothing, it's something). Why can we represent nothing if it doesn't exist?
Imagine trying to define a system of coordinates without having a symbol like 0.

On the one hand, we need to reject the notion that nothing can be something (what you start with, or . . . without), on the other, we need to embrace notions like zero length, or displacement, no difference between, etc.