philosophy of 0+0

since 0 is infact nothing, as i am claiming, there must have always been something according to modern physics and math,


i am using physics and mathematics to back my claim, i do not need to come up with my own textbook theory because it has already been laid down for me,


it is like the argument to prove gods existence, you cannot ask somebody to prove a negative, i cannot ask somebody to prove god doesent exist,

but i can ask somebody to prove god does exist, i am saying based on mathematics and current scientific knowledge of energy and matter, that to create something out of nothing, is actualy scientificaly impossible true?

so i am saying due to the fact that there obviously is existence and it is here for us to study, but having the knowledge that something cannot just come from nothing, this means either A, existence is infinite and therefore has always been. or B that modern science mathematics and physics are incorrect and need to be changed accordingly.


i am asking you to prove to me that something can come from nothing, by showing us first hand,


or if failing that you agree with me and there is no need.


peace.
 
i am using zero to represent non existence tablariddim,

not to represent point zero wich involves - going beyond 0,


0 = non existence.

peace.
 
The argument from the nature of matter, made by Aristotle in Physics I, 7, proceeds as follows:

Everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. If the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into evidence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. The assumption is thus self-contradictory, and matter must be eternal.

The key premise of the argument is, clearly, that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Aristotle defends this argument inductively as follows:

"We can," he argued, "always observe something underlying, from which the generated object comes, plants and animals, for example, coming from seed." Physics I, 7, 190b, 3-5.
Further, the impossibility "that generation should take place from nothing" is self-evident. Metaphysics III, 4, 999b, 8.

The argument from motion, made by Aristotle in Physics VIII, 1, 251a, 8-20, proceeds as follows: If an absolute beginning of motion should be assumed, the object to undergo the first motion must either

(A) have come into existence and begun to move, or
(B) have existed in an eternal state of rest before beginning to move.
Aristotle argues that option A is self-contradictory because an object cannot move before it comes into existence, and the act of coming into existence is itself a "movement," so that the first movement requires a movement before it, that is, the act of coming into existence. (Aristotle fails, however, to explain why the act of coming into existence could not have been the required first movement, in which case this option is not self-contradictory).

Aristotle argues that option B is unsatisfactory for two reasons.

First, if the world began at a state of rest, the coming into existence of that state of rest would itself have been motion.
Second, if the world changed from a state of rest of a state of motion, the cause of that change to motion would itself have been a motion.
Aristotle concludes that motion is necessarily eternal.

Creationists responded that the "First motion" could be ascribed to God's creative act (which would, of course, be transcendental and thus not necessarily physical in nature).
 
Something always was, because the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of time. So, the universe both always existed, and had a beginning.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
the universe is infinite, because if we have 0 atoms 0 energy 0 particles and 0 mass, there can be nothing in existence to bring anything else into existence, energy is transformed from 1 form into another, break it down to an atomic level and you will find that if you have 0 amounts of everything, then you cannot ever have anything atall,




peace.
Click to expand...

EmptyForceOfChi said:
i am using zero to represent non existence tablariddim,

not to represent point zero wich involves - going beyond 0,


0 = non existence.

peace.
Click to expand...

No, you are referencing chemistry and physics and I am merely pointing out that in chemistry and in energy transformation there is no such thing as zero.

I am actually agreeing with your basic assertion, but you chose to demonstrate it with the wrong method.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
The argument from the nature of matter, made by Aristotle in Physics I, 7, proceeds as follows:
...
Click to expand...


Well, I must congratulate you for trying to reason....

Alas, your choice of Aristotle is a poor one. Simplistic syllogistics won't work here.
The main problem with The Philosopher's argument lies in his errant assumption that a thing that 'comes into existence' (whatever that might mean...) must do so from some thing akin to itself (the "substratum"), coupled with his (understandable) ignorance of the dynamics of energy.

On the first hand, if the substratum position had any merit whatsoever, our reality would be limited to the members of the supposed substratum, i.e.: there could be no new thing. Generation is predominantly a process of alteration, not of replication and/or continuation.

On the second hand, the 'Prime Mover' position is simply illogical (which is of course, why the theists manipulated this into an argument for the existence of god...). Of course, nowadays we know that motion is relative, and ultimately nothing more than a distribution of energy.


However......... my main problem with your nice attempt here is simply that you provide no argument yourself......
 
ForceofChi, you're looking at this too philosophically, it can be better understood mathematically. 0 plus 0 does not necessarily equal zero, just like ∞ minus ∞ does not necessarily equal zero. you need to apply the concept of limit. zero is actually 1/x as x approaches ∞, so substitute 1/x in place of 0.

0 + 0 = ??
1/x + 1/x = 2/x certainly,

multiply both sides by x and your left with 1 + 1 = 2. thats definitely something, so even in 0+0=0 or non existence+non existence= non existence how you like to put it, there is something, surprisingly out of the this little addition that you've been pondering 0+0, the most simple addition arrises 1+1=2.
 
Arcane said:
ForceofChi, you're looking at this too philosophically, it can be better understood mathematically. 0 plus 0 does not necessarily equal zero, just like ∞ minus ∞ does not necessarily equal zero. you need to apply the concept of limit. zero is actually 1/x as x approaches ∞, so substitute 1/x in place of 0.

0 + 0 = ??
1/x + 1/x = 2/x certainly,

multiply both sides by x and your left with 1 + 1 = 2. thats definitely something, so even in 0+0=0 or non existence+non existence= non existence how you like to put it, there is something, surprisingly out of the this little addition that you've been pondering 0+0, the most simple addition arrises 1+1=2.
Click to expand...

there, something out of nothing.
 
A vacuum gets filled, that's something coming from nothing. What force within a vacuum pulls the air into it? Nothing, the pressure around it forces it to be filled. Perhaps the pressure of all future time forced the vacuum of nothingness to fill.
 
"A vacuum gets filled, that's something coming from nothing"

thats not true, explain further on this please, because i seriously dont get it, (not bieng funny i really dont).


peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top