The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe that > truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be > true independently of the universe
Definition is not nothing. Definition is an implicit program. I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have a better > definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it. I define "nothing" as absence of information about any aspect <https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/3ZdcQpJCPpE/m/Kwfh69V4Y24J> (projection axis, defining semantic dimension) whatsoever. If the concept of zero exists then at least 'one' abstract entity must > exist, the one number zero. By this definition of "nothing", all possible projection axes (aspects, or points of view to which the projection ought to be zero by definition of "nothing") must therefore exist to define it. Thus, an assumption of nothingness explodes not just into "one abstract entity", but all possible imaginary entities with respect to which information amount can be measured, and said to be zero. This definition of "nothing", as a kind of inverse of "everything", implies, or invites us to imagine all possible things. On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 8:05 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:41 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > *You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects.* >> > > I also said the universe could not exist if it only had one physical object > because I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have > a better definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it. > > > *Is zero meaningless in a universe with zero physical things?* >> > > If the universe had zero (or only one) physical things then even > "meaning" would be meaningless, and so would "meaningless". But those > things do have meaning therefore I can deduce that the universe does not > consist of infinite unbounded homogeneity, and therefore the universe must > contain more than just one thing; > > *> I don't see any way from escaping the necessity of rules and the number >> zero,* >> > > I don't either if you want to describe how the universe works because > mathematics is the best language to do that. English is a useful language > too but the word "cow" cannot give milk and the definition of a computation > cannot perform a computation. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > apl > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2jVApsd-UFgBbAKw6ZZZAH%3Di00vsTEffq2_R_TUKL81A%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2jVApsd-UFgBbAKw6ZZZAH%3Di00vsTEffq2_R_TUKL81A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CABDo93zktHCWGRbehX_1ymraJJV-qgAph__xPJv0_KsgqbLuUQ%40mail.gmail.com.
