On 8/12/2022 12:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:33 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]>
wrote:
/> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept
of zero would necessarily exist to preserve the property of
the number of physical objects in that nothing.If the concept
of zero exists then at least 'one' abstract entity must exist,
the one number zero.Now 'two' abstract numbers exist, 'one'
and 'zero'. Et cetera./
You're making the argument that there must be more than just one
thing in the universe and therefore it can not consist of infinite
unbounded homogeneity, and therefore the universe is not nothing,
and therefore the universe is something, and therefore it exists.
And that's all very fine but it's irrelevant because your claim
was that 2+2=4 would exist even if the universe did not. I
maintain it would not. I'm certainly not saying 2+2 =4 has no
meaning, I'm saying it has a meaning precisely because the
universe exists. I'm saying that physics is more fundamental than
mathematics.
You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects. And have
said a number N is meaningless without at least N things in that
universe to count.
Is zero meaningless in a universe with zero physical things?
Meaning is a relation between a sentence and a fact or other sentence.
"Zero" is meaningless except for the relations we attribute to it in
sentences. It is interesting that in Peano's axioms zero is defined
negatively as "The integer that is not the successor of n for all n."
You might argue that it is, but I would say zero is necessary for the
operation and preservation of such a universe of zero objects.
So why don't you conclude there can be no universe of zero objects. And
what exactly is an object? It's not a term that appears in quantum
field theory?
Otherwise without some rule saying "the number of physical objects is
and shall always be 0" what is to stop the nothing from becoming a
universe having a non zero number of objects?
That's actually a well worked out theory, c.f. Hartle-Hawking, that
nothing became a universe. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about it.
I don't see any way from escaping the necessity of rules and the
number zero, for a nothing of the kind you describe.
Not do I see a way for zero to exist apart from all the other numbers.
That's "t" under Peano's axioms.
Zero has properties, including factors. The factors of zero include
all integers.
Oh, well that proves it's real.
Brent
--
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/c81577ad-c5e4-3f31-24c9-de7435565e6f%40gmail.com.
