• Conway
    17
    Numerus “Numerans-Numeratus”



    Let all abstract numbers be defined exactly as concrete numbers.
    Concrete number: A numerical quantity with a corresponding unit.
    Let the corresponding unit exist as an abstract dimension notated with the use of (_).
    Let the length and width of all dimensional units remain abstract and undeclared.
    Let the dimensional unit be equal in quantity to the numerical quantity it corresponds to.
    Let all numerical quantities inhabit their corresponding abstract dimensional units.
    Let zero be assigned a single dimensional unit.

    Classic Isomorphic
    0 = (0) = (0,_) = (0,0_)
    1 = (1) = (1,_) = (1,1_)
    2 = (2) = (2,_,_) = (2,2_)
    3 = (3) = (3,_,_,_) = (3,3_)
    (-1) = (-1) = (-1,_) = (-1,1_)
    (-2) = (-2) = (-2,_,_) = (-2,2_)
    (-3) = (-3) = (-3,_,_,_) = (-3,3_)

    Therefore:
    Any classic number ( n ) = isomorphic (n) = (n,n_).
    Where (_) is defined as a dimensional unit, the quantity of which corresponds to a given numerical quantity.
    Where ( n ) is defined as the numerical quantity separate from the dimensional unit.
    Where (n_) is defined as the dimensional unit separate from the numerical quantity, and equal in quantity to the numerical quantity it corresponds to.
    Let addition and subtraction exist without change. Except regarding notation: (a+b = c: a+0 = a: a-0 = a: 0+0 = 0: 0-0 = 0).
    In any binary expression of multiplication let one number (n) represent only a numerical quantity or ( n ), let the other number (n) represent only a quantity of dimensional unit equal in quantity to the number it corresponds to, or (n_).
    In any binary expression of division let the numerator (n) always exist as a numerical quantity or ( n ), let the denominator (n) always exist as a dimensional unit quantity equal in quantity to the number it corresponds to, or (n_). Therefore, in all cases of binary division (n/n): (n) is notated as (n/n_).
    Let multiplication be defined as the placing of a given numerical quantity, with addition, equally into each given quantity of dimensional unit. Then all numerical quantities in all dimensional units are added.
    Let division be defined as the placing of a given numerical quantity, with subtraction, equally into each given quantity of dimensional unit. Then all numerical quantities in all dimensional units are subtracted except one.
    In all binary operations of multiplication containing a number (0) and a non-zero number (n), the notation of the number (0) as (0) or as (0_), will dictate the notations of the binary non-zero number (n) in the operation.
    In all cases of a binary expression where the notation is not given for the number (0), the numerical quantity (0) is notated for (0), and the dimensional quantity (n_) is notated for ( n ).
    Therefore: (n*0 = n_*0 = 0).
    Let exponents and logarithms exist without change. Except regarding notation: (a^b = c).

    Assertion:
    All binary operations of multiplication and division remain unchanged except binary operations involving the number (0). As well as defining division by the number (0) as an operation of a given numerical quantity ( n ) into the dimensional unit quantity (0_).

    Multiplication

    Classic
    2*3 = 6
    Isomorphic
    2*(_,_,_) = 6
    Where:
    Classic (2): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic (3): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_,_,_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (3).
    (2,2,2): the numerical quantity (2) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (2+2+2 = 6): the numerical quantity (2) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are added.
    Therefore:
    2*(_,_,_) = 6
    Or,
    3*(_,_) = 6
    Where:
    Classic (2): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    Classic (3): is the numerical quantity.
    (_,_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (2).
    (3,3): the numerical quantity (3) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (3+3 = 6): the numerical quantity (3) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are added.
    Therefore:
    3*(_,_) = 6

    Classic
    2*0 = 0
    Isomorphic
    2*(_) = 2
    Where:
    Classic (2): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic (0): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0).
    (2): the numerical quantity (2) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (2): the numerical quantity (2) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are added.
    Therefore:
    2*(_) = 2
    Or,
    0*(_,_) = 0
    Where:
    Classic (0): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic (2): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_,_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (2).
    (0,0): the numerical quantity (0) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (0+0 = 0): The numerical quantity (0) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are added.
    Therefore:
    0*(_,_) = 0

    Classic
    0*0 = 0
    Isomorphic
    0*(_) = 0
    (_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0).
    (0): the numerical quantity of (0) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (0): the numerical quantity of (0) added equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are added.
    Therefore:
    0*(_) = 0

    Therefore, the product of binary multiplication by the number (0) with a non-zero number, is relative to the number (0) declared as a numerical quantity or as a dimensional unity quantity in the binary expression.

    Isomorphic expressions containing variables.
    Where: (n) =/= 0
    n*(0_) = n = (0_)*n
    n*(_) = n = (_)*n
    n_*0 = 0 = 0*n_

    Division

    Classic
    6/2 = 3
    Isomorphic
    6/(_,_) = 3
    Where:
    Classic (6): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic (2): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_,_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (2).
    (3,3): the numerical quantity (6) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (3): the numerical quantity (6) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are subtracted except one.
    Therefore:
    6/(_,_) = 3

    Classic
    1/4 = .25
    Isomorphic
    1/(_,_,_,_) = .25
    Where:
    Classic (1): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic (4): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_,_,_,_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (4).
    (.25,.25,.25,.25): the numerical quantity (1) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (.25): the numerical quantity (1) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are subtracted except one.
    Therefore:
    1/(_,_,_,_) = .25

    Classic
    0/2 = 0
    Isomorphic
    0/(_,_) = 0
    Where:
    Classic (0): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic (2): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_,_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (2).
    (0,0): the numerical quantity (0) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (0): the numerical quantity (0) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are subtracted except one.
    Therefore:
    0/(_,_) = 0

    Classic
    2/0 = undefined
    Isomorphic
    2/(_) = 2
    Where:
    Classic (2): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic (0): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0).
    (2): the numerical quantity (2) is subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (2): the numerical quantity (2) is subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are subtracted except one.
    Therefore:
    2/(_) = 2

    Classic
    0/0 = undefined
    Isomorphic
    0/(_) = 0
    Where:
    Classic numerator (0): is the numerical quantity.
    Classic denominator (0): is the dimensional unit quantity.
    (_): the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0).
    (0): the numerical quantity (0) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities.
    (0): the numerical quantity (0) subtracted equally into all dimensional unit quantities, then all numerical quantities in all dimensional unit quantities are subtracted except one.
    Therefore:
    0/(_) = 0

    Isomorphic expressions containing variables.
    Where (n) =/= 0
    n/(0_)= n
    n/(_) = n
    0/(n_) = 0

    Therefore, division by zero is expressible as a quotient. By definition of division, the numerical quantity (0) can never exist as a divisor. Only the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0) or (_), or (0_) may exist as a divisor.
    Therefore, all division is defined as a specific operation of a given numerical quantity into a given dimensional unit quantity. So that division by zero is defined as a given numerical quantity operated into the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0).

    Assertion:
    The defining of abstract numbers and the operations of multiplication and division as given above will allow for a mathematical construct in which it is possible to define division by zero. It will also do so in such a manner as to not contradict any given field axiom.
    *As all operations of addition and subtraction exist without change only the field axioms regarding multiplication will be addressed*

    Field Axioms

    Associative: (ab)c = a(bc)
    Commutative: ab = ba
    Distributive: (a+b)c = ac+bc
    Identity: a*1 = a = 1*a
    Inverses: a*a^(-1) = 1 = a^(-1) * a: if a =/= 0

    For the field axioms to hold, the defining of special operations for binary multiplication of the number (0) on the number (n) must be considered. In these special cases alone, binary expressions of multiplication may exist without a unique numerical quantity and a unique dimensional unit quantity.
    Allow that: (0*0 = 0)
    As the numerical quantity of the number (0) can be added to the numerical quantity of the number (0): But cannot yield a product containing a dimensional unit quantity.
    Allow that: (0_*0_ = 0_)
    As the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0) can be added to the dimensional unit quantity of the number (0): But cannot yield a product containing a numerical quantity.
    Where any number (0) exists as undefined in a binary expression of multiplication:
    (0*0 = 0): (0*0_ = 0): (0*0 = 0)
    Therefore:
    (n+0 = n): (n+0_ = n): (n+0 = n)
    Where (n) =/= (0): and (0) exists as undefined in a binary expression:
    (n*0) = (n*0) = (n_*0) = 0

    Associative

    (ab)c = a(bc)

    Isomorphic equations.
    (a*b)c = a(b*c)

    Let: a = 1, b = 2, c = 0: 0 (is a numerical quantity for use in all binary expressions)
    (1_*2)0 = 1(2_*0)
    2_*0 = 1*0
    0 = 1_*0
    0 = 0

    Let: a = 1, b = 2, c = 0: 0_ (is a dimensional quantity for use in all binary expressions)
    (1_*2)0 = 1(2*0_)
    2*0_ = 1*2_
    2 = 2

    Continued isomorphic examples of the associative axiom.

    Let: a = 1, b = 0: 0, c = 0: 0
    (1_*0)0 = 1(0*0)
    0*0 = 1_*0
    0 = 1_*0
    0 = 0

    Let: a = 1, b = 0: 0_, c = 0: 0_
    (1*0_)0 = 1(0_*0_)
    1*0_ = 1*0_
    1 = 1

    Let: a = 1, b =0: 0, c = 0: 0_
    (1_*0)0 = 1(0*0_)
    0*0_ = 1*0
    0 = 1_*0
    0 = 0

    Let: a = 1, b = 0: 0_, c = 0: 0
    (1*0_)0 = 1(0_*0)
    1_*0 = 1*0
    0 = 1_*0
    0 = 0

    Therefore, the associative axiom still holds as true.

    Commutative

    a*b = b*a

    Isomorphic equations.
    a*b = b*a

    Let: a = 2: 2, b = 3: 3_
    2*(_,_,_) = (_,_,_)*2
    2*3_ = 3_*2
    6 = 6

    Let: a = 2: 2_, b = 3: 3
    3*(_,_) = (_,_)*3
    3*2_ = 2_*3
    6 = 6

    Continued isomorphic examples of the commutative axiom.

    If (a) = 0: 0
    0*b_ = b_*0
    0 = 0

    If (a) = 0: 0_
    0_*b = b*0_
    b = b

    If (b) = 0: 0
    a_ *0 = 0*a_
    0 = 0

    If (b) = 0: 0_
    a*0_ = 0_*a
    a = a

    Therefore, the commutative axiom still holds true.

    Distributive

    (a+b)c = a*c+b*c

    Isomorphic equations.
    (a+b)c = a*c+b*c

    Let: a = 1, b = 2, c = 0: 0
    (1+2)0 = 1_*0+2_*0
    3_*0 = 0+0
    0 = 0

    Let: a = 1, b = 2, c = 0: 0_
    (1+2)0 = 1*0_+2*0_
    3*0_ = 1+2
    3 = 3

    Continued isomorphic examples of the distributive axiom.

    Let: a = n, b = 0: 0, c = 0: 0
    (n+0)0 = n_*0+0*0
    n_*0 = 0+0
    0 = 0

    Let: a = n, b = 0: 0_, c = 0: 0_
    (n+0)0 = n*0_+0_*0_
    n*0_ = n+0_
    n = n

    Let: a = n, b = 0: 0, c = 0: 0_
    (n+0)0 = n*0_+0*0_
    n*0_ = n+0
    n = n

    Let: a = n, b = 0: 0_, c = 0: 0
    (n+0)0 = n_*0+0_*0
    n_*0 = 0+0
    0 = 0

    Therefore, the distributive axiom still holds as true.

    Identity

    a*1 = a = 1*a

    Isomorphic
    a*1 = a = 1*a

    For the identity axiom to hold: (a) =/= (0)
    Where (a) = 0: the operations of (0) by the multiplicative identity (1) is given previously in the text.
    Where (a) =/= 0: All binary expressions not involving zero exist without change.

    Therefore, except regarding the number (0), the identity axiom still holds as true.

    Inverses

    a*a^(-1) = 1 = a^(-1) * a: if a =/= 0

    Isomorphic
    a*a^(-1) = 1 = a^(-1) * a: if a =/= 0

    As all binary expressions not involving zero exist without change, the inverse axiom holds as true.
    Where (a) = 0: the number (0) remains without a multiplicative inverse.
    The dimensional unit quantity of the number (0): (_), or (0_), cannot be considered the multiplicative inverse of the number (1). By definition the multiplicative inverse of the number (1) must be a numerical quantity. Therefore, the numerical quantity (1) remains the only multiplicative inverse for the number (1).

    Therefore, all field axioms continue to exist as true.

    Examples as to the validity for the necessity of Numerus “Numerans-Numeratus”.

    1. Provides for a mathematical construct in which it is possible to define division by zero.
    2. As division by zero is defined, any slope formula expressing division by zero is definable. Therefore, the slope of a formula expressing division by zero can be expressed as “vertical”.
    3. Allows for division by zero in a field, without contradicting the field axioms.
    4. Allows dimensional analysis to define division by zero with “actual concrete numbers”, within the confines of its own system. The possibility of which was previously unexplored, the application of which is applicable to physics.
    5. Therefore, physics, semantics, philosophy and mathematics can be considered to be unified to an extent. As all abstract numbers have been shown to exist and function, exactly as concrete numbers. Therefore, the unification of abstract and concrete principles, both in mathematics and in physics.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Exactly! Thank you. I was recently trying to explain just this very topic to my friend. Well, somewhat. Actually, we were mostly talking about basketball. But still, I was trying to show how isomorphic equations can be used to evaluate the performance of point guards in the playoffs. He called BS on me, clearly not the sabermetrician that I hoped he was. Anyway, thanks for posting. :up:
  • Conway
    17
    Thanks for reading and sharing.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    311

    A few questions the answers to which may help me follow this post. Concerning your opening gambit:

    Let all abstract numbers be defined exactly as concrete numbers.
    Concrete number: A numerical quantity with a corresponding unit.
    Let the corresponding unit exist as an abstract dimension notated with the use of (_).
    Let the length and width of all dimensional units remain abstract and undeclared.
    Let the dimensional unit be equal in quantity to the numerical quantity it corresponds to.
    Let all numerical quantities inhabit their corresponding abstract dimensional units.
    Let zero be assigned a single dimensional unit.

    How do abstract dimensions have length and width, and what work is that axiom doing in your system? When working in basic physics, the notion of dimensionality is assocated with the seven basic dimensions, and it doesn't make any sense in that context to talk about dimensions having length or width.

    What is it for a numerical quantity to inhabit an abstract dimensional unit? Presumably this is a metaphor, but a metaphor for what?

    Why would zero be assigned any dimensional unit? That would seem to imply that there is a difference between 0 seconds, 0 centimetres, 0 kilograms, 0 amperes ..... But there is not, at least it is not obvious to me that there is.
  • Conway
    17


    1. Anything that is abstract...also has an abstract space. There is an abstract unicorn...it is abstractly 2 feet tall. The length and width of abstraction is arbitrary...as stated in the op. I think you might have mis-read the op. I had said...let all abstract width and length remain undeclared.

    2. Zero is given a dimension for many reasons. All of which are philosophical...

    2a. Nothing can NOT exist: therefore 0 can not be nothing.
    2b. All that exists is either space or value, 0 is not value, therefore it must be space.
    2c. Assigning a dimension to zero is the process that allows for division by zero.

    I may go on but will wait and see is you agree...

    Lastly there is a great difference between 0 seconds, 0 centimeters, and so on....

    In all cases I have 0 of the thing given....but in no case do I have nothing....therefore varying amounts of zero, or alternatively. I may have two cups before me, both empty...but of varying size. Therefore varying amounts of zero. There is more space between Jupiter and the moon, then between the moon and earth. Therefore varying amounts of zero.

    I hope I have answered all of your questions sufficiently. Thank you for you time.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    311
    In all cases I have 0 of the thing given.
    So here is one possible point of disagreement. You say "in all cases I have 0 of the thing given", and I say "that's logically equivalent to saying you have nothing, in all cases, no need to profliferate the types of nothing". I guess now you refer me to point 2a). 2a) looks problematic for all sorts of reasons, Meinongians on the forum might have something to say about it, but in any case, were I to claim that "0" just signifies the absence of anything, then it doesn't look like I'm committed to saying that there is such a thing as 0, and certainly not that there are lots of different types of it. My semantics for "0" would not need to include a strange nothingness (or strange nothingnesses). It might need to include the empty set, but the thing about the empty set is that, on any axiomatic set theory that includes an empty set, it is unique.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    311
    There is an abstract unicorn...
    And perhaps another disagreement. There might be possible unicorns, there might be fictional unicorns but a possible or fictional unicorn is not straightforwardly the same thing as an abstract unicorn.
  • Conway
    17


    If the unicorn in question....is abstract...it is fictional...there should be no disagreement...

    In any case...you do not need to believe the axioms...either the math works or it does not...

    However...I am willing to discuss just the philosophy...and as I say...the unicorn was declared abstract...that is the same as fictional.......and in either case has noting to do with zero being space or otherwise...
  • Conway
    17


    We need not discuss varying amounts of nothing...the idea relies on the axiom that nothing does not exist....should you disagree...there is no reason to consider the mathematics...
  • MetaphysicsNow
    311
    Take a look at modal realists like David Lewis. They will equate a fictional with a possible unicorn, but possible unicorns are just as much particulars (and so not abstract) as your thumb, the only difference is that they are not actual.

    This is a philosophy forum - there may be some mathematicians around who can give you precise commentary on your mathematics - but I'm sticking to the philosophical claims you are making about your mathematics.
  • Conway
    17
    I take no issue with you discussing the philosphy of this idea. I am glad for it. My point remains however...the particular question you are asking...does not matter in this case.

    Suppose there is varying amounts of "nothing".
    "It" does not exist in this reality....therefore...
    zero can not represent "it".....

    I made no claim that any unicorn was actual...only abstract...the length and width of width of which does not matter...surely you agree with that?
  • MetaphysicsNow
    311
    Of course I agree that unicorns are not actual. What I do not agree with you is that that makes them abstract. The philosophical distinctions concerned here are between the particular and the abstract, on the one hand, and the possible/fictional and the actual. These are two entirely different distinctions. Let's suppose I say it is possible that human beings could inhabit the moon. What makes that statement true? One line of response is that it is made true because there is a possible world in which human beings really do (n.b. NOT actually do) inhabit the moon. What is a possible world? Well, certainly for some people they are abstract objects. However, there are modal realists who believe that possible worlds are real things populated with real concrete particular things - i.e. they are not abstract. If the philosophical implications of your system rely on conflating the abstract with the (merely) possible, which so far it seems to do, then you have some work to do to deal with modal realism.


    Suppose there is varying amounts of "nothing".
    "It" does not exist in this reality....therefore...
    zero can not represent "it".....

    This makes no sense. If it is supposed to be a two line argument with the third line as conclusion, the conclusion is a complete non-sequitur. Also, even if somehow you managed to make the argument consistent, the argument is not sound since the first premise:
    Suppose there is varying amounts of "nothing"
    Is false, or at least arguably false. My claim is precisely that there are not varying amounts of nothing, whereas your system seems to involve the idea that there are varying amounts of nothing.
  • Conway
    17
    Did you read the op? Does not seem like it. I am claiming zero is NOT nothing...and that there are varying amounts of it. I may have varying amounts of empty space. Empty space is what zero is...so I claim...the unicorn has noting to do with anything, the difference between the particular and the abstract has nothing to do with this idea. You made the assumption that I claimed there to be a length and width of something abstract...I DID NOT...you continue on this line for I do not know what reason. My quoted statement by you was accurate...if not semantically and logically so....

    FACT 1: There is not a "nothing" in this reality
    FACT 2: Therefore zero can NOT be "nothing"

    *note fact 2 is well accepted as truth by mathematicians: observe exponents of zero....


    And again...the difference between particular and abstract...has nothing to do with this idea....the existence of "nothing" with in this reality does...yet you do not argue this...you argue the difference between abstract and particular....something I am not debating here.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    311
    OK, let's leave aside the philosophical distinctions.

    FACT 1: There is not a "nothing" in this reality
    FACT 2: Therefore zero can NOT be "nothing"

    Again, non-sequitur and possibly also just false. If by "fact1" you mean that the term "nothing" does not exist in this reality, it is false - the term exists and has an instance in your very statement. If you mean by "fact 1" that the term "nothing" does notrefer to anything in this reality, that may be correct, but that would not render the term "nothing" meaningless, not all words that have meaning refer to things. In either case for Fact 2 to be anything other than a non-sequituur you would have to make a connection between the term "nothing" and the term "zero". The two terms have different uses, so they are not synonyms. Your argument needs more premises before it becomes consistent, once it is consistent we can discuss its soundness.

    By the way, that mathematicians use the sign "0", or that you use the sign "0_" does not entail that those signs refer to anything.
  • Conway
    17
    It is not a non sequitur...and if it was...it makes no difference. You know good and well what I mean by "nothing". You argue just to argue. Perhaps you can find a meaningful point to debate...then we can discuss this and its soundness.

    But it does seem to me you just want to debate nothingness.....lol...which is not the point.....lol

    By the way...definitions for all symbols were given stating exactly what the refer to....
  • Conway
    17
    For those that might be confused here...

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

    statement 1: "There is not a "nothing" in this reality"

    This is a fact...

    statement 2: "Therefore zero can NOT be "nothing"

    IF statement 1 is correct...then LOGICALLY statement 2 follows...

    Therefore sequitor...

    And again....this idea may "allow" "nothing" to exist...in any form one may wish it..but it does require that this "nothing" not exist in our reality....hence my argument that the existence of "nothing" is not relative to this discussion...whatever "nothing" may or may not be.
  • jkg20
    405
    Let "F" stand for "is nothing".
    Let "G" stand for "is zero"
    Then statement 1 becomes, in first order predicate logic:
    1) -Ǝx(Fx)
    Statement 2 becomes
    2) Ǝx(Gx & -Fx)

    MetaphysicsNow is 100% correct in his claim against you that in this argument 2) is a non-sequitur. There are no logical rules of inference that allow you to infer 2) merely from 1), hence by definition it is a non-sequitur. If you want your claims about the philosophical implications/entailments of your mathematical symbolism to be taken seriously, you should really try to avoid basic errors in formal logic of this kind.

    To help you out here, if you want to render the formal argument logically consistent (so that 2) is NOT a non-sequitur) you have to introduce the premise:
    1a) Ǝx(Gx)
    1), 1a) therefor 2) is a logically consistent argument, now let's consider its soundness a little

    In the interpretation we are giving to the symbols, 1a) states that there is something which is zero. Now the issues about semantic interpretation of the symbolism come into play (and we thus move beyond merely formal logic and mathematical symbols and into the realm of metaphysics). The claim that there is something which is zero sounds perilously close to saying "there is something which is nothing" and I think MetaphysicsNow is homing in on the intuition that this is paradoxical. You might want to say that mathematics needs to quantify over an object to which it assigns all the properties that zero has, but even in saying that you are venturing outside of mere mathematics and into metaphysics, since the question arises "what properties does zero have?". You might then say that it is the additive identity, but then one reply is that this is to define zero in terms of the positive integers and their relations to one another, and one does not need to metaphysically "reify" an object to perform that role, we need only to reify the positive integers and their relations to one another. Furthermore, even if MetaphysicsNow could be forced into a corner and admit that one has to reify one object to which the term "zero" or "0" refers, that's where the metaphysical commitments concerning the use of the term "zero" stop. Your mathematical symbolism might end up being consistent - I cannot comment on that - and it might quantify over several different types of zero, but then I guess MetaphysicsNow will just say, "too bad for your symbolism, it multiplies entities beyond necessity".
  • Conway
    17


    F = is nothing


    this is NOT correct

    F = There is not a nothing in this reality


    don't waste my time
  • Conway
    17
    Since some people don't understand what it means to be sequtor

    Lets assume I agree my statement was a non-sequitur....what does it have to do with anything?

    Absolutely nothing....the point of his "you non sequitur" statement had to do with his wrong assumption that I wanted to define abstract space...

    So does anybody...anybody at all have something of relevance?
  • Conway
    17
    If I had said...

    "is nothing"

    therefore

    "is zero"

    yes then it would have been a non sequitur....

    but this is NOT what I said is it?
  • jkg20
    405
    I may have two cups before me, both empty...but of varying size. Therefore varying amounts of zero. — Conway

    I can't believe MetaphysicsNow let this one go - he is being too gentle with you. This is another non-sequitur - you are clearly really fond of them. If I have two empty cups of different sizes I don't have two cups containing varying amounts of zero, I simply have two cups with different capacities for containing actual stuff. In actual fact, those cups are of course filled with different volumes of air, but go on, I'll let you put them into a perfect vacuum, I still just have two empty cups with different capactities for holding liquids, not different capacities actually containing amounts of zero.

    Emmenthal is a cheese with holes in it - but I cannot eat the cheese and leave the holes behind for someone else to enjoy later.
  • jkg20
    405
    If I had said...

    "is nothing"

    therefore

    "is zero"

    yes then it would have been a non sequitur....
    — Conway

    Wrong yet again. A non-sequitur is a proposition/statement that purports to, but in fact does not, follow from previously given propositions/statements. By extension the term also refers to an entire argument in which the concusion is a non-sequitur. "is nothing" and "is zero" are neither of them propositions or statements, so neither of them, nor the combination of them, can be a non-sequitur. For examples of real non-sequiturs I refer you to a number of your previous posts in this thread.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    311
    You argue just to argue. — Conway
    Sometimes, but not in this instance. Here I was arguing to try to get clear on exactly what your philosophical proposal is. However, when you respond to my arguments with nothing but non-sequiturs, I have no choice but to conclude that you really do not have anything philosophically interesting to say. So, farewell, I wish you better luck astonishing the world with your mathematical prowess than you have been able to do so with your philosophical abilities. You can always take solace in the maxim that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country.

    @jkg20 I wouldn't bother playing around with Conway - it's amusing for a while but there are some serious posters on here with philosophically interesting things to say and who at least try to avoid non-sequiturs.
  • Conway
    17
    wrong again....I refer you to the link on the definition of sequitur...thank you for your time...it would seem no further communication between us is necessary.
  • Conway
    17
    wrong again...I refer you to the definition of sequitur that I linked...It would seem no further communication is necessary between us. Thank you for your time.
  • Conway
    17
    To all:

    Clearly I disagree about the non-sequitur bit....again what does that have to do with the philosophy of this idea....absolutely nothing. They pick not at the idea, but at me. They are trolls. I would have hoped this site would have had better.

    Things to address...

    The existence of nothing in this reality....
    Zero and nothing, and if they are the same....
    What exactly zero is....

    All would have been fair play...claiming someone made a non-sequitur statement instead of addressing the philosophy is childish and very un-philosophical like sportsmanship...

    Key hint to trolls: the personal insults....
    I wish you better luck astonishing the world with your mathematical prowess than you have been able to do so with your philosophical abilities. You can always take solace in the maxim that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country.MetaphysicsNow

    I wouldn't bother playing around with ConwayMetaphysicsNow

    Trolls for sure.
  • jorndoe
    3.7k
    Instead of all the "Much Ado About Nothing", wouldn't it make more sense to be a bit more specific?

    • "nothingness" = absence of anything and everything
    • nothing = common use, like "there's nothing in the fridge", out of beer :o

    The former would then be like a referent-less word, since anything and everything already is all-inclusive, and hence "nothingness" is our way of talking about it's non-existing all-exclusive complement.

    The latter we may quantify with zero.

    Isn't the opening post a bit along the lines of Frege and Russell (the abstract number is the set of all sets with the concrete number as it's cardinality)...?
    I think it was Frege and/or Russell anyway (from memory), might have others (as well).

    By the way, the dimensions of units would have to be fairly general.
    You could have, say, "I own the Moon, my left ear, and the range from my front-door to the street", which could be construed as just "3 items".
    (Yes, the Moon is mine I tell you.) :)
  • Conway
    17
    Very well posted...and thank you...

    Yes...I could have been more precise in exactly what it is I meant by "nothing"...this I think was meta's point...but alas....much to do about nothing.....

    I am claiming here that the concrete and the abstract number are not really separated...that is the abstract numerical quantity, and the dimensional unit quantity should both be accepted as part of any given numbers cardinality. That is zero...while the absences of a "thing" in question...is not nothing...it is a dimension of abstract space.

    If I claim the dimensions are to remain abstract and undefined at all times...that is fairly general is it not? Only the quantity of dimensions in question is what is needed here...and as I suggest 0 has a quantity of dimension..

    Again thank you very much for the post. Polite and well presented opinions.
  • Conway
    17
    Consider the "two empty cups"...as meta points out...and as was my point to him....they are never really empty...and even if I put "pure vacuum" inside...there is still dimension...and it is so in each and every case...if and when the dimension in question (our cup) has the "absence of a given value"...or just air.....then that is zero...an "empty dimension"....

    empty = nothing = absences of a given value

    Because for a very well educated opinion..."nothingness"...does not exist in this reality...
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.