/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15376745
Tell me what "quantum" refers to then. Don't wait until we're 200+ posts in on my account. Also don't feel insulted, it's not like one person or Plato himself discovered the concepts he talks about in his book. Some of them go all the way back even further than the Prakrits.

>>15187615
>Nothing is no quantity

So now that we've successfully determined that your "model" is not provable/ indescribable with math (the language of quantity)..what now? Now what does "0" actually matter in this context?

>what number comes before 1?
There are no numbers before the principle of all the numbers you fool. Are you thinking of newspeak math or actual original math that had no number for "0"?

>Yes and if no thing comes after 1, you can assume
No, because it's "no thing". I cannot assume. Retard.

>it equals 1.000000..... because 0 is the value of no thing.
You sound very confused. 0 is "no value". Technically it's more accurate to say "undefined".

>It can be while you said it couldn't.
If we're discussing a "subject" as in "Subject matter", no. A "subject matter" literally doesn't exist. It's the discussion about something that exists or doesn't.

>Nothing is the smallest possible amount
You said at the beginning it was "no quantity". How can there be "amount" when it means "no amount"? It's contradictory.

>of anything and everything.
Well it refers to what is "of nothing" which is why the word has "no" and "thing" in it. I'm sure if they wanted to actually refer to something then a different, more accurate word would have been used to describe...whatever thing it is you think "nothing" represents.

>Are you saying that the picture you posted doesn't look like a triangle or that math wasn't used to make the picture?
I'm telling you math can't describe the entire picture.

>any level of precision
"No"
-t. Incommensurability

>in games and simulations
That's great, that's what math is wonderful for. But we're here in reality bud.

>You think math is limited to Cartesian coordinates?
Do you think any base system is going to calculate that hypotenuse?

>I don't understand the intention
>and relevance of most of your arguments.
Right. This is a discussion over nothing. Do you want to talk about something specific yet?

>>15165324
You only say that cause he was an asshole form of Plato.

>>15166773
>muh forms
Materialists, I swear.

>also le fascism is le good
But only when homogeneous.

>>15167258
Yes he turned it into a dualism, which is what makes him a pseud. As if matter actually existed past form.

>>11267304
I literally cannot answer. It is not a "thing" to be discussed of. That is unless you would like to provide me empirical evidence of it so that we may actually definitively speak of it.

>>11151305
But none of that means anything though.

0 of what?

>>10498460
>"From whence they afford pleasure to the unwise, but joy to the wise through the imitation of divine harmony subsisting in mortal motions. And, indeed, with respect to all effluxions of water, the falling of thunder, and the wonderful circumstances observed in the attraction of Amber, and the Herculean stone; -in all these, NOTHING IN REALITY OF ATTRACTION TAKES PLACE; but, AS A VACUUM CANNOT ANYWHERE BE FOUND, and these particulars MUTUALLY IMPEL each other."- Plato

String theory is Holographic universe on atomism. "Strings of what" would be nice to know, otherwise stop calling them "strings". It implies that it's actually made of something "sting like".

>>10429277
>>10429286
The paranoia strikes deep. I'm not talking about "here and now" Barnes and Nobel philosophy just so you know.

>>10283428
>Time is the phenomenon
yeah, and what "property" does it have?

>that arises from the distinguishable relative states of all physical objects in an ensemble.
Order is order. Order has nothing to do with time, it has to do with the actual thing being ordered relative to another

>As long as there are two or more distinguishable states there is time expressed through the possibility of transition between these states.
Time is a quality? What are you saying here?

>>10284500
>Different observers see different events as simultaneous -- how can time just be a human invention if different observers have a different definition of the present?
It depends on the observer? What does a squirrel see? What does a blind person see? How is either and their differences related to the human nomenclature of assigning quantities to things?

>It's as real as the spatial dimensions, which can also be chopped into different planes (say perpendicular to your velocity) by different people.
Dimension obviously implies dimensionality. We live in "a dimension" yes. How is "time" a dimension? It has no "dimensional" properties. Is it the "time" dimension? How would it define itself?

>>10175475
>You are now given full access and authority at CERN. What do you do?
If that means "you are now in charge of the entire facility and own it":
I would round up employee that works there and ask them all individually if they can differentiate the "particles" that are being accelerated and the electromagnetism that accelerates them. Each employee that answers the question will be terminated immediately. Each employee that cannot answer the question will retain their jobs with the company under new titles or be offered a golden parachute of some kind. Then the entire facility will be demolished and materials recycled or sold, the proceeds going to a charity unanimously agreed upon by the remaining workers.