/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15787582
0 things occupying an infinite empty field.
Here is a graph of nothing with several zero points of the empty planes (all containing nothing just a bunch of empty 0d points) highlighted by color.

>>15774573
>if they are truly touching
If that, then there is truly nothing else between them, nothing doesn't need to reside in space since it is 0D, not just a 3D spatial phenomenon, it exists in all dimensions.

>set theory is sillier
Having to reject all math and science and semantics just to "prove" your point is sillier than just asserting that nothing can't be something because it must be something else.

>what do you mean by "X" here
All X where X - X = 0.

>you're starting with a system
I am starting with math and its logical axioms and describing the smallest possible value defined by that system of axioms.

>nothing as part of it (...assumption
Not an assumption, a consequence of the axioms, specifically the additive identity.

>the other system
Physics is not a separate system, it extends mathematical axioms, but also assumes an additive identity where a self similar object has 0 difference between itself.

>a "system" or "body" of nothing,
Yes, that is generally drawn as Pic related, an empty 3d graph with orthogonal lines indicating a bunch of dimensional color coded planes indicating a field of empty 0D points referencing location within the empty field.

>so you're saying that motion, and volume calculations, would not exist without nothing being something...
Consistency of calculation would not, you could say anything equals anything by stopping potential value with some arbitrary infinitesimal rather than absolutely nothing.

>there's really no need for a silly additive identity
There really is if you want any level of consistency, order, or ability to say if something is one thing or another rather everything just being anything arbitrary.

>that's an axiom bud
Nope the axioms are the additive identity and the additive property of equality and that is a consequence.

>"x=x+i"
This person >>15773902 presented that idea when they said the smallest possible is an infinitesimal rather than 0 and its wrong because 0 is the smallest possible.

>>15608923
Yes it does, it is the standard representation, have you never seen a 3D graph with their conventions before? Why do you think you have any valid answers to any questions that have been posed when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about?

>>15568082
No, the sqrt of 180 is 13.4164079 rather than 90.
To demonstrate the exactness, can you show an empty spatial graph for those 6 dimensions like pic related, but 6 orthogonal axis rather than the 3 traditional ones?

>>15496808
>Where are -0 and +0 on a graph?
See how all those axis lines that define 0 for each dimension extend in the positive and negative directions? Basically every thick dark line extending to positive (+0) and negative (-0) directions are present on the graph and they all are on some part of some dimensions origin point which is all equal to 0 whether it be x=0, y = 0, or z=0.

>>15186515
>Anon, nothing in the known universe comes into existence without something that produces it.
Exactly, nothing is the only logical thing that can exist without an cause rather than Space as you implied unless by space you mean the empty 3d coordinates which is actually just drawing all the zero points of nothing that makes up the 0 axis of all the dimensions.

>How did the big bang get produced without there being something that produced it?
Nothing is something, you just said its the only thing in the known universe that comes into existence without something else.

>There must of been space before it,
Then space doesn't need a cause and you have violated your original axiom that only nothing needs no cause.

>Nothing is not something, you have to have something
Nothing is something, its the smallest amount of something possible, its not just a zero amount of something, but also a zero amount of everything else too.

>This is the fundamentals of physics, cause and effect.
Except when applied to Space which apparently needs no cause according because it must exist for some reason.

>One reaction creates another, you can not create a cause without an effect.
Except Space, you apparently know that space is some kind of effect without a cause because it must be for the big bang to happen for some reason even though you also claim that nothing is the only thing that doesn't need a cause.