/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10096622
>Nothing doesn't exist
Prove that reality doesn't exist in everything-nothing pairs.

>>10096622
Anything is sufficient to not be nothing, so lacking nothing would not ensure everything possible existed.
Also, can you prove nothing doesn't exist?

>>10096622
>my bank account isn't empty, therefore I have infinite money

>>10096622

philosophy is not science.
go read a neurology book instead of those dusty old tomes.

>But what am I?
a fag

>>10096801
>philosophy is not science.
But science is philosophy.

>>10096845

lmao no, science is based upon concrete proof and reproducible results.

>>10096845
correction: science is useful philosophy

>>10096868

so many brainlets on /sci/

>>10096622
>nothing does not exist, therefore, everything exists
That's a valid logical statement insofar as it is a tautology. That's like saying fire exists, because a lack of fire does not exist. It doesn't really contribute to any argument.

>What am I?
What kind of answer u lookin for, bud?

>What is a "chair?"
The word? the object it refers to? the concept of it? how it has been described historically? how it has been used? Etc. etc. Add all those up, or select just some, or even one, such as, "chair is an object to sit on" and you have an answer. But really, you have as many answers as you have questions, because there are no satisfactory conditions for the answer to such questions.

>Why can I ponder about my own existence?
Beause humans are capable of abstract thought.

>>10096848
Then tell me the scientific explanation to why e exists, or why time exists, or why gravity exists. Questions like these is what created science in the first place. Pythagoras was a philosopher.

>>10097027

things do not "need" a reason to exist, it's a purely human fetish.

>>10097027
>Tell me the scientific explanation to why ... exists.
There exist scientific explanations for those things you listed. I think what you are getting at tho is not why X or Y exists, but why does anything exist at all, as opposed to nothing. And there isn't any satisfying explanation for that, scientific, or otherwise.

>>10096622
ur a faget

>>10096622
so that you can be a lazy rehash of descartes

For starters, childish grammatical “proof”: If nothing exists, then nothing exists. But at least something exists, therefore, nothing can't exist. Nothing must simply be something else. Our best understanding of nothing is the absence of a thing, basically a hole. So, what is a hole?

You have a piece of paper, this is our “thing”. Then you take a pen and push it through at any point of the paper, creating a hole. Have you now created nothing? I.e. the absence of the paper, our thing? Technically yes, but still no. What IS a hole?

When you first have the paper, the hole doesn’t exist, nothing has happened. Then you take your pen and push it through (don’t pull it back), does the hole exist now? The paper is absent from its original place, but it still exists, it’s merely pushed “somewhere else”. And, in a 2d perspective, the hole IS the pen which creates the absence of the paper. Then you retract your pen, and this is where you would create “nothing”, since you remove the “something” (pen) which is the hole. There’s two ways of seeing this: either the hole is being replaced by “something else” -like air-, just like the hole was created by the paper being replaced by “something else” -meaning the pen-. Or the hole is the proof of something which has occurred.
(1/2)

>>10097182
In either of those cases, the hole isn’t nothing. The paper isn’t absent, it’s merely misplaced, and the hole itself is still _at least_ the proof of something happening. If “nothing” happened, then the paper would be in its original shape. But it’s not. The paper/thing with the hole in it is not the same as the paper/thing without the hole in it. Something is different: the nothing. So, nothing must be really be something, and not nothing. The only way nothing can truly exist is if you ignore the events leading up to creation of that nothing and ignore all other factors which inevitably replaces the thing which created it. For nothing to exist, happenings can’t happen = time must stand still.

Another way of formulating it: nothing can exist if time stands still. Since time isn’t standing still, and since things exist, nothing can’t exist. Nothing must be an illusion of “something else”.
(2/2)

>>10096622
>Nothing doesn't exist, therefore, everything exists.
Everything of what? An illusion is not "nothing", but the elusive nature of an illusion ensures you cannot accurately call it something that has value or say it is empirical nature. It is incommensurable.

>That means that I also exist. But what am I? And why can I ponder about my own existence?

You are conscious, therefore you are.

>>10096733
From nothing comes nothing.
>but what if I measure "nothing"
You are there....in "nothing" measuring it. It ceases to be "nothing" now doesn't it?

>>10096801
>the foundation of science is not a science
True, but saying it still makes you look retarded. It's like saying you can be a mason without any stone or tools.

>>10096877
>meme scientists too retarded for philosophy
No surprise. Someone who doesnt value and does philosophy is literally not on the search for knowledge and wisdom

>>10097185
The problem is that by using a word like 'nothing' to describe something that cannot be described and cannot be a "thing", you are making it a 'thing' by making it a pronoun.

>>10097204
But isn't our best understanding of "nothing" the absence of a thing? Or what is nothing?

>>10097210
The absence of something is still a 'thing' that exists, whereas 'nothing' can never exist, nor be referred to validly in any way.

>>10097218
Exactly. So nothing doesn't exist. That's the whole point.

>>10097224
Therefore zero is not a number.

>>10097218
>>10097224
>>10097231
"0" may not be a "number ", but thatdoesn't mean anything. Numbers are concepts not things. The whole argument revolving the validity of "0" is completely non-sequitur because numbers don't mean anything.

>>10097231
It depends on the mathematical model you're using, and on what abstraction level. It exists in still timeframes, such as 1 - 1 = 0. A more accurate model of reality is the continuously approximating one, saying 1 -1 approaches 0. Since in a real continuous frame 1 != 1, it's 0.999... or (1 + 0.000...). You can't have 1 of anything, we humans simply SAY we have 1 of whatever thing as an abstraction to understand what we have. But in reality, that thing is an approximation of what it is. It's a fractal thing, complete uniqueness. 1 apple != 1 apple, since in reality, the two apples are clearly not identical.

The closer to reality you get, mathematically speaking, the more approximates you have. And in this more "real" perspective of math, nothing is a number, everything is approximations of that number.

But, then again, there are different fields in math. So depending on what you wan't to talk about, 0 is a number sometimes, and sometimes not.

>>10097248
>Numbers are concepts not things.
Concepts are 'things'.

>>10097253
>1 - 1 = 0
This is not a valid calculation. You can't take '1' away from itself. Do you think you can use the same number multiple times? I only see each number once in number lines.

>>10096622
Woah man, much deep many profound, mind
of blown

>>10097254
things are concepts, but concepts are not "things" as in, they don't need to have an observable existence outside of abstract thought. Concepts refer to things, as thing refers to concepts, but a concept can exist without its thing, whereas a thing cannot exist without its concept.

>>10097267
How do you define 2 then? It doesn't have any logical value.

>>10097269
You're saying concepts are not physical, therefore don't need a physical "thing" to associate with to exist. Why doesn't that make it a "thing" any more?

>>10096622
Actually, if nothing doesn't exist, it only follows that not nothing exists i.e something exists.

>>10097267

really?

Assume you have a pie, I take the pie from you, you have no pie.

damn son, elementary school called, you need to enroll again.

>>10097275
Every number is the opposite to zero, because zero isn't any number, therefore every number defines itself.

>>10097294
>you have no pie
False, I have -1 pie, the pie hasn't disappeared from existence.
>damn son, elementary school called, you need to enroll again.
No u

>>10097275

numbers come from counting things.

2 is the symbol we use to define what you call two trees, don't be uselessly dense.

the power of mathematic comes from the fact we don't need to specify which 2 things we are considering but we can imagine 2 things in general.

>>10097300

you do not posses a pie after it has been removed from
you have zero pie, you are not the existance, your chain of reasoning is flawed.

I state my claim, elementary school is still calling.

>>10097291
Oh I guess that's just how I use the word "thing." How I thought we all use the word "thing." A rock is a thing, but morality is not a "thing."

But I guess you're more right though, since we do say stuff like "there is a thing called morality" or "this thing called love.." Even if there's no physical "thing" that we call morality or love.

>>10097302
Yes. But if someone claims that their mathmatical system only consists of unique numbers, these unique numbers lacks significance since they can't possibly be in any relation to each other.

We're saying the same thing.

>>10097304
Zero is not a quantity, you can't "possess" zero quantity of something.

But you can possess and not possess something, but that something must be represented as a quantity (positive or negative).

You have had 1 pie(s) taken away from you, therefore the answer is -1 because you don't own that pie but the pie still exists so must be represented as a minus quantity.

>>10097329

do you have a gold ingot in your hand?
the answer is probably no.
so you have zero ingots.

come on dude.

>>10097334
>you have zero ingots
I have -232241414 or however many "gold ingots" there are.

>>10097346

in your hand, do you how to read?

learn some math jesus christ, you are totally oblivious to the concept of set

>>10097140
only correct answer

>>10097349
>in your hand, do you how to read?
I have -232241414 gold ingots in my hand.
If there are +232241414 gold ingots in existence, then to not have any would be -232241414.

>>10097356

you are clearly retarded, or a liberal art student, which is pretty much the same

I give up, shame on me for not recognizing bait, also this post was correct >>10097140

>>10097356
so if you had 0 gold ingots in your hand you would have 232241414 gold ingots total but [eqn]0\neq232241414[/eqn]

>>10097361
>hasn't got an argument
>cry bait instead

>>10097362
>if you had 0 gold ingots in your hand
Again, you can't give out a quantity of zero to something, this is a gross misunderstanding of the concept.