[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 27 KB, 600x494, k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9936653 No.9936653 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Nothingness can not exist, there was always something.

>> No.9936679

"There is nothing left to do"
this can either mean
>all things have been done
>the act of doing nothing has yet to be done

>> No.9936680


>> No.9936681

It takes an IQ under 130 to believe this.

>> No.9936682

this settles it.
0 is not a real number. Cast this gay thing to fake math for mongs who also believe in infinity.

You know whats a better way of expressing how poor you are than "i have $0"?
"I don't have $1,000,000"

there is no having a lack of something. There is only lacking something.

>> No.9936687

I'm talking about absolute nothingness. Nothingness means non-existence. Something exists so how can at any point be a state of non-existence? If there was a point of non-existence nothing would come out of it because it had no properties. Since we are we know that this state of absolute non-existence was impossible

>> No.9936690
File: 175 KB, 600x600, 58b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>there is nothing left to do
>the act of doing nothing has yet to be done
>"doing nothing" validates as an act, and therefore doing something
>there is never nothing left to do, cause everything can't be done if it includes "doing nothing"
>theres always at least something left to do, even if its nothing
>doing nothing is doing something
>can't actually "do" nothing though

>> No.9936692


You have the whole internet at your fingertips. Your concept has already been discussed for thousands of years and has been shown to be erroneous in many different ways.

>> No.9936694

So doing nothing is something no one can do?

>> No.9936698

Zero is just a arbitrary symbol to represent a LACK of something. Not necessarily "nothingless"

Like if you were told to get 5 peaches, 5 pears and 5 apples and you came back with only 5 peaches and 5 pears you would have zero apples.

>> No.9936700
File: 33 KB, 500x500, 1506140326977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

But then who is no one?
No one can do it, and if no one can do it, that means it can be done, but things are only done by someone. So who is no one? No one is definitely some one.

>> No.9936704

Not really. You just wouldn't have 5 apples.

>> No.9936711

Everyone can do everything
Someone can do something
No one can do nothing

You're not everyone and you're not no one. You're someone. Let everyone worry about doing everything and no one worry about doing nothing; neither of them are someone. You're someone, so you only need to worry yourself with doing something.

>> No.9936714
File: 155 KB, 600x600, 53e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm someone, but aren't all someones together collectively called as everyone? Everyone has to worry about doing everything??? So each someone has to do everything???

>> No.9936717

What if I have $999,999?

>> No.9936719

I also believe nothingness cannot exist. Matter and antimatter particles form randomly but it is still in vacuum and vacuum isn't truly 'nothing'. Even before big bang, it couldn't have been true nothingness. If it were true nothingness the universe wouldn't exist. But how can you measure nothingness anyway? Maybe it was nothing for awhile but something prodded it with energy and it became something.

>> No.9936720

You still don't have $1,000,000

>> No.9936724
File: 27 KB, 720x669, 0vsnull.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9936726

Everyone has to do something. No one can do everything. If someone could do everything, they would be better than everyone. No one is better than everyone, cause no one can do everything. If someone could do everything, they would become no one.

>> No.9936729
File: 207 KB, 692x960, 1510723646424.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>null vs null
hallo was ist daß?
wie meinst du?

>> No.9936755

Yeah but your number of apples for that task would be 0 apples. Like if you played backgammon and every game you won you'd get 1 point but you lost 3 out of 3 games you'd have zero points for that round

>> No.9936762

If i was tasked with delivering 5 apples and I returned without apples, then there wouldn't be a count of apples, so there wouldn't be a number associated with the apples that I don't have.

Think about it.

>> No.9936771

No the count was there before you went to get them. Zero is just a symbol to represent a lack of something. You can't have zero of something you weren't counting. But you can have zero of something you needed a count for.

0 is contextual

>> No.9936777

You can just as easily also have 0 kiwi and 0 cucumbers and 0 bananas though. Theres no sense in counting on what you don't have. You don't have a lot.

>> No.9936784

No no you can't have zero kiwi's because you weren't looking for them.
Like if you needed nails to build a bird house and it took 12 nails to put together but you only had 5 nails. Once you used all 5 nails you'd have zero nails.
0 indicates the start AND end of a specific count. Like of course you'd have zero bolts in that count, they aren't on the list to begin with.
You get what I'm saying? 0 is just a market for when your lacking something. Zero only exist when a count is made

>> No.9936793

False. The universe expands into nothing.Consider this:
-Universe was once compact
-began to expand rapidly so it could stabilize
If that weren't true, then the universe isn't expanding
-means that it is taking longer for gravity waves to travel
-then that means gravity waves are deacclerating??
-speed of information is constant and the universe fixes itself to make such happen
Okay but then how is it expanding into nothing??
Suppose the universe is expanding. Suppose there exists some point not in the universe that is non-Euclidean (ie not a simple surface) but rather a stochastic surface that may or may not exist depending on some probability measure.
Assume this point will go from literally being nothing, to being a point in the universe due to the universe expanding. There are two scenarios for the universe:
1) it stops expanding
2) it expands until infinity
Imagine scenario 1:
Here the universe stops expanding and universe does not reach here. Then this point is already nothing by definition
Scenario 2:
Universe expands indefinitely
Every point in space is part of an infinitely long sequence of points(ie. never stops). Assume you have a point in space n that is close to infinity. Then another point p that is also in the set of points in the universe that also approaches infinity such that n->inf, p->inf. Now suppose that (n+p)->inf. Then either n or p approach inf. Also now consider t = inf and consider v = nothing, such that t+v returns nothing. Let f(x) be a function that outputs 1 if something(in the universe at any time [0, inf)). So f(n+p) =1, f(t) = 1, and f(v) = 0; Then f(t+n) = f(t+p) = f(t+n) = 0. These points not in the universe. But how? if t = inf, and n->inf, then either (t+n)-> inf(thus t is not actually infinity) or (t+n) is not in the set of the universe. Likewise if for (t+n), that is infinity+nothing n is not in the set of infinity but (t+n) is in the set of nothing, thus infinity is in the set of nothing(nothing encapsulates everything)

>> No.9936816

That just seems like arbitrary made up rules to try covering your brainletism. Its not that you have 0, its that you haven't 5. Does it matter if you have 4? Whether you have 4 or none, its not 5. It doesnt matter how many you have until you at least have one, cause then you've started a count.

>> No.9936839
File: 384 KB, 500x575, yoda_have_lack.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9936911

not him but can you guide me or give tips on what or who to look up

>> No.9936916

That's exactly what a product of somethingness would say.

>> No.9936920

It took ages for 0 to be accepted, in many cultures it never was. It's pretty important for how far mathematics has advanced.

>> No.9937014

Nothing is the superset of infinity meaning it contains infinity. If you have nothing, then you realize you have nothing because you can actually see everything around you. Nothing is not the Null set. The Null set is also empty set(there are no elements there). Null set is well defined but it doesn't really explain how an empty set can actually get any elements.
>If a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it does it make a sound?
>that's the set of a tree falling in the forest
In theory, every set contains the Null set. This makes the null set very exotic, because if every set contains the Null set, does that imply that there is a much larger set called the Nothing set, that contains all of the Null sets as well as all the sets?
Nothing means it does not exist thus far, but it can potentially hold information in a later future. The universe is expanding. How can it be expanding? What is realm that exists beyond the CMB? Particles are mostly empty space. This empty space actually allows particles to interact. There are certain volumes of empty space that are discrete, but can also be a medium. The Nothing set is the superset of infinity. Infinity contains everything except nothing. How do you fix that in a universe where you have elements of both?

>> No.9937036
File: 1.20 MB, 480x353, 1534155987932.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Nothingness can not exist, there was always something.

>Gets an auto-endo-contents-extractor box/shape
>Removes all matter and energy from within itself
>Nothingness can not exist
>There's still stuff in it
>Rinse and repeat
>Congratulations, you now have an infinite matter and energy creator

>> No.9938519
File: 102 KB, 300x256, 1486363850107.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Gets an auto-endo-contents-extractor box/shape

>> No.9939395


>> No.9939405

What is the principle of sufficient reason?

>> No.9939458

a false one?

>> No.9939466

I realise it’s a joke but even if you extracted all baryonic and dark matter you’d still have the energy of empty space. True vacuums don’t exist, and there was never nothingness

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.