The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - Ever

[James_S_Saint]

Since this subject keeps coming up, I thought that I would polish this post up a bit to include the whole real number system and put it in its own thread.

Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be b^10[/b] or 0.0000000001.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let’s define the term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+…]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all “real numbers”. And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = infA * (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can’t even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?

But if that isn’t good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with “1/AbsInf”, as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 … well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.

[Ecmandu]

I use a different proof, because there are NOT orders of infinity. My proof is simple, if everything things and non-thing is nothing at all, then nothing at all is nothing at all, which gives us existence. You do know the paradox matrix don’t you? T/T = existence, T/F = contradiction (false), F/T = contradiction (false), F/F = paradox

The point I make is if false is false, it is actually true.

I am a liar.

Supposedly if it’s true it’s false and if it’s false it’s true. All paradoxes run under the base code, “Something is necessarily something other than what it actually is.”

But the way people generally think of paradoxes is that when something is False/False… it holds it’s identity and doesn’t hold it’s identity at the same time.

So in this we don’t see a paradox, we see something that encompasses itself and everything that’s not itself, which actually gives us a contradiction, thus making it false.

Leaving us only with T/T = existence

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

I use a different proof, because there are NOT orders of infinity.

Well, I am afraid that you are wrong about that. And the world of mathematics agrees, hyperreal numbers, proved to be mathematically valid in 1948.

Concerns about the soundness of arguments involving infinitesimals date back to ancient Greek mathematics, with Archimedes replacing such proofs with ones using other techniques such as the method of exhaustion.[2] In the 1960s, Abraham Robinson proved that the hyperreals were logically consistent if and only if the reals were. This put to rest the fear that any proof involving infinitesimals might be unsound, provided that they were manipulated according to the logical rules which Robinson delineated.

The hyperreal numbers satisfy the transfer principle, a rigorous version of Leibniz’s heuristic Law of Continuity. The transfer principle states that true first order statements about R are also valid in *R. For example, the commutative law of addition, x + y = y + x, holds for the hyperreals just as it does for the reals; since R is a real closed field, so is *R. Since \sin{\pi n}=0 for all integers n, one also has \sin{\pi H}=0 for all hyperintegers H. The transfer principle for ultrapowers is a consequence of Łoś’ theorem of 1955.

The system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R that contains numbers greater than anything of the form

Such a number is infinite, and its reciprocal is infinitesimal. The term “hyper-real” was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948.[1]

@Ecmandu

My proof is simple, if everything; things and non-thing is nothing at all, then nothing at all is nothing at all, which gives us existence.

Emm … nahh.

@Ecmandu

You do know the paradox matrix don’t you? T/T = existence, T/F = contradiction (false), F/T = contradiction (false), F/F = paradox

The point I make is if false is false, it is actually true.

I am a liar.

Supposedly if it’s true it’s false and if it’s false it’s true.

You left out the third option (people love doing that);

1. True
2. False
3. Neither, Not applicable

@Ecmandu

“Something is necessarily something other than what it actually is.”

Necessarily and absolutely false.

[Ecmandu]

Even you’re link says they’re rounding the numbers to prove the theorem. Come on James, you can do better than that. Well… of course T/F/ - N/A, I was giving you the paradox grid.

[James_S_Saint]

Rounding what numbers? The hyperreals?
Do I have to give you a lecture on hyperreal numbers too?

[Ecmandu]

Wikipedia:

“This put to rest the fear that any proof involving infinitesimals might be unsound, provided that they were manipulated according to the logical rules which Robinson delineated.”

“for an infinitesimal , where st(·) denotes the standard part function, which “rounds off” each finite hyperreal to the nearest real. Similarly, the integral is defined as the standard part of a suitable infinite sum.”

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

Wikipedia:

“This put to rest the fear that any proof involving infinitesimals might be unsound, provided that they were manipulated according to the logical rules which Robinson delineated.”

“for an infinitesimal , where st(·) denotes the standard part function, which “rounds off” each finite hyperreal to the nearest real. Similarly, the integral is defined as the standard part of a suitable infinite sum.”

It’s apparent that you didn’t understand what that meant. I used the standard called “infA” to signify what all other powers of infinity are going to mean. And one infinitesimal, raised to no power, is merely 1/infA. His standard was called “st(.)” which refers to what one infinitesimal (not raised to any power) is to mean.

Regardless of the notation standard, any single first order infinitesimal (being not raised to any power) ignores all of the higher powers, thus “rounds off” any of those left over if you are using them. It is no different than rounding off anything below 0.00001, except infinitely smaller.

In my explanation, I first went through a derivation using merely Georg Cantor’s infinity-squared real numbers, from one first order infinitesimal up to infinity (“infA^2”). But that leaves room for speculation below one infinitesimal, so I continued. The second portion explains the proof in terms of the absolute highest and lowest possible numbers so as to prove that there can be no homogeneous state because it requires numbers less than absolute lowest possible, aka “impossible”. That is how you get to “absolutely no possibility”, not merely an infinitesimal possibility.

[Ecmandu]

You forget the biggest problem with infinitesimals James, and it’s a mathematical fringe, VERY fringe, like 1 dude (there’s this one professor that believes in infinitesimals), is that there are an infinite number of zeroes before the 1… the 1 never gets expressed.

You also don’t understand the concept of dimensional flooding, which I invented, and tried to teach you, when dealing with infinities.

[Ecmandu]

As for the hyper-reals, infinity doesn’t express itself as a totality… I tried to explain this to you with a tree analogy. There is no infinity tree that contains that set of all trees in it… though there are an infinite number of trees that are bigger than another tree (and smaller). I understand this is you’re proof… that infinity has no biggest or largest but exists. You cannot prove infinity necessarily exists using your mathematical techniques. You have to use more basic logical argumentation to do this.

We know there is basically a grid…

we have

true
false
N/A
true/true
true/false
false/true
and
false/false

It’s true that it’s true. = true
It’s true that it’s false. = false
It’s false that it’s true. = false
It’s false that it’s false. = true / paradox / false

A perfect example is “This statement is false”

The only truth value for the statement is it’s existential value, which isn’t explicit in the statement… We know the statement exists, therefor we know the statement is true on one level as existing, and false on another level, as claiming it doesn’t exist. So we can divide the paradox into different claims and resolve the paradox… it’s true in this sense, and false in this other sense.

What people generally do, is they say, if the statement is true, then it must be false, and if it’s false it must be true. The reason false and false have this effect is because “false” is OTHER THAN… so what happens with false being false is that it’s itself and OTHER THAN itself… this is why false/false on the grid creates paradoxes. The word false itself is a paradox in it’s own context… it’s OTHER THAN, but it’s OWN IDENTITY at the same time… the IDENTITY of OTHER THAN / a paradox…

False can’t exist as a word, and yet there it is for all of us to see…

Now we generally use context… other than this (instead of other than), and false doesn’t run into the paradox, but when it feeds back on itself or doesn’t have this context, it falls into the paradox.

But all you have to do to get out of the paradox is just look at it as a contradiction

It is what it is and isn’t what it is… it’s true/false ---- true that it’s false and false that it’s true, which both yield false. which only leaves you with the true/true grid, which leaves you with existence exists… it’s true that existence is existence, and all other possible solutions are false.

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

As for the hyper-reals, infinity doesn’t express itself as a totality… I tried to explain this to you with a tree analogy. There is no infinity tree that
…
it’s true that existence is existence, and all other possible solutions are false.

None of that is the slightest bit relevant and merely tells me that you have a hole typical in you understanding of logic. There is a saying concerning that sort of thing.

An “ass” is a stubborn, non-thinking creature. The ground is one’s under-standing. And you can’t tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

@Ecmandu

You forget the biggest problem with infinitesimals James

No I don’t. You keep reminding me. The biggest problem with infinity an infinitesimals is that stubborn, simple minded people can’t handle the concepts.

Surely even you can handle simple arithmetic (I dubiously hope).

If you count all of the whole number lengths along an infinite line, you would count an infinity of them, right? And if you count all of the real numbers below one (the decimals), you would also count an infinity of those. So if you then add your two counts together, what do you get? And before you answer, try to realize that the very meaning and definition of “add” is to put MORE into something than before, assuming that you aren’t merely adding nothing, zero.

The first count, I call “infA”. And as it turns out, that second count would be equal to infA. So if you can add, you should end up with 2infA, or twice as infinite. All infinities are not equal. And if you count all “real numbers”, you get infAinfA or infA^2, much larger than infA called the “second order”.

Georg Cantor went to his grave trying to explain that to people who did nothing but demean him for being insane. They even posted how foolish he was on his tombstone. Yet today, you would have a hard time finding a mathematician that doesn’t agree with his conclusion. They just mostly know not to confess any association with him.

[Ecmandu]

James… if you have an infinite number of zeroes before a 1, the 1 never gets expressed, if you have an infinite number of zeroes after a 1, the last zero never gets expressed.

That’s basic logic.

You’re trying to sound like some monster of a mind that expresses that one or zero, and I’m just the feeble minded one who can’t comprehend a bound infinity. INFINITY IS UNBOUND… if you put something UNBOUND before something that is bound… you NEVER get to the bound thing, EVER, NEVER, EVER.

You might as well call yourself God, James… and try to pull that trick on us too. How feeble minded I am… seriously James.

[James_S_Saint]

I ask you a question Ecmandu. Can you answer it or not?

@James S Saint

If you count all of the whole number lengths along an infinite line, you would count an infinity of them, right? And if you count all of the real numbers below one (the decimals), you would also count an infinity of those. So if you then add your two counts together, what do you get?

[Ecmandu]

@James S Saint

I ask you a question Ecmandu. Can you answer it or not?

@James S Saint

If you count all of the whole number lengths along an infinite line, you would count an infinity of them, right? And if you count all of the real numbers below one (the decimals), you would also count an infinity of those. So if you then add your two counts together, what do you get?

Adding is a process of before and after… you CAN’T add them. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it ACTUALLY works. You’re the one who’s always going on about people and their proagandic bullshit… and you can’t even see the basic error of logic here. Infinity is a process not a thing!!! To add two infinities together, means that one has to precede the additive process… which means you never get to the second one. We can only add finites!!!

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

Infinity is a process not a thing!!!

And no. Infinity is NOT a “process” (an error you keep making). Infinity is a quality. And it is a quality that can become greater than before, twice as great as it was.

@Wiki

In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e., a number greater than any real number; see 1/∞.

Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theory he developed, there are infinite sets of different sizes (called cardinalities).[1] For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is uncountable.

[Ecmandu]

Let me put it to you this way James…

0.3… + 0.6… = 0.9… right?

Wrong!!!

0.3… NEVER ENDS… you can’t even get to the plus sign to add it.

what you have is:

0.3…

and 0.6…

and 0.9…

but NO 0.3… + 0.6… = 0.9…

That’s nonsense. Use your logical brain. I know you’ve been brainwashed by mathematics to this regard, I’m trying to un-brainwash you… it’s psychosis to believe you can add infinities.

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

Let me put it to you this way James…

0.3… + 0.6… = 0.9… right?

Wrong!!!

0.3… NEVER ENDS… you can’t even get to the plus sign to add it.

You are still thinking of infinity of a PROCESS such that it has a beginning and an end. It doesn’t “end” because it never began because it is NOT a process occurring through time. It is the quality of a situation.

And yes,
0.3… + 0.6… = 0.9…, because the entire infinite series is added simultaneously, because it is only two numbers, not an infinite series of numbers to be added sequentially.

@Ecmandu

I’m trying to un-brainwash you… it’s psychosis to believe you can add infinities.

You very seriously need to reconsider ever trying to “un-brainwash” me or anyone.

[Ecmandu]

Let me go a little further to explain how arbitrary mathematics is James…

1/2 = .5 right?

NO !!! actually it still equals 1!!! The other half is STILL THERE!!!

But lets dig a bit deeper here… since you’re such the math expert and I’m the fool…

1/2 equal 1 right? NO!!!

actually it equals 3 or 4!!!

when you divide one thing 2 times you end up with either 3 or 4 objects.

It’s in determinant.

But that’s right, I’m a moron and you’re the omniscient math wizard.

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

Let me go a little further to explain how arbitrary mathematics is James…

1/2 = .5 right?

NO !!! actually it still equals 1!!! The other half is STILL THERE!!!
But lets dig a bit deeper here… since you’re such the math expert and I’m the fool…

1/2 equal 1 right? NO!!!

actually it equals 3 or 4!!!

when you divide one thing 2 times you end up with either 3 or 4 objects.

Okay, that’s enough of that.

@Ecmandu

I’m a moron

[Ecmandu]

@James S Saint

@Ecmandu

Let me put it to you this way James…

0.3… + 0.6… = 0.9… right?

Wrong!!!

0.3… NEVER ENDS… you can’t even get to the plus sign to add it.

You are still thinking of infinity of a PROCESS such that it has a beginning and an end. It doesn’t “end” because it never began because it is NOT a process occurring through time. It is the quality of a situation.

And yes,
0.3… + 0.6… = 0.9…, because the entire infinite series is added simultaneously, because it is only two numbers, not an infinite series of numbers to be added sequentially.

@Ecmandu

I’m trying to un-brainwash you… it’s psychosis to believe you can add infinities.

You very seriously need to reconsider ever trying to “un-brainwash” me or anyone.

Infinity is an object? Honestly James. You think 0.3… is actually an object that exists as bound? Do you really think you’re saying 0.3… when you say 0.3… ?

I know when I say Hello… I’m saying hello…

But when I say 0.3… I know I’m not really saying an infinite string… I’m using 6 points to describe something that goes on forever… apparently that makes sense to your huge brain!!

[James_S_Saint]

You can’t comprehend the difference between an object and a quality of an object/situation?

@James S Saint

It is the quality of a situation.

@James S Saint

Infinity is a quality. And it is a quality that can become greater than before, twice as great as it was.

You had expressed two objects (numbers), both of which had an infinite quality. When you add the objects, you double the quality = 2*infA.