Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Brian K

Zero is an invalid concept

65 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

'Walt' E. Kurtz

This is sort of what one of my friends called me the other day. She said to me you're a typical 99 while i replied eh what?  Someone who's not completely 100 :-D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Rlyeh
8 hours ago, Brian K said:

The only intelligence I recognize is emotional apart from the grandeur of the momentary dream experience, in which I play a largely passive role in an amnesiac state.  All else is memory.

No wonder you don't understand mathematics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200

Engaging in this thread is floccinaucinihilipilification.  Literally, metaphorically, morally and existentially. 

If we track down and kill Brian K that won't matter - according to his logic he'll still be alive.  Equally he might just be a collective hallucination, so it's best to drink beer and ignore him.

This next statement is 100% correct: imaginary numbers are not real numbers but they are real.  That is to say: quantum mechanics only works if you use complex numbers, which are a blend of 'real' numbers and 'imaginary' numbers.  (There are other branches of physics that require even weirder maths such as Hamiltonians, but let's keep it simple for now.)  The imaginary part is linked to the real part through the symbol i which represents the square root of minus one.

A much better question that the OP is - "what is one plus one?"  The answer is of course "anything between negative two and positive two because you didn't state both were scalars".  If you walk one metre, then walk a second metre - where do you end up?  It depends on which direction each step takes you, and without that information no single answer is 'correct'.

Note, however, that one metre plus one metre can equal zero displacement.  That's because zero is a completely valid concept and Brian K is talking cobblers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian K
2 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Engaging in this thread is floccinaucinihilipilification.  Literally, metaphorically, morally and existentially. 

If we track down and kill Brian K that won't matter - according to his logic he'll still be alive.  Equally he might just be a collective hallucination, so it's best to drink beer and ignore him.

This next statement is 100% correct: imaginary numbers are not real numbers but they are real.  That is to say: quantum mechanics only works if you use complex numbers, which are a blend of 'real' numbers and 'imaginary' numbers.  (There are other branches of physics that require even weirder maths such as Hamiltonians, but let's keep it simple for now.)  The imaginary part is linked to the real part through the symbol i which represents the square root of minus one.

A much better question that the OP is - "what is one plus one?"  The answer is of course "anything between negative two and positive two because you didn't state both were scalars".  If you walk one metre, then walk a second metre - where do you end up?  It depends on which direction each step takes you, and without that information no single answer is 'correct'.

Note, however, that one metre plus one metre can equal zero displacement.  That's because zero is a completely valid concept and Brian K is talking cobblers.

Walking assumes actual travel as opposed to thought vibration, and displacement assumes space. 

Edit: That quantum mechanics requires complex numbers for validity ignores the fact that the duality of energy, perceived or theorized, as a form of causality is complete rubbish. 

Edited by Brian K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Hmm smells like pseudoscience. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian K

P.S. You only experience a reflection of Brian K, Tom, as there cannot be 2 investments by Consciousness in any one part of The Dream.  That would be an impossible division.  But you're half right in stating that I'm... conscious... no matter what you "do."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian K
3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Hmm smells like pseudoscience. 

What would exist between 2 Consciousnesses but more Consciousness?  If there was real empty space between or any real measure of distance, that would be more than 1 Consciousness, amounting to various conflicts of will.  Time and space not representing reality is valid scientific theory, but others still deal in duality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

:sleepy:okay

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

Considering zero built the world we live in, I'll keep my faith in it, thanks.

One nutter on the internet doesn't negate thousands of years of math and science.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

As I recall my new math which I’m sure is now old, zero represented the “empty set.”

How this relates conceptually to the issue at hand, I’m unsure, but certainly you could consider this an alternative way of looking at it.

 

Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian K
2 hours ago, moonman said:

Considering zero built the world we live in, I'll keep my faith in it, thanks.

One nutter on the internet doesn't negate thousands of years of math and science.

Next time you're at an amateur magic show, stand up and tell the audience that there is no false bottom in the top hat and that the rabbit miraculously arose from it.  "Nutter" would be an optimistic reaction from your perceived fellow audience members.  This is why name calling is fallacious, because one who has a valid argument doesn't feel compelled to resort to it.  Go have a beer with that well poisoner, Tom.  I think he's validation deprived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian K
34 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

As I recall my new math which I’m sure is now old, zero represented the “empty set.”

How this relates conceptually to the issue at hand, I’m unsure, but certainly you could consider this an alternative way of looking at it.

 

I remember that, but thought projection is neither an issue of quantification nor emptiness.  Perception thereof, yes; reality, no.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Raptor Witness
32 minutes ago, Brian K said:

I remember that, but thought projection is neither an issue of quantification nor emptiness.  Perception thereof, yes; reality, no.

I think numbers are just representations of quantifiable facts. In other words, a language describing something we see. 

How quantifiable that description is, is at best a parity of our perception.

So zero, representing the empty set, is not about the perfect anything, but merely a description of something, using an imperfect language.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
>>> what = 0
>>> if not 0: what

0

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On 1/28/2020 at 4:04 AM, Brian K said:

Next time you're at an amateur magic show, stand up and tell the audience that there is no false bottom in the top hat and that the rabbit miraculously arose from it.

Is that something you'd do?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.