Nothing, infinity, and everything inbetween

[Munchies]

Nothing




What is nothing? well a simple person could simply say, to not have. (ex: a basket without any apples.), but that is "a lack of something". I'm talking about complete nothingness.

The concept of nothing and infinity

The concept of nothing could be very similar to the concept of infinity, in that nothing is infinitly nothing. For example, we all know numbers can go on forever, add two numbers together to make a bigger number, and then add that bigger number by another, and so on..but at the same time never even being close to infinity. Well, the same concept should be applied when subtracting. If you subtract a number by another and keep repeating this process, you could end up at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000007, but at the same time not even be close 0.. Going by this, would 0 even exist?


the 3 types of infinity, according to our perception

1 +infinity: forward in time. its direction is progressive,parallel with time.
*from our perspective*, +infinity would be the adding up of different forms of matter .(atoms->molecules->plantes->galaxies->...?)

2 -infinity: back in time.its direction is toward the beginning of the universe
the deduction of matter itself
(atoms<-nucleus<-proton<-quark<-...?)

*The pattern of which could lead one to imagine infinity

3 infinity: present time
infinite in an enclosed space (will elaborate further on in my post)


Deeper than math

So where does +infinity end, and where does -infinity start? could it be that these two infinities are directly linked? Where the point of origin for the universe began, would it's path lead back into itself creating one entire universe, or would the origin go in all directions creating unlimited possibilities?

I'll attempt to answer life's biggest questions with my big fat head.


The origin of the ENTIRE universe, according to me:
if nothing/0 in itself is -infinite, than for that nothing to "exist", would make it +infinity?

How the universe works, according to me:
and a little backup from Riemann sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This brings us to the sexy formula of 0/1=∞, which many mathematicians agree with btw.

So if you divide 1/0, wouldnt that = ∞?...
since we all know that anything you divide by 0 will =0, and if 0=∞, then wouldn't the outcome of 1/0=∞?

So, if 0/1=∞, wouldn't that mean 0*∞=1? It's the same equation just rearranged, so i would think so.

Basicly the whole 0*∞=1 thing means that the entire infinity is an enclosed system, the inside being infinite and forever expanding, but from an outside perspective, it is just 1.

A real life example of this, perhaps proving this to be true, is our universe itself. It expanding as you read this in every direction possible creating a sphere like shape.

As for how the expanding ∞ we are living in right now came to existance? my guess is a black hole from another ∞ created another ∞.

note: this is the physics of a blackhole, reversed. So basically, according to my theory, the universe created from the blackhole would always be fed from the universe which created it, similar to how someone would blow a bubble.


(please ignore the theories enlisted in this photo, and only focus on the physics. And according to my theory, this photo should be the shape of a sphere, expanding from the feed of the point of origin.)(Also, this picture assumes a direction of force, I assume that the direction of force is in every direction, as justified by the expansion of our universe which i have just explained earlier)

So in conclusion to my theory, I think this is a plausible explanation for the ∞ expansion of our universe


This is just some stuff ive been thinking about for a while, feel free to get your thoughts in as well

 

[yenom]

Nothing


The concept of nothing and infinity

The concept of nothing could be very similar to the concept of infinity, in that nothing is infinitly nothing. For example, we all know numbers can go on forever, add two numbers together to make a bigger number, and then add that bigger number by another, and so on..but at the same time never even being close to infinity. Well, the same concept should be applied when subtracting. If you subtract a number by another and keep repeating this process, you could end up at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000007, but at the same time not even be close 0.. Going by this, would 0 even exist?

1-1=0

0 and infinity is probably the same thing though.

 

[Munchies]

1-1=0

0 and infinity is probably the same thing though.

in basic math sure it = 0.



But in nature, the deduction of matter seems to go on forever.

same conept with measurement, you can never have two exacly same measurments for, making table for example. You will always be a little bit off, even if its0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001mm off.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

When I read about this negative infinity, I don't see it actually existing. My reasoning of this is simply the only reason why negative numbers were invented was primarily to denotate direction; the before statement isn't exactly true because we have temperature to thank for that, but once again nature is rather tricky when it comes to nature as you both have shown in your statements. You can't have a negative because you are saying that it never existed and so the point of it doesn't matter because it's imaginary.

The opposite of something (any number) is nothing which is zero. Whether zero is a limit or not I don't know, but the theory about mathematical numbers I have come up with, as many others have I am sure, I would say yes because nothing can never exist naturally speaking with the whole energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred.

Just some ideas I have made over time... don't know if they have real scientific value or not, but I find it satisfying enough to think about.

 

[Beorn]

All this math hurts my head. All I needed to learn about nothing I learned from The Neverending Story.

[YOUTUBE="CrG-lsrXKRM"]What is the Nothing[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Mycroft]

Even if we allow that the universe is expanding into something beyond our comprehension, it cannot be that reality is expanding into non-reality. Clearly, space and time are not intrinsic to reality, but only to our experience of it. This is also the crux of Schopenhauer's seminal (and oft-misunderstood) conclusion reality, at its highest level, must be infinite and uniform, containing all possible states simultaneously. The Buddhists, Taoists, and others agree, and modern science continues to bear this conclusion witness.

 

[Just another ISTJ]

Thoughts that may not necessarily be pertinent to the discussion at hand:

Nothing can't exist. It isn't there. Therefore, nothing is a term to describe something that doesn't exist.

Infinity has no beginning and no end, but it exists. Thus, perhaps the universe never did not exist. It was always there.

Math and the concept of negatives and positives are merely our way to deciphering the universe. It isn't necessarily a correct way of doing so however. Logic is in and of itself only logical to us, but perhaps not so much on a universal level.

 

[teslashock]

Just a few errors in your arithmetic...

Nothing


The origin of the ENTIRE universe, according to me:
if nothing/0 in itself is -infinite, than for that nothing to "exist", would make it +infinity?

Why are you referring to 0 as negative infinite? This seems to be the false premise that is making the rest of your assertions false. Rethink it, bruthah.

How the universe works, according to me:

This brings us to the sexy formula of 0/1=∞, which many mathematicians agree with btw.

Really? Which ones? Last I checked, 0/1 = 0.

So if you divide 1/0, wouldnt that = ∞?...
since we all know that anything you divide by 0 will =0, and if 0=∞, then wouldn't the outcome of 1/0=∞?

The limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is indeed infinite. This simply means that on the cartesian plot of f(x) = 1/x, f(x) = ∞. In other words, the closer x gets to 0, the larger f(x) gets. This makes sense, as division by an increasingly large number will yield an increasingly smaller number. If you look at the plot of f(x) = 1/x, however, you will see that x asymptotically approaches 0 (but never reaches it), meaning that 1/0 is undefined because the plot does not exist at that point.

So, if 0/1=∞, wouldn't that mean 0*∞=1? It's the same equation just rearranged, so i would think so.

You did the resorting of your little equation there correctly, but 0/1 != ∞, so you've basically just proven something by assuming a false premise. Funny how that works, huh?

Basicly the whole 0*∞=1 thing means that the entire infinity is an enclosed system, the inside being infinite and forever expanding, but from an outside perspective, it is just 1.

To be clearer: 0*∞ != 1. There is some dispute among mathematicians as to what the product of 0*∞ is, but 1 is hardly in that dispute. To me (and many mathematicians), it makes the most sense for 0*∞ to be 0, as 0/∞ = 0, so rearranging the equation gives 0*∞ = 0. Also, it makes sense conceptually to me because if you take something, and multiply it by nothing, this by definition means that you have nothing of that something.

However, 0*∞ is seen as a different phrase by others.

So in conclusion to my theory, I think this is a plausible explanation for the ∞ expansion of our universe.

Not to burst your bubble (or infinitely expanding universe balloon), but you didn't really explain anything here. You just rambled on with a bunch of pseudo-math, defining fallacies to be true, and then using your false premises to categorize a whole false system. Nice try, but learn some math and then rethink your plan of action when tackling the great question of how our universe came to be.

 

[Mycroft]

Nothing can't exist. It isn't there. Therefore, nothing is a term to describe something that doesn't exist.

You're correct in that what we define as "nothing" is merely the absence of what we define as "something"; however, the question of "Why existence rather than non-existence?" is one of the great questions of philosophy.

Infinity has no beginning and no end, but it exists. Thus, perhaps the universe never did not exist. It was always there.

"Infinite", as a concept, has no existence in and of itself; we can imagine infinite space or infinite time, but these things cannot actually exist; if the three-dimensional universe of unilateral time with which we are so familiar had existed for an infinite amount of time, we would never arrive at this point in time, since it would, of necessity, be preceded by an infinite amount of time.

The same holds true for space; people imagine our quadrant of the universe as "here", then mentally label the surrounding region with "Here Thar Be Infinity", but this is again something we can imagine but which cannot be. Think of it from the opposite angle: you are somewhere else in this universe, removed by an infinite amount of space from a given point B. (If you are so inclined, call point B "Earth".) You begin heading in the direction of point B. Now you've been travelling for trillions upon trillions of light years, still not having reached point B. Trillions upon trillions of years is nothing in relation to an infinite number of years, after all. In fact, by definition, you can never reach point B, because if you reached it, then you would not have been travelling across an infinite amount of space; point B, by its nature, could not exist; the moment we place this point B somewhere, our heretofore infinite line has an end point, and is no longer infinite.

 

[Feops]

I thought math used limits to cover values impossibly close to 0 or infinity (as 1/x).

 

[Night]

The closest thing we have to "nothingness" are supervoids in space - regions containing about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter. Some of these supervoids are sufficiently massive as to be billions of light years in diameter.

In fact, one of the largest known supervoids could be an indication of an alternate universe.

 

[teslashock]

I thought math used limits to cover values impossibly close to 0 or infinity (as 1/x).

Yes, limits are used to describe the behavior of numbers as they approach undefined values.

 

[Night]

Yes, limits are used to describe the behavior of numbers as they approach undefined values.

Correct, although it should be noted that undefined doesn't necessarily equal the terms so far used in-thread, like "infinity" and so forth. Probably the most common example is x divided by zero.

More of a correction to Feops, but an important distinction.

 

[teslashock]

Correct, although it should be noted that undefined doesn't necessarily equal the terms so far used in-thread, like "infinity" and so forth. Probably the most common example is x divided by zero.

Yeah, agreed. The OP is using some pretty sketch math.

 

[Munchies]

Why are you referring to 0 as negative infinite? This seems to be the false premise that is making the rest of your assertions false. Rethink it, bruthah.



Really? Which ones? Last I checked, 0/1 = 0.



The limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is indeed infinite. This simply means that on the cartesian plot of f(x) = 1/x, f(x) = ∞. In other words, the closer x gets to 0, the larger f(x) gets. This makes sense, as division by an increasingly large number will yield an increasingly smaller number. If you look at the plot of f(x) = 1/x, however, you will see that x asymptotically approaches 0 (but never reaches it), meaning that 1/0 is undefined because the plot does not exist at that point.



You did the resorting of your little equation there correctly, but 0/1 != ∞, so you've basically just proven something by assuming a false premise. Funny how that works, huh?



To be clearer: 0*∞ != 1. There is some dispute among mathematicians as to what the product of 0*∞ is, but 1 is hardly in that dispute. To me (and many mathematicians), it makes the most sense for 0*∞ to be 0, as 0/∞ = 0, so rearranging the equation gives 0*∞ = 0. Also, it makes sense conceptually to me because if you take something, and multiply it by nothing, this by definition means that you have nothing of that something.

However, 0*∞ is seen as a different phrase by others.



Not to burst your bubble (or infinitely expanding universe balloon), but you didn't really explain anything here. You just rambled on with a bunch of pseudo-math, defining fallacies to be true, and then using your false premises to categorize a whole false system. Nice try, but learn some math and then rethink your plan of action when tackling the great question of how our universe came to be.

i think its fairly obviouse that i made a mistake on my math, but the ideas are still very much alive. i meant 1/0 = infinity

and sometimes you have to use a false premises to prove something right, if something is beyond perception... this is all just ideas anyways

 

[yenom]

I think what he means is 0=infinity, there is no difference between the two

 

[Munchies]

I think what he means is 0=infinity, there is no difference between the two

yes i was hoping that was clear... but i guess people will have already structured concepts of what they think they are, so making them change their point of view to my way of thinking might be difficult...


the concept of 0 is infinit. just a negative direction

infinite existance(∞), and infinite nonexistance (0)... hense positive (∞) and negative (0) infinities

 

[Feops]

Correct, although it should be noted that undefined doesn't necessarily equal the terms so far used in-thread, like "infinity" and so forth. Probably the most common example is x divided by zero.

More of a correction to Feops, but an important distinction.

Alright. But infinity would be an undefined value under normal circumstances, yes? It's been a long time since I've had to math more advanced than a financial calculator.

I don't really buy into the original notion of zero being undefined. Zero is just zero. It's a useful descriptive tool.

Zero times infinity is an interesting idea. By default anything times zero should equal zero, but infinity isn't really a 'thing' so much as a mathematical construct. Probably some interesting proofs floating about..

 

[teslashock]

yes i was hoping that was clear... but i guess people will have already structured concepts of what they think they are, so making them change their point of view to my way of thinking might be difficult...


the concept of 0 is infinit. just a negative direction

infinite existance(∞), and infinite nonexistance (0)... hense positive (∞) and negative (0) infinities

If you're outlining a whole new definition of negative infinity, then go for it. But negative infinity does not mean infinitely small. It just means an infinitely "large" negative number (ie, its absolute/scalar value is infinitely large).

If you are going to outline a whole new definition of negative infinity, then you can't use the formerly accepted mathematical principles that define infinity and how infinity behaves in mathematical statements to validate your theory. If you want to outline a theory based on this new infinity, then I'd suggest sticking more with the conceptual aspects, rather than using math to back up your statements, as none of your statements are proven true for your new definition.

The concept of 0, when applied to matter, is abstract, as the existence of "nothing" is, for all intents and purposes, impossible (note that it is not so abstract when we are talking about quantities of one specific entity, ie, take a container holding one molecule of water, remove [subtract] one molecule of water from the container, and we really do have zero molecules of water remaining [but I digress]).Thus, like the graph of f(x) = 1/x, we can't really reach nothing; we just get within an infinitely small distance from nothing (ie, an infinitely small amount). The fact that you get an infinitely small distance away from zero by subtracting an infinite number of times does not equate to negative infinite (by standard definitions of infinite), as you are subtracting increasingly smaller quantities from the increasingly smaller differences from the previous subtractions.

If you look at the graph of f(x) = 1/x, you'll see that as x approaches zero from the negative (left) side, you have to add positive integers ("an infinite number of times") to get closer to the zero asymptote. Does this mean that zero is also positive infinite? By the logic in your theory (if I'm understanding your strange sense of math/logic correctly), it would, but how can negative infinite and positive infinite both be 0? That just makes no sense.

i think its fairly obviouse that i made a mistake on my math, but the ideas are still very much alive. i meant 1/0 = infinity

and sometimes you have to use a false premises to prove something right, if something is beyond perception... this is all just ideas anyways

And by the way, no, your "obvious mistake" was not obvious to me. Your whole post was pretty mathematically jumbled. You said 0/1 = infinity several times, and then you also said 1/0 = infinity several times, so I didn't know which assertion you were actually going with.

And I'd steer clear of using false premises to prove something true. That method is pretty much doomed for failure.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I would also try to limit the use of the word "negative". Technically anything below zero should mean it never existed. Am I wrong? If I am, I apologize.