Can existence be a property?

Presenting that nothing existed prior to the big bang is like offering that the big bang occurred for no reason.

Statistically that is impossible, as in there is no real reason to imply otherwise, unless on wants to consider the words of a 71 year old man. Otherwise those who suggest there can be nothing have no evidence of nothing and otherwise, there is plenty of evidence of something.

Nothing means irrelevant and something means relevant.

The only "rabbit hole" is in relation to an abstract.

Any thoughts?

While abstracts do exist, from the context of "many worlds", it is because it is a part of something.

rom12345
As for the domain, I wonder,
If truly nothing existed,
would the non manifested potential to exist remain ?

I think zero is much more complex than people realize. Just like how there are different types of infinity (countable vs. uncountable). I can make a strong argument that there are at least 7 discernible variations of zero.

Without going in to all the details, the neat thing is a sort of geometry emerges to describe all the facets of each variation. It is almost as though there is another number space embedded in zero that counts down from infinity to zero at the boundary.

So just like how our number system places the origin at zero and we count up. I can see there is very likely an inverse where infinity is the origin, but it counts down. The closer you can get to the center of zero the closer you get to the infinite space.

I suspect this is why we have virtual particles and all the other sorts of weirdness popping into existence at the smallest levels of the vacuum. Basically it is a system of infinite density bubbling into our reality at a controlled rate.

The fact that zero and infinity always come in pairs:

Lim x→0 a/x = [∞,-∞]
vs.
Lim x→∞ a/x = 0
where a ∈ ℝ

Nicely illustrates how the two seem to be inextricably linked.

In physics, the Lamb shift, named after Willis Lamb (1913–2008), is a small difference in energy between two energy levels 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 (in term symbol notation) of the hydrogen atom in quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to the Dirac equation, the 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 orbitals should have the same energies. However, the interaction between the electron and the vacuum (which is not accounted for by the Dirac equation) causes a tiny energy shift on 2S1/2. Lamb and Robert Retherford measured this shift in 1947,[1] and this measurement provided the stimulus for renormalization theory to handle the divergences. It was the harbinger of modern quantum electrodynamics developed by Julian Schwinger, Richard Feynman, Ernst Stueckelberg and Shinichiro Tomonaga. Lamb won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1955 for his discoveries related to the Lamb shift.

Source

Zero-point energy.

Any thoughts?

I remember when we used to call the "Milky Way" an "Island Universe".

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Xtraeme


i see it in the following way. there is something rather than nothing. that something is existence itself. existence is the something that is. consequently, we can say three things about reality:

1. existence is that which is, and is not a property of anything else (see my first post)

2. existence is a substance (mind?) otherwise nothingness is.

3. existence has potential because all properties have come from it. properties are part of this potential made manifest. this potential must be real if it is to manifest real properties. imaginary properties are the non manifested potential of existence.

imagine you invent the idea of chess. once you write down the rules of chess you have created the POTENTIAL for ALL games of chess. actual games of chess are the ones that are played. potential games are the ones not yet manifest.

reply to post by rom12345


i don't think so. Nothingness is profoundly absent. it cannot have properties because there is no 'it' to have them. Nothingness is simply not there. It is nowhere because there is no 'it' to be anywhere.

reply to post by Xtraeme


How can there be 7 variations of 0 (I will look at the link after...). There should be 1 variation of 0, the one that = 0. I personally think the only real numbers that exist are 0 and 1. Which naturally or unnaturally also invokes -1, which negative numbers are the same as positive numbers, just extends the notion of 2 dimensions, left and right with a common 0 center. With an abstract infinite number of 1s, by creating the foundation of math, all of math flowed into place from that point, when you say 0=0 1=1, 1+1= 1+1 which = 2. When that axiom was established all math tautologically existed in abstract potential, as there are numbers which will never be written, and those numbers multiplied by themselves will never been written, but the numbers are true and exist in abstract.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Think of it like this. The empty set, typically represented by either [] or Ø, is smaller than zero because a set with no elements is smaller than a set with one element. This relationship is often represented by: Ø ⊂ [0]. However, anyone who looks at that can see the empty set and the number zero both seem to have something profoundly in common in the sense that they both represent absence. So perhaps the paper would be better if it was titled "The Seven Types of Absence." Then the paper makes the argument that a contradiction like Ø ≠ Ø is obviously different from 0. (Historical note: The first peoples who came up with the idea of zero conceived it as a contradiction — "nothing is something that doesn't exist." It was only after arguing that, "I had a cow, now I have no cows" that people were able to see that 0-proper isn't a contradiction.) A contradiction is also different from the empty set. Yet it's still a sort of absence. In fact it is the most profound type of absence because every aspect of it is false. The relationship that connects these things together is basically a truth table. The paper just tries to explicitly show where each type of absence lies in the table in relation to each other.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Im not sure I understand but it seems like mathematical semantics. If you had a set of [1] it would not be an empty set, but it seems the 0 is used to denote empty set [0] instead of [ ].

As for the abstraction of numbers. Is what you mean by a countable infinity, the fact that because of the abstract nature of numbers, there is an infinite amount of digits and decimals between 1 and 2? So how can 2 ever exist, if there are a never ending quantity of quanta, 1.1, 1.2,1.21,1.22,1.222222223,1.4 etc. how does 2 exist? Also related how does 0 exist, what is the smallest number between 1 and 0, the last number before 0 is reached?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Maybe this will help. Imagine you have a specially designed refrigerator that can hold 20 apples and 10 oranges in it. Think of the refrigerator as the containing set and the apples and oranges as the quantity: [20,10]. If we have no apples or oranges we have [0,0].

Now if we got rid of the fridge altogether we would have []. This is the empty set. A set that can contain nothing. Whenever a person writes the number 0. Mathematicians recognize this is also a set: [0]. The set is hidden, but it is always there. It just depends on what type of operation you want to perform. [0] + [1] would give [0,1] whereas 0+1 = 1.

Countably infinite is the idea that I can "count" from 1 to 2 to 3 and eventually work my way up to infinity using the set of integers (Z). Whereas uncountably infinite is, as you describe, trying to count from 1 to 2 using real numbers (ℝ) like 1.2, 1.222, sqrt(2), etc. This isn't possible. We can't get there. This idea of different types of infinities was Cantor's big contribution. It was also the birth of modern number theory.

Xtraeme


Countably infinite is the idea that I can "count" from 1 to 2 to 3 and eventually work my way up to infinity using the set of integers (Z).

Ok I get what you mean with the sets, but am I wrong in claiming that the 0 still represents 0? In your example the 0 represents a place holder for a potential object, I get that, but if it symbolizes 0 amount, then 0 is still 0. If I had 0 apples in my fridge, and owed you 3 apples, I would have -3 apples in that set perhaps? If I got 3 apples to give to you, then I would have 0 apples.

I know you say eventually work way up to infinity, but I would say it is not impossible to work your way up to infinity, but it is impossible to arrive at infinity. There are infinite amount of numbers that will never be written, actually infinite times infinite, actually infinite times infinite times infinite, actually...

ImaFungi
In your example the 0 represents a place holder for a potential object

Exactly, very good. That is why the inverse of zero is *any* complex number. It has the potential to be anything. This should start to give you an idea of why zero is connected to infinity.

Ok I get what you mean with the sets, but am I wrong in claiming that the 0 still represents 0? ... , but if it symbolizes 0 amount, then 0 is still 0. If I had 0 apples in my fridge, and owed you 3 apples, I would have -3 apples in that set perhaps? If I got 3 apples to give to you, then I would have 0 apples.

Almost everything you currently know about 0 still holds.

The question in this thread is about existence and nonexistence and how things could arrive from nothing. This expanded definition of absence shows that, yes. If I have "no apples" that means I have 0 apples. That is all well and good. However its the other types of absence that we are interested in.

Incidentally absence outside of math is scarcity.

The big takeaway from the paper linked earlier. Is that there is a homomorphism between the empty set, 0 as used in counting, and a contradiction. The structure they all share in common is that they are all types of absence and that relationship is expressed as a truth table (which can be visualized as a hasse diagram) over the positive and negative arguments. I'll expand on this in a moment.

At the center of the space of all "absence" is something that very nearly mimics infinity. How? From a+b=a-b we can deduce: b = 0 = (a-a)/2 ; So 2 = (a-a)/b ; Thus, 0 ≈ (a-a)/(a-a/(a-a/(...))) ≈ 2.

Since, personally, I strongly suspect the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (discover article) has validity. I believe there is an infinite intangible number space (something that doesn't require physical space, like, well, numbers) contained in absence because absence is the outer boundary of an infinite centric number line (infinity → 0 versus our reality of 0 → infinity).

Ok I get what you mean with the sets, but am I wrong in claiming that the 0 still represents 0?

The big change that I see has to do with how we technically define zero.

This gets to what I mentioned earlier when I wrote, "the relationship is expressed as a truth table (which can visualized as a hasse diagram) over the positive and negative arguments."

One question mathematicians debate is how to define 0. The current popular thought is that it's "neither positive or negative." The idea that 0 is neither positive nor negative is not universal though.

In the French convention, zero is considered to be both positive and negative. The French words positif and négatif mean the same as English "positive or zero" and "negative or zero" respectively.

The paper makes the argument that 0, as the additive identity element, must be positive and negative for four reasons.

1. First, because of the substitution rule. Solve for b in: a+b = a-b. Then substitute the value for b back in to the equation. If we do that 0 can be shown to be either positive or negative.

2. The second is a visual argument. Where does the positive axis meet the negative axis? Obviously at 0.

This question can also be answered symbolically: +x = -x. What value solves this equation for x? The only number that works here is 0.

3. Third, zero has to be positive and negative due to a logical argument.

If I was born a Swede (jus soli) and had a parent who was a US citizen (jus sanguinis). Then I am both a Swede and a US citizen. However at any given moment I can choose to reside in Sweden or the US due to the dual citizenship (i.e. being a ∧ b allows for a ⊕ b). If I am neither Swedish nor a US citizen (¬(a ∨ b)) I wouldn't be allowed to permanently live in either country. So similarly if 0 is neither positive nor negative (¬(+ ∨ -)) it can never be +0 or -0 because it isn't of the same category. Meaning taking 0 as ¬(+ ∨ -) for granted as true, would indicate a + 0 ≠ a because unary +0 by its very definition would be invalid. As a consequence of this, since 0 acts a placeholder for positive and negative quantities across all number bases. It naturally follows that 0 is both (+ ∧ -).

4. The final main argument of the paper, spread out over the first two pages, shows that there is a sort of metamathematics that can quantify elements of an equation independent of human interpretation. Using this metamathematics shows there are two elements bound to 0 which literally quantify the positive and negative operators. (e.g. a + b = a - b is the same as: 1*a + 1*b = 1*a - 1*b, the 1* takes on the + or - just like how +3 - +4 = +3 + -4, but instead +1*3 - +1*4 = +1*3 + -1*4)

Thus, the paper concludes, the three parts of 0 (as the additive identity element) are a union of positive and negative [+0, 0, -0] and that 0 is equal to +∧-.

So what are the ramifications of all this?

The paper shows that by using these characteristics, just like how we can write:
[0] + [3] = [0,3]
or,
0 + 3 = 3

That we can potentially convert a set [] (neither + nor -), to a quantity like 0 (as + and -), or even to a contradiction Ø ≠ Ø (none of the above). The more interesting possibility though is to get closer to the center infinite-like characteristic. Which should partially address ...

I know you say eventually work way up to infinity, but I would say it is not impossible to work your way up to infinity, but it is impossible to arrive at infinity. There are infinite amount of numbers that will never be written, actually infinite times infinite, actually infinite times infinite times infinite, actually...

Xtraeme


Exactly, very good. That is why the inverse of zero is *any* complex number. It has the potential to be anything. This should start to give you an idea of why zero is connected to infinity.

I disagree. The zero does not have an inverse, it possesses nothing, it is nothing, the inverse any complex number has to come from somewhere else, it cant come from the 0, the 0 doesnt have any potential, it is the absence of non absence. It is the border half way between -1 and 1, which I mentioned is the tough part because of infinities and infinitesimalality. Which is why I originally (I have no backround or knowledge in maths) dismissed the existence of negative numbers, because thats really where everything starts getting weird. This is why I dont like math... 0=nothing. In the set you dont have to have a 0, you can have [ , , , ,] and those are place holders, but anything that takes up those places after, must come from outside the set. Just because there are 0s there [0,0,0,0] doesnt mean that those 0s have infinite potential, or you can say the same about this [1,2,3,4], because if a quantity can come from outside the set in the 0 case, and thus claiming the 0 had infininte potential, then the same can be said for 1,2,3 or 4 because an infinite number of quantities can be placed from outside the set within. Sorry but im gonna respond to your reply in spurts...

Xtraeme

At the center of the space of all "absence" is something that very nearly mimics infinity. How? From a+b=a-b we can deduce: b = 0 = (a-a)/2 ; So 2 = (a-a)/b ; Thus, 0 ≈ (a-a)/(a-a/(a-a/(...))) ≈ 2.

Since, personally, I strongly suspect the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (discover article) has validity. I believe there is an infinite intangible number space (something that doesn't require physical space, like, well, numbers) contained in absence because absence is the outer boundary of an infinite centric number line (infinity → 0 versus our reality of 0 → infinity).

The paper on scarcity seems very interesting, I read the first bit but I couldnt figure out how to get the bar from obstructing my view on the right hand side, but I will try again another time.

Hm that is very interesting, infinite intangible number space. I firmly believe that number do require physical space and would be prepared to argue, though I dont have many arguments for it, it would be a mixture of semantics and ideas/ideals. But anyway, if you are using the term infinite, I assume you mean temporal and not spatially, even though you mention space. Because whats equally important if not slightly more, is the stuff that takes up the space, or that which exists. If there is a finite quantity of quanta, lets imagine that to mean a infinite number of numbers, lets say in all of reality, all that exists is 1000. 1000 1's. They obviously take up a finite space right, though it would get semantically slippery discussing, if the group or some of them moved 100 feet to the left, would they then have to be said to take up an infinite area of space, because hey they might move more, and then at any given point in time we couldnt say they occupied a finite area of space because it seems they have the potential to go beyond the current finitude. But at the same time they do not take up infinite space, or exist in an infinite space, because it is impossible for them to ever achieve reaching 'All' of an 'Infinite' space, if they did, that would mean that the space was not infinite, it was in fact finite.

Back to the 1's; lets say they always existed, and they also could interact with one another, sometimes a 1 and a 1 came together and stuck as a single object, lets call this a 2 ( ). It is true that stuff/somethingness exists, in this scenario it is true that these 1000 numbers exist. Do to my logic and reason I cannot posit that the stuff/somethingness came from nowhere and nothing, like wise I will not posit that the 1000 1's came from nothingness and nowhere, they must have always existed, and always have had the ability to interact, or at least the potential to interact. If the 1000 1's can exist in a space, and interact with one another, morphing into numbers, +ing and -ing, then temporally, sequencially, this can be said to be infinite, for there is no telling when/if this will stop, or when/if it began, thus time, the sequence of events, is infinite.

Absence is the outer boundary of an infinite centric number line, im sorry but I dont follow this expression or what you mean by it. But I can claim here, that I dont see how I can be wrong in saying; absence is eternal absence, without non absence existing (in some real, able to be non absence form). If there is potential for non absence, then that potential must exist in some non absent form.

Moments are infinite.

Xtraeme


In the French convention, zero is considered to be both positive and negative. The French words positif and négatif mean the same as English "positive or zero" and "negative or zero" respectively.

This is interesting because before the need for negative numbers, there is really no need for 0, so the need of negative numbers caused 0 to be needed, may that be related to the french calling it that, or no 0 was and has been important for a long time?

The paper makes the argument that 0, as the additive identity element, must be positive and negative for four reasons.

Ok, though I didnt really like the logical argument, it was a very contrived example, I dont think zero is + or - because I dont think it exists! I think it equals non existence, 0 is no number, positive or negative.

So what are the ramifications of all this?

The paper shows that by using these characteristics, just like how we can write:
[0] + [3] = [0,3]
or,
0 + 3 = 3

That we can potentially convert a set [] (neither + nor -), to a quantity like 0 (as + and -), or even to a contradiction Ø ≠ Ø (none of the above). The more interesting possibility though is to get closer to the center infinite-like characteristic. Which should partially address ...

Ok I never was a good fit for math, so you must understand if I even am lost on the most simple of mathematical concepts, I am just trying to feel in the dark here and use my knowledge of other areas to try to understand your statements and what your expressing.

This is only my opinion, and I have no real education in mathematics.

I believe the reason there appears to be a link between zero and infinity is because the two are opposites. I don't believe that infinity is a number, which is also why I believe you can never count from one to infinity.
Infinity, as I understand it, is an abstract idea that represents the sum of all numbers. Likewise, zero is the opposite, a concept that represents the lack of all numbers. The two go together in the same way that "on" and "off" do.

0->1-> infinity->-1->0 the never-ending cycle of numbers.

As far as something from nothing goes, we can do a little thought experiment. Imagine nothing, and define it. Once you have defined it you have something rather than nothing, even if all that you have now is an attempt to explain absence.
I think it's possible to imagine that given an infinite amount of opportunities to define what you have, conceptually, anything can grow from nothing.
For example we define the lack of color as black. If we then are able to define black as the opposite of white we have introduced all colors with the definition of none.
Something will always be seen in nothing, if only because we use "something" to define what "nothing" is.
Nothing can never be removed from something though, and I find this interesting.

not 100% sure ,
but think we may be dealing with the possibility of 'existence'
being a Gerund

this may be of value to this discussion.

Ein Sof is the divine origin of all created existence, in contrast to the Ein (or Ayn), which is infinite no-thingness ....
It is the origin of the Ohr Ein Sof, the "Infinite Light" of paradoxical divine self-knowledge, nullified within the Ein Sof prior to Creation. In Lurianic Kabbalah, the first act of Creation,....

.... giving rise to Monistic Panentheism.

The sephirot (attributes/emanations) may be the properties you speak of.

rom12345
this may be of value to this discussion.

Yes, existence and being are not the same thing. Being is concerned with life and consciousness. Existence is just 'there'. It is the source of being. Being is a property of existence.