The number zero

[Holiday20310401]

What does the number zero mean?

I remember somebody stating on the forum how the number zero does not mean 'nothing' but if you have 2 apples and you get rid of 2 apples you have nothing in the perception of the value of apples.

[astrotheological]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

What does the number zero mean?

I remember somebody stating on the forum how the number zero does not mean 'nothing' but if you have 2 apples and you get rid of 2 apples you have nothing in the perception of the value of apples.

The number zero cannot be a value because it is nothing. If the cosmos for example had nothing in it how could it be considered a value.

[Victor Eremita]

The number zero denotes absence. Zero apples indicates the absence of apples, which is something, no?

[Holiday20310401]

Exactly! Can we have an equation that works with variables that aren't something.

[Arjen]

Hi Holiday,

0 is indeed 'stateless'. There are several things I want to say.

1) What is important is that we really have a 9-number system and not 10-number. The reason for this is because 0 is not a number. We have 1-9 and then the absence of a number as we start to count the decades (not sure if decades is the right english word). 0 only exists to help us realise that we are talking of a certain number of decades and no other units. The romans used to use X for ten. Twenty was XX, thirty XXX, fifty L and hundred C. In this system the 0 is not even present.

2) Fibonacci is the one who 'invented' 0. He is often called the hero of zero. He 'invented' 0 to get his sequence started. In reality one could add 1 to nothing and then 1 to 1, coming to the same results. He felt the need to introduce 0 though. I think that 0 is not needed here and the reality is that it was needed for something else; to distract us from something, or so it seems because 0 does not mean 0 at all.

3) In physics one can use 0 as the point from which actuality flows. It is a representation of an origin of sorts; perhaps potentiality. It takes the same place as 'falso' takes in logic.

4) Marko Rodin proves the above thesis by building a field generator which is harmonic to whatever it is that we call the space-time continuüm. For reference I would like to say that all previous coils generate an electrical field which is unstable because its own energies keep collapsing the field. As a result it has, I think, a 200% higher energy output rate than the conventional ones. The coil has actually been sold to IBM for use in their computers. I actually had a short period in which I wrote Marko to discuss some of his work and to ask for clarification. He could not explain everything I wanted explained though. He said he merely went with his intuition and found explanations along the way, but unfortunately not for all the questions I asked. Anyway, this correspondence took place before the invention was sold and he was still working on a reference on different realities and dimensions. He made a movie explaining some of his work, which I will add to the video page momentarily.

Hope this helps.

[iconoclast]

zero is a number. it comes after -1 and before 1. It is a greater quantity than -1 and a lesser quantity than 1. yes?

iconoclast.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

zero is a number. it comes after -1 and before 1. It is a greater quantity than -1 and a lesser quantity than 1. yes?

iconoclast.

No, it is something else. 1 would be, in Holiday's example 1 apple. 0 has nu suffix. It is something else; stateless. As you well know statelesness is that from which things sprout. Just like ex falso sequitur quodlibet proves in logic. Zero is the mathematical equivalent of falso.

--addition--
I understand your viewpoint as well, but that has a 'bending' effect because it does not account for statelesness. It is a 'flat' world view like empiricism so loudly trumpets. What is happening is the covering up of the 'paradox' by pretending that the different 'layer' does not exist. The statelesness is pretended to be in the same 'layer' and pretended to be noting in that layer. In effect it is true, it is none-existent in that layer; nothing. Nothing has different properties than are possible in that layer though.

Hope this helps.

[Khethil]

Its a term we invented to represent "no quantity" of <whatever>. Easy stuff

[iconoclast]

Arjen,

My explanation employs negative numbers - does this not make a difference?

The argument so far only distinguishes betwwen positive quantities and nothing, and I can see the statelessness of nothing in that respect, but where neagtive quantities are posited, does not zero become a quantity of something greater than a negative quantity of that same thing? For instance, if you begin with -2 apples and add two apples, you have zero apples, but this is something.

iconoclast.

[Holiday20310401]

Yes, -1 relative to zero is equal to 1 relative to zero in terms of the difference. We use zero to define relative points.