Physics versus Mathematics and Logic.

I think I might regret this, but here goes....<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

I think Jimi is saying that zero is simply the boundary we employ when we try to mathematically model the Universe. When we consider the different building blocks of the Universe we are familiar with, be they molecules, atoms, gravitons, quarks or whatever, we have to set a limit, or a wall, or a fence, or a baseline within which to consider them. No matter how small a particle be that we might yet discover or hypothesise, there has to be a limit, and from a mathematical viewpoint, this would be zero; e.g. zero mass, zero dimension, zero spin, etc. From a lay speak viewpoint, it would be "nothing".

Although I disagree with your theory, you could say, at least from a semantic point of view, that our Universe is bounded by nothing! But remember, this is pure semantics. We model the universe on the basis of our numbering and mathematical system (thus far the language that has best served us, but which AB feels may be limited for a thorough understanding of the Cosmic All), a system originally developed to count beans; zero is in itself a construct of this system, and as such, may in itself be inadequate to the task. To build a whole theory on the basis of this single number is a tad ambitious.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Although I disagree with your theory,
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Here goes my attempt at humor <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

What are you disagreeing with, there is "NOTHING" to disagree with.

I do appreciate your input. I would encourage you to put more thought into it and continue reading the posts.

"Make everything as simple as possible but not too simple".(AE)

<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Yep - I thought I'd regret it!

But seriously, do you have any formalised statement of your theory? At the moment, "nothing" is all I've got to go on!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
do you have any formalised statement of your theory? At the moment, "nothing" is all I've got to go on!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Nothing formalised as of yet <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle> but soon hopefully.

Did you see my comment that infinite goes only in one direction? What are your thoughts about that idea?

I need to know what framework you're working in. If you're talking in terms of numbers, or some sort of numbering system, which is the impression I get from your linear approach to the concept (i.e. directionality), then infinity doesn't exist. This is because it doesn't obey the operations and rules that a number system is subject too, ergo it isn't a number. For example, what is infinity minus one? One thing it isn't, is a finite number, since no finite number plus one equals infinity, which means the answer must be infinite. Therefore -

INFINITY - 1 = INFINITY

This immediately violates the rules of arithmetic, since deducting INFINITY from both sides leaves -

-1 = 0.

If you're considering infinity from the point of view of time, then I'd say, assuming there is no beginning and no end to time, that it goes in both directions, backward and forward. But you could also consider it as a static label for the whole of time. Bad news for your theory in this scenario would be that zero plays no part, unless you assign that value to "now". But this is just a labeling game, and again, infinity is meaningless.

If you're considering the Universe (whatever that is) as a whole, then you can employ "infinity" from a topological viewpoint to your heart's content. This can be illustrated in one dimension by drawing a 2cm straight line and marking off all the integers in sequence that you can think of on that line. Start on the left hand side with "1", then 1cm to the right "2", then another 0.5cm to the right "3" and so on. By decreasing the gap between marks by 50% each time you increment your number (and by using an icredibly fine pen!), you will be able to fit as many numbers within the 2cm line as you please. You can then set a limit (or asimptote) of 2cm for all the numbers in the universe and claim this as "infinity".

1

---

2----3--4-5

^__________________^
0........1cm.........2cm

Sorry for the Mathematics refresher, but you're not asking me a "bounded" question. I need to know in what framework you are considering infinity. If it's topological, which I'd guess it might be within the context of your original posting, then infinity can actually go in an infinite number of directions! If it's on a numerical basis, then it's meaningless.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I need to know in what framework you are considering infinity. If it's topological, which I'd guess it might be within the context of your original posting, then infinity can actually go in an infinite number of directions! <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Can you explain it to me from a topological position. I agree that from a specific point, the begining or "NOW", you can go infinity in any direction from that point. And I agree that once you are at a another point you can go infinitly in any direction from there. However, how can it be infinite if ultimatly you ended up back at the same point you started from? Hence, without resetting the starting point, infinite only in one direction.