Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (Endings)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, June 20, 2009, 21:19 (5633 days ago) @ xeno6696

xeno6696 wrote: "You're confusing the mathematical concepts of 0 and the empty set. "0" is not "nothing." Mathematically, the only concept that means "nothing" is the empty set." - This depends how you define the terms. Some axiomatisations of set theory, and cardinal number theory, define 0 as the empty set {}. The number 1 could then the set containing the empty set {{}} and so on! - xeno6696:"Going to 0 bits doesn't mean "no bits." The expansion they're talking about is an infinite exponential progression where all mass was contained in an infinitely small point." - You are talking there in terms of classical continuum mechanics. Nowadays you have to take account of quantum mechanics. - xeno6696: "All matter and energy were there... so instead of saying "no bits" they say "singularity." This distinguishes it from the concept of "nothing" and I doubt you'd hear too many physicists agree that the singularity qualified as "nothing." The singularity contained *everything,* and therefore cannot by definition be "nothing."" - You need to read Victor J. Stenger! He argues that the total ampunt of energy in the universe is zero, being made up of the positive energy tied up in mass (mainly) and the negative energy tied up in gravitational potential (and dark energy) responsible for the expansion. - Edit: So in a sense everything IS nothing!

--
GPJ