Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical Argument

[Guest guest]

Dear Andrew,

 

it's fun to speculate about these things. The Pythagorean school of

philosophy considered numbers to be personifying not only quantities, but

also certain universal forces and principles endowed with their own gnostic

powers. There were "inseparable" numbers, which were supposed to be

inseparable from mundane natures, and others which were said to have a

subsistence separate from the universe; numbers were male and female,

friendly and inimical, etc. A huge body of wholly speculative theorems has

been handed down to us, and makes for fascinating reading.

 

The Pythagoreans believed that mathematical operations would directly map

into all physical, mental, and spiritual processes, and that by manipulating

numbers correctly one would attain dominion over the respective forces.

Which may be fine in principle, but unfortunately none of their speculations

has ever been known to be applicable to real life.

 

Of course, only positive integers were taken into account by the

Pythagoreans. They did not consider zero a number, and knew nothing about

negative, rational, real, and complex numbers, let alone the many other

numeric structures which we are aware of today.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Michael

 

 

> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

> Von: andrew macnab [a.macnab]

> Gesendet: Thursday, March 28, 2002 01:05

> An:

> Betreff: Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical

> Argument

>

>

> Dear Mike,

>

> A warm and fuzzy response;

>

> Zero is a peculiar number, not really a number at all, only a

> space holder, a

> signifier that here in this column is the

> potential for an integer to be though there is none present.

>

> Awareness turned upon itself finds zero where identity or 1

> had been mistakenly assumed to be. The awful fact is that 1

> is a black box, a functional device, a heretofore secret

> encoder that makes sense of reality. Making sense is an essential

> function, the 1 is

> not without its legitimacy, but (and it's a big

> but) the 1 device turns on and off.

>

> The not so trivial fact is that multiplying everything by zero

> is what is going on all the time, as the present reality ever vanishes.

> Multiplying everything by 1 is our human way of establishing

> history, society,

> relationship, and all that.

>

> andrew

MikeSuesserott wrote:

> >

> > Dear all,

> >

> > in recent discussion, the argument of "unreality" or

> "nonexistence" has been

> > proffered. Those who are familiar with Predicate Logic will be

> aware that

> > this argument, when applied to a general class of objects, will lead to

> > overgeneralization and, ultimately, to self-contradiction. Here

> is a simple

> > analogy that is hoped to make this more clear without going into the

> > intricacies of Predicate Calculus.

> >

> > Suppose we want to solve the "philosophical" question as to

> which number,

> > when doubled, would yield 10. In other words, we are looking

> for some number

> > x for which the equation

> >

> > 2.x = 10

> >

> > would hold. Of course, it is immediately obvious that there is

> only one such

> > number, 5, which satisfies the equation and thus solves our

> "philosophical"

> > question. If we wanted to, we could also apply the rules of mathematical

> > logic by dividing each side of the equation by 2 (or by multiplying with

> > 1/2), and we would get the correct solution.

> >

> > Suppose now we get the bright idea of multiplying both sides of

> the equation

> > with 0 (zero), which gives

> >

> > 0.x = 0

> >

> > This operation is not wrong in itself, but look now at what we

> have done.

> >

> > The resulting equation, though still true, has become totally

> useless for

> > finding a solution to our original problem. We have introduced spurious

> > solutions, in fact an infinite number of them, all claiming equal rights

> > with 5, because 0.x = 0 is trivially true for any number x. By

> applying this

> > multiplication with zero we have, therefore, completely robbed

> ourselves of

> > the power to solve the original problem.

> >

> > By the same token, the introduction of the "unreality" argument into any

> > line of reasoning causes very similar problems to arise which

> now could be

> > traced by using predicate logic instead of mathematical logic. If all

> > things, or all people, are unreal (zero by analogy!), then

> anything goes.

> > Any statement we care to make about them will be trivially true then,

> > because we have succeeded in creating a logical tautology which

> is totally

> > useless for the purpose of finding out the truth about any

> statement, in the

> > same way that earlier 0.x = 0 had been totally useless for finding the

> > correct solution, 5.

> >

> > Kindest regards,

> >

> > Michael

> >

>

>

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places,

> sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and

> exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves

> rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from

> Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come

> and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart

> Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A

> true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

> spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

> a.

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>