Creation of the Big Bang!

Zero is the point where (-)goes back from and (+) goes forward from which would make zero at the center of an infinite amount of integers, so that would give what zero is. (-) goes back because it is an negative and vice versa for (+). How can zero be classified?

The intuitive mind

I feel safe in assuming that not even the great philosophers spent this much time debating the number zero. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
Zero is a place holder. If you mean nothingness and thereby creation from nothingness ex nihilo then have fun. Will it answer anything to get excited over it? Probably not.

MHO is that the if there is creation out of nothing, then physics and chemistry is not responsible... let there be light... there was and we Saw how very little we know.

Mark Vitrone

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(JimiProton)
Our scientific traditions rely on the Aristotelian foundation that that "nothing can be, and not be, at the same time." <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Mr. Aristotle was not wrong in his statement. However, his statement is wrong. It should have simply said: "nothing" can NOT *BE*. (If it *IS* then it is not "nothing" and therefore it is "something.)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You can read the sentence "nothing can be, and not be, at the same time." in two different ways.

The "normal" perception is that it says: There is no thing for which "it exists" and "it doesn't exist" is valid at the same time.

So, it just says, either something exist, or it doesn't exist.

The other is a misconception, namely when you read it as:
There is a thing that is existent and not existent at the same time, and that thing is nothing.

You're then stating that nothing is something, while it is not.

One should use the meaning of the term "nothing" to mean "not something", and not as "something".

From ill conceptions, a lot of things can be build indeed, but which are in the end misconceptions.

It seems that there is indeed a confusion in some postings between attritudes and inherent qualities.

First, Aristotle did not deal with existence but only with truth or falsity of arguments. His law of the excluded middle is stated correctly as follows:

A proposition cannot be either truth or false but not both (P V ~P)

Existence is a different issue that is not the subject of categorical logic, mathematical logic or formal logic.

Nothing exists as a meaning. The fact that a glass of water is empty does not prohibit it from holding water. Just remember it is not the material of the glass, but the empty space in it that holds the water. So nothingness is a very usefull and real quality in the universe.

Is nothing something? Usually, we attribute the word "something" to anything that can exist. Nothing exists, otherwise you glass could not be filled with water. Therefore, nothing is also something.

To prove this, let us consider two disjoint sets, E is the set of things that are something and N is the set of things that are nothing, in the literal sense. Obviously, nothing cannot be a member of N, since by definition, N is an empty set. Therefore, "nothing" must belong in set E. However, all members of set E are something.

To break this simple proof down you must find another set where "nothing" can belong to. I hear suggestions...

[quote}

A proposition cannot be either truth or false but not both (P V ~P)

[/quote]

Obviously, I meant to say:

A proposition can be either truth or false but not both (P V ~P)

Sorry about that.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If something exists, it always exists. If something doesn't exist, it can NEVER exist.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Let me see. A human didn't exist, let's say uhmmm 1 bilion years ago. So no human can ever exist.

Your logic is just very ill!!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It all goes back to the "0" thing, "3" can only exist because "1" & "2" exist. "1" & "2" can only exist because "0" exists. "0", itself, is existence.("0" being "Eternal Energy".)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think it is noteworthy here for historical reasons that the number "0" didn't exist for a long time in human history.
Nevertheless calculations were made, even without the concept of "0".

Maybe after inventing money, and borrowing systems, "0" was invented, to know if someone's debth was paid or something.

In either case, "1", "2", etc. existed long before "0" existed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Think of the E=mc2 example, if mass changes to energy it didn't become nothing, it transformed into energy. Now, if everything in the universe is made of Energy or Mass, which are the same thing, so if something isn't Mass it is Energy. The totality will always "ZERO" out at "0".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

How did you calculate that sum of all the masses and all the energy (transformed into the proper units and using E=mc2 Energy/mass equivalence) in the universe equals "0"?????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Here is one for you, is the universe half full or half empty?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

42