((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P)

[Eodnhoj7]

The More I study Logic and Math, the more I realize how completely absurd it is when using "space" as its own proof system (consider "space" is the only universal axiom that axioms due to the simple "dot").....This statement:

((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P)

is complete bullsh't...but it is true. No wonder our faith in mathematics/aristotelian logic, in helping us develop computing power, has led to the state of economic, moral, and cultural (identity) chaos we are in today. This is more absurd than anything even Wittgenstein worked on...unless someone has a different opinion.

Take some time to reread it again and again...it is true and makes no sense what so ever. The only thing that can be observed "rationally" is that the principle of excluded middle does not exist and all statements are "identities" properties necessitate a law of "necessitated middle".


This argument is taken from the "Fallacy of Euclidian Axioms" thread and will address the nature of "degrees" as a subset of the material.


1. All right angles are not equal to each other.

2. If a right angle exists at 90 degrees of 1 unit by 1 unit and the next right angle is .1x.1 progress to .0000....1 of the original size, the final angle effectively exists as a point smaller than the degree with composed the ninety degree of the Right Angle.

3. The question of what constitutes the "degree" ends itself in a paradoxical state considering the degrees which constitute Right Angle A (1x1) are the same as that which constitute Right Angle B ((1>n) → 0) x ((1>n) → 0) observes:

a. The lines which compose Angle B effectively become smaller than the degrees which constitute Angle A.
b. Angle A and Angle B are both composed of 90 degrees; however the 90 degrees which compose Angle B effectively fit into Angle A exist at a number approaching infinity.
c. Angle A is still equal to Angle B.

4. (Steps)

a. (A=B)=(A>B) ∴

b. ((A>A) ∧ (B>B)) ∴ ((A∋B) ∴ ((A∋A) ∧ (B∋B))) ∴

c. ((A=A)=(A>A)=(A∋A) ∧ (B=B)=(B>B)=(B∋B)) ∴

d. (((B → A) ∴ ((A → A) ∧ (B → B)) ∴ (A → B) ∧ (B → A)) ∵

e. ((A=A)=(A>A)=(A∋A) ∧ (B=B)=(B>B)=(B∋B)) ∴

f. ((A=A)=(A>A)=(A∋A)=(A → A) ∧ (B=B)=(B>B)=(B∋B)=(B → B)) ∴

g. .......

h. ((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P)
**** A=B but A is not B; hence A=P and B=-P



****Will Be Continued

[Arising_uk]

The More I study Logic and Math, the more I realize how completely absurd it is when using "space" as its own proof system (consider "space" is the only universal axiom that axioms due to the simple "dot").....This statement:

((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P)

is complete bullsh't...but it is true. ...

Well you may be right as I don't understand an equals sign being used in propositional logic(which logic did you get this from?) but what do you mean by 'it is true'? As if we use the biconditional instead of the equals sign then the above is false and in fact is a contradiction as it is always false. Is that what you meant, that it is true that it is false?

No wonder our faith in mathematics/aristotelian logic, in helping us develop computing power, ...

It led to computing engines in a roundabout way but what developed and develops computing power was/is Materials Science.

has led to the state of economic, moral, and cultural (identity) chaos we are in today. ...

No idea what this is about?

This is more absurd than anything even Wittgenstein worked on...unless someone has a different opinion. ...

Can't tell if I have, which of Wittgenstein's thoughts were you thinking about?

Take some time to reread it again and again...it is true and makes no sense what so ever. The only thing that can be observed "rationally" is that the principle of excluded middle does not exist and all statements are "identities" properties necessitate a law of "necessitated middle".


...

Does it? I'd have thought it led to asserting P v ¬P.

[Logik]

1. Why haven't you thrown away the law of excluded middle yet ? It's a silly tautology.

LEM P ∨ -P → T
LNC: P ∧ -P → F
∴ ¬ (LNC) → T
∴ ¬ LNC ⇔ LEM
∴ ¬ F ⇔ T

2. Every time you get to an infinity you can leverage the principle of explosion. As far as I am concerned there is no difference between infinities and contradictions.

3. 1 = 1 → T OR 1 = 1 → F is axiomatic and therefore entirely subject to choice!

In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself

1 and 0 are not things. They are TYPES of things. They are Integers.
So while a 1 may be the same as itself (a silly tautology!) the 1 on the left of the '=' is not the same as the 1 on the 'right' of the '='.

To even propose (1 = 1) is to ask 'Are two things the same?'. That's an oxymoron in English.
What are you even asking? What do you mean by 'the same'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is any of a class of formal systems, some of which can serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics. In type theory, every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type.

What makes sense is comparing the VALUE of a "1" to the VALUE of another "1".

So basically

identity(1) = identity(1) → F (the identities of two identical integers are different)
value(1) = value(1) → T (the values of two identical integers are the same)

Talk about ambiguous use of "identical" eh ?

Here's how to implement this in Python:
https://repl.it/repls/AlarmedSardonicSlash

If you want to wax philosophical about it - this is the noumenon/phenomenon distinction Kant drew.

TL;DR Universally Unique Identifier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... identifier

Also, I am perfectly happy to blame identity politics on Aristotle. That fucking moron. 2 out of 3 of his "laws" were mistakes.

[Eodnhoj7]

The More I study Logic and Math, the more I realize how completely absurd it is when using "space" as its own proof system (consider "space" is the only universal axiom that axioms due to the simple "dot").....This statement:

((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P)

is complete bullsh't...but it is true. ...

Well you may be right as I don't understand an equals sign being used in propositional logic(which logic did you get this from?) but what do you mean by 'it is true'? As if we use the biconditional instead of the equals sign then the above is false and in fact is a contradiction as it is always false. Is that what you meant, that it is true that it is false?

Propositional Logic is still premised in the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The statement it true in the respect the argument is premised on all All right angles are equal. However a right angle can be not equal to another right angle and still be equal to it. Identity can be observed as P=P and P=-P thus negating a law of excluded middle.

No wonder our faith in mathematics/aristotelian logic, in helping us develop computing power, ...

It led to computing engines in a roundabout way but what developed and develops computing power was/is Materials Science.

has led to the state of economic, moral, and cultural (identity) chaos we are in today. ...

No idea what this is about?

No surprise.

This is more absurd than anything even Wittgenstein worked on...unless someone has a different opinion. ...

Can't tell if I have, which of Wittgenstein's thoughts were you thinking about?

That meaning is relative to context, or the framework, in which the symbol is observed as the constant is a perpetual framework where each symbol effectively is its own framework.

((A=A)=(A>A)=(A∋A)=(A → A) ∧ (B=B)=(B>B)=(B∋B)=(B → B))

Each logical symbol is strictly an extension of another symbol.

Take some time to reread it again and again...it is true and makes no sense what so ever. The only thing that can be observed "rationally" is that the principle of excluded middle does not exist and all statements are "identities" properties necessitate a law of "necessitated middle".


...

Does it? I'd have thought it led to asserting P v ¬P.

It does as the right angle is both equal to and not equal to the right angle. Both angles are 90 degrees, but one set of 90 degrees fits within a fraction of a degree of the other 90 degree angle.

[Logik]

Each logical symbol is strictly an extension of another symbol.

Because you are choosing to reduce things ad infinitum.

You have to choose something as ontological grounding. Your semantic foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

[Eodnhoj7]

Each logical symbol is strictly an extension of another symbol.

Because you are choosing to reduce things ad infinitum.

You have to choose something as ontological grounding. Your semantic foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

All "reduction" is simultaneous progress from a separate angle of observation.

There is no ontological grounding without ending in a series of definitions as to "what ontology is". I may have an ontological grounding for "x", but "x" is negated and changed to "y" if the ontological premises for "x" are redefined. Metaphorical someone may build a house, I may want to destroy the house, but the house is guarded completely....so I just dig a series of tunnels under the grounding of the house (re-definition of the structure) until the house collapses. I don't even have to touch the house.

The semantic foundation can be "contradiction" through the Munchauseen Trillema where the "trillema", a premised in spatial symbolism, is its own axiom existing through language, as language, but no limited to language while simultaneously existing as a simultaneous projection/inherent element within the observer that maintains a form of Neitzchian "Perspectivism", reflects the base triadic nature of observation through dualism where our fundamental nature of observation is grounded in "contradiction" while necessitating the foundational nature of measurement under "unity" and "multiplicity". This foundation is subject to further definition while maintaining a state of "space" as the foundation for "ontology".

However the Reduction of things ad-infinitum, is in itself a contradiction by contradiction through contradiction.

That is a contradiction itself if an infinite series is quantified into a finite (x) where each infinity exists as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. So:

1. 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → ... → (∞)
2. 1(∞) → 2(∞) → 3(∞) → 4(∞) → 5(∞) → ... → (∞)(∞)
3. 1((∞)(∞)) → 2((∞)(∞)) → 3((∞)(∞)) → 4((∞)(∞)) → 5((∞)(∞)) →... → (∞)((∞)(∞))
4. Points 1 through 3 observe a progression of infinity conducive to a number line.
5. Point 4 cycles to Point 1 and progresses to point 5 where point 5 is self-referential.
6. Point 5 cycles to to point 1 and cycles to point 6 with point 6 as self referential.
7. ...

[Logik]

All "reduction" is simultaneous progress from a separate angle of observation.

Not really. It's just deconstruction. Zooming in. Breaking things down into their composite parts.

There is no ontological grounding without ending in a series of definitions as to "what ontology is".

The smallest irreducible building blocks (given current epistemology). Leptons, quarks and photons.

Things with which to do synthesis.

I may have an ontological grounding for "x", but "x" is negated and changed to "y" if the ontological premises for "x" are redefined. Metaphorical someone may build a house, I may want to destroy the house, but the house is guarded completely....so I just dig a series of tunnels under the grounding of the house (re-definition of the structure) until the house collapses. I don't even have to touch the house.

Yes. Because you are still seeking a foundation. Be like a bird and fly. Holism reductionism complement each other.

However the Reduction of things ad-infinitum, is in itself a contradiction by contradiction through contradiction.

Planck distances puts a theoretical limit on "infinite" reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

If a function {displaystyle x(t)} x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced {displaystyle 1/(2B)} {displaystyle 1/(2B)} seconds apart.

[Eodnhoj7]

All "reduction" is simultaneous progress from a separate angle of observation.

Not really. It's just deconstruction. Zooming in. Breaking things down into their composite parts.

All "zooming in" is a simultaneous "expansion".

There is no ontological grounding without ending in a series of definitions as to "what ontology is".

The smallest irreducible building blocks (given current epistemology). Leptons, quarks and photons.

"Given current epistemology" and the deductionary nature of time does not necessitate "Lepton, Quarks and Photons" being the final foundation for anything within physics considering "physics" itself exists as a process of "time"...effectively negating any real sense of "science" and reducing observation to a spontaneous/chaotic element.

A final "irreducible" element effectively is point space equivalent to a pre-socractic notion developed thousands of years ago.

I may have an ontological grounding for "x", but "x" is negated and changed to "y" if the ontological premises for "x" are redefined. Metaphorical someone may build a house, I may want to destroy the house, but the house is guarded completely....so I just dig a series of tunnels under the grounding of the house (re-definition of the structure) until the house collapses. I don't even have to touch the house.

Yes. Because you are still seeking a foundation. Be like a bird and fly.

Relativism is a foundation.

However the Reduction of things ad-infinitum, is in itself a contradiction by contradiction through contradiction.

Planck distances puts a theoretical limit on "infinite" reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

Actually it doesn't because it measures a particle's movement until it exhibits random behavior through quantum connection necessitating an inverse expansion into "fields" again where the "field" effectively exists as it's own particulate relative to other fields.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25962


If a function {displaystyle x(t)} x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced {displaystyle 1/(2B)} {displaystyle 1/(2B)} seconds apart.

Points space "seconds" apart, still necessitates a form of linear time as a composition of "points".

[Logik]

All "zooming in" is a simultaneous "expansion"

Potato potatoh. Relative to the observer.

"Given current epistemology" and the deductionary nature of time does not necessitate "Lepton, Quarks and Photons" being the final foundation for anything within physics considering "physics" itself exists as a process of "time"...effectively negating any real sense of "science" and reducing observation to a spontaneous/chaotic element.

Incompleteness does not detract from pragmatic utility.

A final "irreducible" element effectively is point space equivalent to a pre-socractic notion developed thousands of years ago.

Or you can plug the hole now with information theory. A findal irreducible element is either a point of finite dimensions (1) or nothing (0).
If you can't tell the difference - there is no difference.

Relativism is a foundation.

Yes, it is my foundation and that of every scientist. Protagoras.

However, pragmatically there is still an opportunity for solid ground. The triad you point out is the same phenomenon as consensus in a PAXOS implementation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science) ).

Three points a consensus makes. Two perspectives (A and B) observing a 3rd point C and agreeing on the value of C.

Actually it doesn't because it measures a particle's movement until it exhibits random behavior through quantum connection necessitating an inverse expansion into "fields" again where the "field" effectively exists as it's own particulate relative to other fields.

Finite fields. Finite states.

Points space "seconds" apart, still necessitates a form of linear time as a composition of "points".

Yes. Finite number of points.

[Eodnhoj7]

All "zooming in" is a simultaneous "expansion"

Potato potatoh. Relative to the observer.

It doesn't matter the dualistic foundation of relativity, as the relation of one atom to another atom, necessitates that all contraction results in a further expansion.

"Given current epistemology" and the deductionary nature of time does not necessitate "Lepton, Quarks and Photons" being the final foundation for anything within physics considering "physics" itself exists as a process of "time"...effectively negating any real sense of "science" and reducing observation to a spontaneous/chaotic element.

Incompleteness does not detract from pragmatic utility.

Incompleteness necessitates pragmatic utility as an "undefined" state and in these respects "pragmatism" is merely a conceptual point of division seperating one phenomenon from another.

A final "irreducible" element effectively is point space equivalent to a pre-socractic notion developed thousands of years ago.

Or you can plug the hole now with information theory. A findal irreducible element is either a point of finite dimensions (1) or nothing (0).
If you can't tell the difference - there is no difference.

Actually 1 exists in a simultaneous indefinite state because its finite nature demands it to be progressively defined through itself resulting in an infinite series. In these terms there only is "1" and we observe multiple ones because of its finite nature where 0 (and this can be seen through the points of the number line) effectively approximating "1" through multiple "1"'s.

Relativism is a foundation.

Yes, it is my foundation and that of every scientist. Protagoras.

Man as a measure makes man as a constant necessitating that Protagoras's statement is one of absolute truth and "man" is the "beginning, middle and end". This is reflected in Christianity and Buddhism, as well as the formless nature of consciousness in "Taoism".



However, pragmatically there is still an opportunity for solid ground. The triad you point out is the same phenomenon as consensus in a PAXOS implementation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science) ).

Three points a consensus makes. Two perspectives (A and B) observing a 3rd point C and agreeing on the value of C.

Yes but an "anti-pragmatist" perspective requires a dual thetical/antithetical nature thus necessitating that pragmatism, by synthesis alone, is not the "solid" ground with "sythesis" being embodied through a dual "convergence/divergence" only being a medial point between absolute and relative truth.

Actually it doesn't because it measures a particle's movement until it exhibits random behavior through quantum connection necessitating an inverse expansion into "fields" again where the "field" effectively exists as it's own particulate relative to other fields.

Finite fields. Finite states.

Not really as the fields relative to other fields in turn cause the interactions where the particles exist in various states. I can have one particle A exist in simultaneously different states of movement, but what causes "Particle A = Particle A" is a common bond of movement.

Points space "seconds" apart, still necessitates a form of linear time as a composition of "points".

Yes. Finite number of points.

Contradiction, 0 cannot be quantified without effectively observe x*0=0. Second, there can be no "finiteness" without an infinite series acting as a form of recursive justification for its absolute nature. Finiteness is akin to randomness as the approximation of unity. Finiteness is contradictory by nature as it is necessitated by a base dualism of one phenomenon relative to another.

Second a finite point can only be quantified, rationally, if there is a 1 dimensional point...however this causes problems in modern math/logic, as it necessitates everything as connected.

[Logik]

It doesn't matter the dualistic foundation of relativity, as the relation of one atom to another atom, necessitates that all contraction results in a further expansion.

And what about entanglement?

Actually 1 exists in a simultaneous indefinite state because its finite nature demands it to be progressively defined through itself resulting in an infinite series.

Only if you allow infinities in your grammar/semantics. I don't entertain them.

]Yes but an "anti-pragmatist" perspective requires a dual thetical/antithetical nature thus necessitating that pragmatism, by synthesis alone, is not the "solid" ground with "sythesis" being embodied through a dual "convergence/divergence" only being a medial point between absolute and relative truth.

But it solves the symbol-grounding problem. And that is huge. Symbols stop being descriptive. They have physical presence/effect on reality by being interpreted. They have agency through computers/robots/automata.

That's huge.

Not really as the fields relative to other fields in turn cause the interactions where the particles exist in various states.

Interactions == behaviourism. That is what science models.

Contradiction, 0 cannot be quantified without effectively observe x*0=0.

0 is a mathematical error. A pragmatic invention. It doesn't "exist". In a relativistic framework the observer is 0. You are made of the same stuff that you are observing.

Measurement problem etc...

Second a finite point can only be quantified, rationally, if there is a 1 dimensional point...however this causes problems in modern math/logic, as it necessitates everything as connected.

Everything-as-connected == memory == spacetime.

[Eodnhoj7]

It doesn't matter the dualistic foundation of relativity, as the relation of one atom to another atom, necessitates that all contraction results in a further expansion.

And what about entanglement?

Approximation of a unified state where any percievable randomness is an extension of the position of the observer as well as the "indefinite" nature of unity. Quantum Entanglement is a contradiction by nature.

Actually 1 exists in a simultaneous indefinite state because its finite nature demands it to be progressively defined through itself resulting in an infinite series.

Only if you allow infinities in your grammar/semantics. I don't entertain them.

Then you are lying to yourself considering a strict premise of "relativity" alone as an absolute statement makes it effectively "infinite".

]Yes but an "anti-pragmatist" perspective requires a dual thetical/antithetical nature thus necessitating that pragmatism, by synthesis alone, is not the "solid" ground with "sythesis" being embodied through a dual "convergence/divergence" only being a medial point between absolute and relative truth.

But it solves the symbol-grounding problem. And that is huge. Symbols stop being descriptive. They have physical presence/effect on reality by being interpreted. They have agency through computers/robots/automata.

That's huge.

The symbol grounding problem is not a problem if the fallacies are negated, as it stands as such it still is a problem as 1 symbol exists through a form of variation of the other symbols due to the law of identity. You are always left with an undefined symbols as the premise and go back to the munchausseen trillema where the grounding for all symbols is premised in the basic point, line circle reflected in the Monad(s), Bindhu, Yin/Yang, etc.

Take for example:

1. P=P where P effectively is any symbol.
2. Equality is a symbol.
3. (=)=(=) where we are left with "( )" as undefined in one respect, the symbol as having a triadic nature "===", the symbol as an active, passive and neutral state, and the symbol as always maintaining a dualistic notion of "definition" ("=" in this case) and "non-defined chaotic element ("( )" in this case as well).

Not really as the fields relative to other fields in turn cause the interactions where the particles exist in various states.

Interactions == behaviorism. That is what science models.

You just split one term into two terms causing a degree of deficiency in definition unless you progress further.



I can have one particle A exist in simultaneously different states of movement, but what causes "Particle A = Particle A" is a common bond of movement.

[/color]

Contradiction, 0 cannot be quantified without effectively observe x*0=0.

0 is a mathematical error. A pragmatic invention. It doesn't "exist".

Actually as an "invention", and all phenomenon existing through the inventive nature of man through your premised on protagoras, it exists.

Second a finite point can only be quantified, rationally, if there is a 1 dimensional point...however this causes problems in modern math/logic, as it necessitates everything as connected.

Everything-as-connected == memory == spacetime.

Memory, as linear, is not always connected. Time is effectively the individuation of "space" and can be observed under the thread "the paradox the road and the creation and space".

[Eodnhoj7]

To add to the premise of ((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P), Because -P is subject to the law of identity, the law of identity is equal to its negation as the negation itself exists if and only if there is a law of identity. This contradicts the law of excluded middle and the "or" nature of "identity" while in a seperate respect observing P=-P because (P=P) = (-P = -P); thus negating the law of identity as well and the law of non-contradiction.

[Logik]

Quantum Entanglement is a contradiction by nature.

But it's useful! It contradicts the adage "change is the only constant".

There's something that doesn't change! It's as good as solid ground. You no longer need the relative observer.

Then you are lying to yourself considering a strict premise of "relativity" alone as an absolute statement makes it effectively "infinite".

Finite universe. Finite number of particles. "Absolute" statements. are necessarily contextual.

1. P=P where P effectively is any symbol.
2. Equality is a symbol.
3. (=)=(=) where we are left with "( )" as undefined in one respect, the symbol as having a triadic nature "===", the symbol as an active, passive and neutral state, and the symbol as always maintaining a dualistic notion of "definition" ("=" in this case) and "non-defined chaotic element ("( )" in this

Again. Doesn't matter. When you define it in terms of its behaviour the symbol means whatever it does in the context that it does it in.

You just split one term into two terms causing a degree of deficiency in definition unless you progress further.

Behaviourism..... describes the interaction of terms. Not the terms themselves.

Actually as an "invention", and all phenomenon existing through the inventive nature of man through your premised on protagoras, it exists.

Again. Behaviourism.

0 has no relativistic consequences. It's an absolute. All it produces is errors (when you divide by it) or obliteration (when you multiply by it).
It's a black hole.

On its own it has no causal consequences. It does not interact with its surroundings.

Memory, as linear, is not always connected. Time is effectively the individuation of "space" and can be observed under the thread "the paradox the road and the creation and space".

Any memory address can have an effect on any other memory address as the clock "ticks" in a computer system.

Translated into quantum: Global hidden variables. Worst case.

[Eodnhoj7]

Quantum Entanglement is a contradiction by nature.

But it's useful! It contradicts the adage "change is the only constant".

There's something that doesn't change! It's as good as solid ground. You no longer need the relative observer.

"Usefulness" is just a projection of will. Change, dualism, as a constant still leads to one truth and we are left with a triad as 1.

Then you are lying to yourself considering a strict premise of "relativity" alone as an absolute statement makes it effectively "infinite".

Finite universe. Finite number of particles. "Absolute" statements. are necessarily contextual.

Contextuality is a self-referential statement, and as such is absolute and approximated through multiple variations.

1. P=P where P effectively is any symbol.
2. Equality is a symbol.
3. (=)=(=) where we are left with "( )" as undefined in one respect, the symbol as having a triadic nature "===", the symbol as an active, passive and neutral state, and the symbol as always maintaining a dualistic notion of "definition" ("=" in this case) and "non-defined chaotic element ("( )" in this

Again. Doesn't matter. When you define it in terms of its behaviour the symbol means whatever it does in the context that it does it in.

Yeah it does do it in the context of what does it, but the problem occurs in the respect one context is alway antithetical to another and solutions might effectively be "problems".

You just split one term into two terms causing a degree of deficiency in definition unless you progress further.

Behaviourism..... describes the interaction of terms. Not the terms themselves.

Terms are descriptions at a conceptual level at minimum.

Actually as an "invention", and all phenomenon existing through the inventive nature of man through your premised on protagoras, it exists.

Again. Behaviourism.

0 has no relativistic consequences. It's an absolute. All it produces is errors (when you divide by it) or obliteration (when you multiply by it).
It's a black hole.

But you said absolute does not exist, hence if 0 is an absolute then there is not absolute. But the problem occurs in the respect you say 0 is a creation of man; hence what man creates is not absolute either and there is no moral or ethical grounding for your stance.

On its own it has no causal consequences. It does not interact with its surroundings.

On it's own it cancels itself out because it is nothing. Nothingness cannot be observed except through somethingness and in these respects it sets a foundation for a dualism.

Memory, as linear, is not always connected. Time is effectively the individuation of "space" and can be observed under the thread "the paradox the road and the creation and space".

Any memory address can have an effect on any other memory address as the clock "ticks" in a computer system.

Translated into quantum: Global hidden variables. Worst case.

Hidden variable is still a defined variable where what is "known" effectively encapsulates what is not known leading to a from of self-referentiality in what is known.