Philosophy Now Forum

Chapter 1 (The Concept of Opposites and Unification of Sciences)

Section 1:

* There was a strong belief that the summation of equal positive and negative charges should not be zero. Since zero has no physical meaning, and there must be another language to express about that.

Zero does have a physical meaning, which is "no change", "stable", "no events". It is easily proven by everyday examples things as "I'm hungry, my stomach makes sounds, if I eat, it stops making sounds, therefore, nothing (of the sort of making sounds from stomach) happens, and my stomach is stable"

In other words, zero is the ceasing of objects desiring other objects, forming a stable state that only changes when something new is introduced to the situation (or the formula, to be mathematical) and which disrupts the balance.

We have to differentiate between two viewpoints: the qualitative and quantitative.

Zero is an abstract numerical concept, not a realistic concept.
Despite there no universal agreement to include zero in the set of natural numbers, but in my opinion it is not, because it is not natural, but it is an invented abstract concept for counting system.

Zero means nothing:
From the quantitative viewpoint it is ok, but qualitatively does two opposite forces or the state of steady table is nothing?

Does really a positive charge and another negative one accrues to nothing or another state?
Two opposite forces cancels each other, but does the resultant is nothing or a new equilibrium state, not nothingness. That is what I mean.

When your stomach is stable, this is a state, not counted to nothing to be zero, so zero is not suitable to describe the case at all.

One complete chapter is written to make a comparison between "one" and "zero" it is a very long story, and how "one" is suitable for describing equilibrium qualitatively, where qualities are the subject of this theory.

We have to differentiate between two viewpoints: the qualitative and quantitative.

Zero is an abstract numerical concept, not a realistic concept.
Despite there no universal agreement to include zero in the set of natural numbers, but in my opinion it is not, because it is not natural, but it is an invented abstract concept for counting system.

Zero means nothing:
From the quantitative viewpoint it is ok, but qualitatively does two opposite forces or the state of steady table is nothing?

Does really a positive charge and another negative one accrues to nothing or another state?
Two opposite forces cancels each other, but does the resultant is nothing or a new equilibrium state, not nothingness. That is what I mean.

When your stomach is stable, this is a state, not counted to nothing to be zero, so zero is not suitable to describe the case at all.

One complete chapter is written to make a comparison between "one" and "zero" it is a very long story, and how "one" is suitable for describing equilibrium qualitatively, where qualities are the subject of this theory.

.



You are right Mamdouh.

Everything is either a positive, negative, or neutral force in any moment of any given situation.


Each object can be any one of the theoretical forces interchangeably and at the same time. Again, in any new dynamic perspectives, forces and dimensions change.


I REALLY like your universal themes. I wish you well & I hope you can obtain some legs whit these philosophical perspectives.




.

Mamdouh Mofid wrote:We have to differentiate between two viewpoints: the qualitative and quantitative.

Zero is an abstract numerical concept, not a realistic concept.
Despite there no universal agreement to include zero in the set of natural numbers, but in my opinion it is not, because it is not natural, but it is an invented abstract concept for counting system.

Zero means nothing:
From the quantitative viewpoint it is ok, but qualitatively does two opposite forces or the state of steady table is nothing?

Does really a positive charge and another negative one accrues to nothing or another state?
Two opposite forces cancels each other, but does the resultant is nothing or a new equilibrium state, not nothingness. That is what I mean.

When your stomach is stable, this is a state, not counted to nothing to be zero, so zero is not suitable to describe the case at all.

One complete chapter is written to make a comparison between "one" and "zero" it is a very long story, and how "one" is suitable for describing equilibrium qualitatively, where qualities are the subject of this theory.

Good point, you could of course treat it like this, that "nothingness" arises in the mathematics because nothing of the kind exists in the context anymore. That is, mathematics is itself an abstraction and therefore it doesn't see the infinite otherness of the world and only deals strictly with what variables and constants (represented by thing in the real world either directly or indirectly) it is assigned, and when something reaches a stable balanced state it ceases to exist in the context of the math having become something new. So, I guess we agree on that. In a seldom situation, I agree with Bill, I like it. Simple and brilliant.

.




...............................................................................................................HOLY SHIT!


.................................................................................................You're Happy! I'm HAPPY!


.....................................................................................................







THANK GOD I was sitting down when I read:

In a seldom situation, I agree with Bill, I like it. Simple and brilliant.





...Sweet...Sweet Jesus!






I think I'm goin out to celebrate!


.

Weeeeell. Try not to drink too much when you're out, or I fear having to scroll down whole pages of just you and your videos with text size 100 ^^