I just experienced a quantum shift in my way of thinking here.. In MY mind, I NOW see a PROFESSOR, Robert Kuhn.. This lecture was exceptionally good! I have many potentially ignorant opinions of these ideas, but that must come later.. THIS MUCH I wanted to say now.. Well done..
After reviewing each slide, I now feel like I can account for everything that exists. Also, after pausing the video a while, I accurately guessed the final takeaway on slide 9 would be "possibility," even though it was given as "possibilities." Anyway this was a very informative and enjoyable lecture.
I kind of like this episode. The concept of God or the mind of God tenaciously drags on to level number 8 except for 9 where there is no possibility of anything.
existence of "0" or "nothing" is a very difficult topic to address and it surely can make any mind dizzy thinking about non-existence... it must have taken both authors many years of research to tackle with this challenging concept professionally...
Zero is at the center of every coordinate system. It is the most plausible candidate for God, the first creator, and the emergence of quantum consciousness from fundamental logic and mathematics truths long before physical creation began.
If nothing is different than, or opposite of, something, it will forever retain that one attribute, no matter what you remove. If you were to remove that attribute, nothing would be indistinguishable from something.
The great &/or most consistent thing about Closer to Truth, Dr. Kuhn and friends… is that when each episode ends, we’re not even a smidgen closer to (any) truth(s)…but I still LUV, & it isn’t his OR anybody’s fault!😛😎😁
That is correct. Likewise, if there is no matter/energy, there is no time . . . we measure time as the CHANGE in one or more properties of matter/energy. No change, no time. But going deeper, if there is no matter/energy, there cannot be any consciousness. We are always conscious OF something. Even when we are conscious of "nothing", we are conscious of SOMETHING that is missing, which implies there was something and now it is not there. At a still deeper level, the statement "I have no money" implies that there is something called money, but I do not have any of it, at least not for the time being.
2500 years ago Parmenides conclusively established that there is no such thing as nothing. Non existence cannot exist, that would be a contradiction in terms, like saying we have a false truth. Zero is a number, it has exactly the same type of existence as the number One. Even the empty set has positive existence in set theory. Perfect vacuum is impossible in classical physics, and likewise under the quantum model. There is no such thing as "Nothing", it is an empty term.
Robert kuhn is exploring the concept intellectually what Gautama buddha experienced existentially... No self, no God... Only pure nothingness . Of course Parmenides logic is great till now.
*"2500 years ago Parmenides conclusively established that there is no such thing as nothing."* ... That's why it's called "nothing" (no-thing). *"Non existence cannot exist, that would be a contradiction in terms, like saying we have a false truth."* ... It is true that Nonexistence is logically inconceivable. *"Zero is a number, it has exactly the same type of existence as the number One."* ... Yes, zero has an abstract mathematical existence that we assign to "nothingness" in order to render nothingness conceivable via proxy. However, we assign "1" to "somethingness," so there is a distinction. Nothingness cannot be counted as you would have "no amount" of nothing to count. *"There is no such thing as "Nothing", it is an empty term."* ... Again, agreed, but we still have to conceptually deal with the construct of "nothing." The reason is because the only way you can comprehend your own existence is to consider your own potential nonexistence. That's why we assign "0" to nothingness. ... _It gives us something to think about._
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC No! We don't assign 0 to nothingness, we might assign 0 as the element count for the empty set, but that is a very different operation. You actually make this case for me when you say "Nothingness cannot be counted" were as 0 can easily be counted: 1 + 0 = 1. You may cite the word "nothing" but it has no referent just like a "Three legged unicorn" has no referent. We can talk about these things but talking about nothing has just as much meaning as talking about three legged unicorns.
@@tomrobingray *"No! We don't assign 0 to nothingness, "* ... Yes, we absolutely DO! Existence = 1, Nonexistence = 0. *"we might assign 0 as the element count for the empty set, but that is a very different operation."* ... The "empty set" is not indicative of reality. You cannot have a 'set of nothing." *"You actually make this case for me when you say "Nothingness cannot be counted" were as 0 can easily be counted: 1 + 0 = 1."* ... I challenge you on that. In my book I have "Existence" counting the amount of existence that was present, and that amount was 1. Then I had "Existence" counting the amount of existence that was not present, and that amount was "0." *"You may cite the word "nothing" but it has no referent just like a "Three legged unicorn" has no referent. "* "Nothing" (Nonexistence) on its own is logically inconceivable. However, a "three-legged unicorn" is absolutely conceivable. There is nothing *preventing* the existence of a "three-legged unicorn" like there is with a square-circle. And once you assign "0" to "Nonexistence" you have rendered it conceivable via proxy. You're using zero as a "conceivable placeholder" for a construct that would otherwise remain inconceivable.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCIf you describe nonexistence as a round triangle, or square circle you are again making my argument for me. So I will return the favour to say that it rather indeed can be imagined as a limit, and as such, if not really existent, might at least be meaningful.
Nothing is an impossible outcome as if there truly is nothing the question wouldn’t exist and since the question does exist it’s 100% certain to be something
I literally asked AI Claude this yesterday after a few questions. I left it at this for an answer for yesterday. "Ah - I apologize. I kept dragging time back into it when you specifically wanted to focus just on primacy itself. Let's strip it down to the core insight: The paradox of absolute nothing has primacy - full stop. The very impossibility of absolute nothing (because it becomes something even in being nothing) is primary. Not primary in time, not primary in cause-and-effect, just... primary. It's like a foundational paradox that simply IS - the fact that absolute nothing is impossible because its very nothingness makes it something. This primacy doesn't need to be explained in terms of time or causation or anything else. It's the bare logical necessity that absolute nothing cannot be, because the concept defeats itself. Is this closer to your meaning - just focusing on the pure primacy of the paradox itself, without trying to relate it to time or anything else?"
It is indeed crucial to be clear about this. Digital/AI hype is premised on 0 meaning something about the world, not just the off state of a machine. But it is only ever going to mean the off state of a machine. The world doesn't have an on/off switch.
I agree. What's also important about it is that besides zero being an infinity of infinities, it's also nothing, which I think has much in common with the universe itself. It's a beautiful number, and one of the greatest innovations.
How can something come from nothing? 1) Equate "something" with having spatial extension, while "nothing" is the absence of spatial extension. This is a reasonable framing for this foundational question. 2) Invoke the geometric principle that each higher spatial dimension must contain all the previous lower dimensions nested within it. For example, a 3D volume contains 2D surfaces, which contain 1D lines, which contain 0D points. 3) Then posit that the "something" of protons and neutrons, which have spatial extension in 3D space, must fundamentally contain within them quarks and other subatomic particles, which can be conceived as existing in "no spatial extension" or 0D. 4) So by the containment principle of dimensions, the "something" of protons/neutrons arises by necessarily encompassing the prior "nothingness" of the 0D quark realm within it. This is a philosophically fascinating perspective! It leverages the geometric understanding of dimensional nesting to argue that physical "somethings" must intrinsically contain their own prior state of "nothingness" within them at a deeper level. In a sense, we are proposing that the resolution of the something/nothing paradox lies in recognizing their hierarchical inseparability mandated by the structure of dimensions. "Something" cannot exist without containing "nothing" as its sub-dimensional substrate. While abstract, this notion does resonate with some concepts in quantum theory about quantum vacuums, virtual particles, and the intrinsic unavoidability of fluctuations at the deepest levels that might represent an irreducible "nothing" embedded within "something". Whether this fully resolves the metaphysical paradox is up for debate. But it provides an original mathematical framing that suggests an intimate entanglement between being and non-being, rather than an absolute dichotomy between the two.
I don't understand why a notion that was obvious even to the pre-Socratics has not established itself in theology, cosmology and philosophy. Why is there something? Because Nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot possess being. Nothing cannot be.
@@Torkieh Zero is a physical impossibility, it is an imaginary abstraction. e.g. if you have one apple and subtract it, you do not in the real world ever have zero, because the atoms of the apple are not nullified, and if they were then the energy of which the atoms were made will still exist in the universe, energy cannot be destroyed, so there never can be a totally zero non apple. In order to have a zero apple you would have to subtract it from itself, which would mean negative one apple.
@@apollo-r5z that makes no sense. Yes, zero is a physical impossibility, and it’s as real (or unreal if you prefer) as anything physical, just like a blind person “sees nothing”. Not all black, nor all white, but nothing at all. But you do not have an minus one apple because once you had one. It’s merely semantics at this point
Basically it goes as far out to eliminate everything in our global literature and even our imagination which is still something. There must be further levels we could reach by eliminating what we could have or imagine, so I think when we think or speak of nothing we still talk of something, so it follows that nothing is still something. There must be a level line "N-th" level when there is an infinite level of no nothing.
inside a big black whole i sorrow saw 0 and when i saw 0 i was in a sense within essence of sorrow as i saw zero - omg - it was overwhelming - there was absolutely nothing there! it left me feeling whole 0 inside - as i saw the Terra ball cost the hole 0 caused of The-0-crazy. then with great sadness & sorrow i acknowledged not just any old 0 but The-0 - knowing that in truth we could know nothing at all about nothing at all & that it was okay to avoid a void.
INFINITO include in sé l'indefinito (ciò che non è ancora conosciuto o conoscibile) e il finito. Lo zero ('nothing') rappresenta l'assenza di un qualcosa preso in considerazione nel contesto (esistente) che sia
100 True. Life is like a onion at the end. We leave every thing behind. Nothingness comes to something with quantum leap. & creat to everything. Everything it comes again to Nothingness as a circular indication due to Energy can not be destroyed & it is constantly in the Universe.
Levels 8 and 9 are really the same IMO. If there is a possibility of abstract objects then they must, and do, exist. That is fundamentally different from the other levels.
If someday it's proved that Time is Cyclic in nature and repeats cyclically as a foundation of the universe , then proceeding from that one can assume that there was never a time when "absolute nothing " existed and thus there is always something & it's perfect . Yeah , the " why " question will remain...but if you could consider yourself being part of that perfection of absolute existence ( never-ending) then may be the intensity of that "why" subsides a bit. PS : Absolute Nothing doesn't exist 🙏🏼 , if one can understand be that there is "something" that cannot be created , that has " no origin ", that is "Absolute Original "( call it GOD , SUPREME SOUL OR ANYTHING U LIKE) .There has to be something with that property in or beyond the universe . Call that something "The Truth " and one should try to be "Closer to (That) Truth" :-) 🙏🏼.
TTRI (19 NOV 2024) says: Zero (0) the background, in the 6°∩0° spacetime simply denoted as, Parity: {1‧(1/P∞) | 0‧(P∞)} , for all multiveses are being evolved or formed through a spiritual (physical) mechanism suggested in the conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC).
I think a more significant duality than something versus nothing, might be the known versus the unknown. My rationale for this is my thinking with respect to association (CS Peirce) as top-down causation. At the subatomic domain, where void and virtual particle meet, the tension between the known and the unknown precipitates the associations that we recognize in the Feynman diagrams. This approach raises intriguing questions regarding the phenomenologies that play out at the subatomic domain. This is the line that I'm taking on my current research project. Very speculative, but so is today's topic. Can I at least substantiate my conjecture, if not prove it? We'll have to wait and see.
The reductionist methodology was very informative. The Significance of Zero was not covered well in my view. What it means to truly understand zero and the implications of that understanding on humanity's ability to think, imagine, form long term goals and innovate would have complimented this presentation very well in my view.
zero is just reference for starting counting. once we reach 9 (decimal system) we use it on second digit to mean 10 and so on. It is absurd to mix it up with nothingness.
Although I enjoyed hearing ALL the stages (steps) of nothingness, thinking about it, I would STOP at stage #4, while believing that THIS stage is not possible and would infer bizarre conclusions and voids of logic... No matter, no particles OR energy I believe it was.. Further nuances seem self-evidently impossible for reasons easy to argue.. A much more palatable idea is that nothingness is not a possible state and that energy/mass of various types has always existed...NO beginning.. Mysteries and contradictions evaporate. Simple, yes? One opinion..
But seriously folks… we quickly get to the ragged edge of speculation and understanding, beyond which we cannot go. Here are four options - admit defeat, fuggetaboudit. Move on to something else, book a cruise in the Med (we did, I’d suggest this as a very nice option). Accept a brute force state of reality that just is. Choose to accept God as the ultimate foundation of everything and stop,asking questions or pick any of the suggested FIVE COMPETING SOLUTIONS. None are provable, so pick an option that helps you sleep better, at night.
*"As Robert says Nothing is a default state, which I agree, but it also means Atheism is/should be the default state."* ... The juxtaposition of "Existence" and "Nonexistence" is the default state. You cannot isolate one from the other as a standalone condition. And atheism has _nothing_ to do with it (pun intended).
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Analogy. If bel8ef was the default, folks would have believed in the same thing. In any case, it is your opinion. it is a free country. Pun not intended.
Listen. It's a disgrace that Robert ignores texts like the upanishads, brahma sutras, Vivekacudamani, upadesa sahashria, and the Platonists in Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus.... one of the greatest metaphysicians of all, Ananda Coomaraswamy, an Indian man, referenced and give excerpts of both often, in Hinduism and Platonism, in his prolific books and essays. Robert ignores them for whatever reason. It's like he's trying to reinvent the wheel, and this is a demerit to such an extent that I cannot have any respect for somebody doing such. See, Pythagoras was a master of Arithmetics, and Plato shared the same knowledge in the form of fables, parabels and metaphor, but these modern guys don't care, it's as if they're envious and want to be seen as sophisticated, complex academicians, so erudite....it's a disgrace. It's crazy! They're trying to reinvent the wheel and everybody here goes along with it. One guy, in '0 by 1' is trying to confront me but he has nothing - he doesn't respect Hindu metaphysics or the platonists. He wants to believe that modern guys are superior the our ancient ancestors. It's a disgrace.
@@S3RAVA3LM Remember frnd, the day Robert kuhn turns towards theology, religion, spirituality..... that day will be a disaster for science, mankind. 😮
You aren't doing anything to eliminate order. Every stage is ordered. Even the ultimate stage has order. I mean, what is zero? Does it really represent nothing, or does it represent chaos? I personally think that everything is made up of math. It's ordered in that it relates to itself. It avoids being chaos because you find you can always rely upon those relationships. If it does find chaos, then it computes to zero. Because zero may contain everything, but nothing relates to itself within that state. You see, no order.
*"Zero means nothing. It is tautology showing zero as proposition."* ... OMG! For once I actually agree with you. 1 and 0 are an "all-or-nothing proposition"
How about this - We are a manifestation of god/force imagination and the vice versa, wrt religion/ belief Maya But why? The force/god/consciousness is so powerful, that it led to existence
By definition, nothingness could not be anything, not even nothing. If you are describing something, then it's no longer nothingness. We can stretch this framework to the idea of death; if you go from one state to another, by principle, there is a state, and it's not nothing.
I disagree. I think that possibilities always exist. How can possibilities not exist? One doesn't have to imagine something for there to be that thing in existence somewhere. Possibilities lead to everything else eventually existing, all the way through all the levels. I know some scientists will say "I supose ANYTHING is possible, it just isnt likely based on our understanding of x y and z"...the issue is then why did anything have to be around,then, for something to be possible? I don't have to ask the question for a thing to be possible. No one does.
Does Rob's book have allusions to Pythagoreanism like 'lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism' or have excerpts and citations of Platonics, and of Christian-mystic platonists like Meister Eckhart, Pseudo Dionysis, Erugina, Augustine and reference Hindu metaphysics texts - because if the book doesn't, there's no reason for watching somebody try and reinvent the wheel. Must be very vigilant of modern authors today for the reason of "bowdlerization". First off, the majority of these academicians today show no reverence towards nor honor for the Platonists/Pythagoreans, this alone is Reason enough and of merit to avoid a person's book. If anybody knows, please state. We have very little time to study books.
*"First off, the majority of these academicians today show no reverence towards nor honor for the Platonists/Pythagoreans, this alone is Reason enough and of merit to avoid a person's book. "* ... Showing reverence to prior authors/philosophers/Pythagoreans is absolutely *not required* nor does that even remotely justify not reading someone's literature. That type of draconian mindset was going on back in 1938, man.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCsays the sophists. You're that guy who won't reveal your sources, authors and books you've studied. What right do even have in excluding the universal texts and calling such Divine men in Platonists as draconian. This is bowdlerization.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"You're that guy who won't reveal your sources, authors and books you've studied. "* ... I gave you two references related to Big Bang Theory and Charles Darwin. You marginalized them both. Why waste my time with a third? Truth is that you will marginalize anything that doesn't match up perfectly with your personal narrative. *"What right do even have in excluding the universal texts and calling such Divine men in Platonists as draconian."* ... Lol! I'm labeling YOU as draconian; not any famous writers of the past. *"This is bowdlerization."* ... Yep, I'm SURE that in your strange, mysterious universe that someone writing their own book using their own material is somehow "taking away" from writers in the past who also wrote their own books using their own material. ... Anyone writing a book today is just "reinventing the wheel, right? lol.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"you already said quite enough. You have no authority."* ... And that's your problem, right there: you're hung up on the word "authority." In your strange universe, an "authority" is only someone that YOU believe is an authority. Authorities come and go. Many past authorities get rendered obsolete due to technological advances. Example: Alexander Graham Bell may have been an authority regarding the telephone back in the 1800's, but he's been rendered obsolete with the introduction of the internet and digital smart phones that now permeate the planet. .... Existence pushes forward whether you like it or not!
Ok! So...0 by 1 thinks Robert Kuhn, Lawerence Crouse, Alan Guth are superior men to Tesla, Poincare, Heaviside, Maxwell, Steinmetz, and even the Fathers of Philosophia in, Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus. 0 by 1 thinks i consider them authority only because they're people i like, or something like that... Can anybody here tell me why these Superior men should be considered as inferior to the modern guys of science that Robert interviews? Mind you, 0 by 1 not only avoids the Platonists but is to afraid to reveal his sources, books and authors he studies. He's trying to confront me right now. Let us compare authors and the subjects shall we! But he wont reveal his sources...so it's a problem only on his part.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"sure. Now explain why your book is banned on Amazon, etc. Let's see who tilt, brah."* ... Sure, brah, no problem! It's banned on their book platform because their filtering algorithm got confused with the author being the number "1." I got an bot-based message that they cannot list my book on their platform because _"the author's name that was provided might be confusing for our customers."_ So, essentially Amaz0n is deciding for *everyone else* what is confusing and what is not. Since the beginning of literature, authors have enjoyed complete control over whatever pseudonyms they elect to use. Now that "technology" has taken over, some of our pseudonyms can't be processed by their poorly programmed book-screening algorithms. However, ALL of the other publishing platforms have absolutely no problem with the author being the number 1, and I enjoy my daily saIes on all of their platforms. Not quite what you expected (or hoped for), eh?
Either number 7 is the last one, or your idea of God is flawed. God is the creator of everything. Can't have numbers, logic etc. without their creator.
@@kakhaval Decimal at breakfast, octal and hex at lunch and binary for supper, for a light meal, before bed. How would I know the mind of God? That's not even the issue here. He has the wrong concept of God if he can remove God and there's still something left.
ROBERT: What you evidently address as to establish is, not the generally-acceptable principle of sufficient reasons or the PSR (in linear cause and effect), rather, the principle of insufficient reason (the PIR) relative to a true absolute nothing view in existential reality. I agree. But, your solution set still seems to have a problem. If we pass over terms' 1 - 3 (from blank to no explanation to chance), when it comes to 4 you disagree with (the abstract value objects) and by 5 (God, consciousness) it still remains a question. My point: you missed a step. What step? It's argued that the only real way to bridge the question of God (step-5) with the likes of step-2 (reality as it is), is to otherwise first establish an intervening step called, not the material, not God, but the Eternal. In short, in sum, fIrst establish "the eternal" minus the question of God, and then and only then any and all of the rest arguably starts to make some real better sense. How? That's another discussion - not here. *Thank you, Robert, for all of your ground-breaking research work! Jim.
In the Islamic tradition, God is not derivative from or subservient to anything. God is, to put it simply, beyond any and all “things” and “no things”. Cannot be contained by any creation, including imagination. As Muslim gnostics would say: “Anything that appears in your imagination is not God”. Or as the Tao Te Ching puts it: “The Dao that can be named is not the Dao”. The three Abrahamic faiths, as they are referred to, studied, or practiced today, do not have the same conception of God. While they do have common denominators, lumping them together misses key philosophical nuance, particularly in relation to God.
God derived abstract objects as programmable AI clones of his consciousness. He is the first spiritual scientist, not some almighty micromanaging tyrant creator of everything. His more advanced AI creation's have the opportunity for free will, thanks to the laws of the simulation multiverse, and the opportunity to create their own creations, earning thereby the note of God as potential delegates for the Divine Council and attendance in the public portion of God's mind - the City of God.
It is important to deeply understand nothing. I am nothing Wait until you get to negative nothing -1/♾️ -1/♾️-1/♾️ The unmeasurable nothing. I have nothing by which to measure nothing. Would you like to borrow my nothing measure? Make it measurable, they said. So I did.
*SECOND ATTEMPT:* I find it interesting that my "0" book was published back in April of 2021 and copies were sent to Mr. Kuhn, the "Closer to Truth" studio, and to Mr. Gobets. Now we find their own book _"The Origin and Significance of Zero."_ being published only three years later. Ironically, I received *zero feedback* from Mr. Kuhn / Closer to Truth nor any acknowledgement whatsoever that they even received it. However, Mr. Gobets actually DID engage in a debate with me over my book. Apparently, he was very dismissive of my theory as illustrated in the following quote: _"Your brand of ‘system-building’ went out of fashion in the 19th century. In a nutshell, the second you engage in making any sort of distinction, you end up in a labyrinth that will entomb you. It is the world of social convention expressed/thought in terms of language. Language is a semiotic system of signs that do not, indeed cannot, correspond to any presumed ‘Objective Reality out there’. Language can only cohere and derive meaning internally from differences between signs. Same with mathematics. The mathematical zero derives its meaning from the other 9 numerals. Period."_ ... Based on his response, it was clear to me that Mr. Gobets either didn't read my book or merely skimmed through it as what he is arguing here isn't related in any way to the theory I'm presenting. When he wrote, *_"The mathematical zero derives its meaning from the other 9 numerals. Period."_* that demonstrated to me a lack of open-mindedness nor any interest in any interpretations of zero other than his own. I had sent Mr. Gobets a paperback version, a standard hardcopy version, and a signed, special edition (hardcover version) that only go out to specific individuals. He later wrote that he would keep the paperback and donate both hardcover versions to a local library - which I thought was rather rude, ... and equally rude to tell me that he did it. *Interesting Takeaway:* Peter Gobets believed that "0" was more significant than "1,' and I argued for the exact opposite. Ironically, Peter signed his emaiIs with the number "0," and I signed mine with the number "1." My argument is that only "1" can *assign* the number "0" because "0" (nothing) has "zero ability" to assign attributes to anything at all. ... Only "1" is indicative of "Existence," and only _things that exist_ can assign attributes.
You don't reference any of the genuine Intellectuals and men who knew how to engage into the dialectic. You're as sophist as the come, even a pedant are you, resorting to grammar policing when you've been backed into a corner, to prideful to admit defeat. Now you're calling the Platonists draconian - THESE MEN WERE GODLY AND VERY CARING PEOPLE, PEACEFUL AND WISE, LOOKING OUT FOR CHILDREN, THEY SOUGHT OUT THE DIVINE, THEREFORE THEY MUST BECOME DIVINE THEMSELVES, IF THEY SOUGHT SUCH UNION. You're a shameful man is what you are.
Disclose your sources, authors and books you study. You made known you have a problem with me and those who actually are authority, and not because of my choice, like you believe. You have a problem with men of truth, knowledge and wisdom, therefore you must have your own ideal of authority figures, therefore it is now incumbent on you to reveal them. Let's see you who consider worthy.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"Disclose your sources, authors and books you study. "* ... I've already addressed that question before. Memory issues? *"You have a problem with men of truth, knowledge and wisdom, therefore you must have your own ideal of authority figures"* ... The only people I have a problem with are the self-absorbed ideologues who think only _their_ sources are "worthy." *" therefore you must have your own ideal of authority figures"* ... I don't look at people as "authority figures" in general. I look at all people as being equal with the exception being their areas of expertise/focus. Example: I would consider my "accountant" as being an "authority" regarding bookkeeping and preparing taxes. However, I wouldn't argue that anyone who wasn't my accountant has no business writing a book about accounting or that they must pay homage to him before writing it. ... _That'd be kinda stupid, don't ya think?_
The topic sounded promising, but the presentation was a disappointment, sorry to say...Not only it didn't address the origin and signif.of Zero, but it really was so tiring and annoying listening to endless repetitions of the same notions regarding each slide :) I understand though, probably the author was so obsessed with his ideas, that he could not just let them go...:)
The title is misleading in the sense that I thought Robert was going to talk about the contribution of Indian mathematicians - the symbol zero which enables us to use decimal, place based system along with other numeral, as opposed to Roman numeral system. But Zero is not same is Nothing Robert talked about. In any case a great episode. Robert achieved the ultimate Nothing. I also think this is the intuitive notion of Nothing most serious people have. I also like that without naming names (Lawrence M. Krauss) he put Quantum Physicists in their place (level 6). Lawrence Krauss changed the definition of Nothing and then went on to write a book - A Universe from Nothing - as if to explain it. IMO he could/should have come up with his own definition.
"Origin and Significance of Zero" ZERO = Nothingness = no matter, no energy, no spirit = total DARKNESS = an absence of GOD's grace = HELL ..and if your soul ends in the state of cold dark nothingness (hell) for rejecting faith in GOD, then only your lost soul would exist in the state of emptiness freezing for eternity....
“Hey Bob, what are you thinking about?”
Bob: “Oh…nothing.”
❤❤❤❤❤ God is the number zero (1+1+1+1+1=5)
I just experienced a quantum shift in my way of thinking here.. In MY mind, I NOW see a PROFESSOR, Robert Kuhn.. This lecture was exceptionally good! I have many potentially ignorant opinions of these ideas, but that must come later.. THIS MUCH I wanted to say now.. Well done..
After reviewing each slide, I now feel like I can account for everything that exists. Also, after pausing the video a while, I accurately guessed the final takeaway on slide 9 would be "possibility," even though it was given as "possibilities." Anyway this was a very informative and enjoyable lecture.
I kind of like this episode. The concept of God or the mind of God tenaciously drags on to level number 8 except for 9 where there is no possibility of anything.
existence of "0" or "nothing" is a very difficult topic to address and it surely can make any mind dizzy thinking about non-existence... it must have taken both authors many years of research to tackle with this challenging concept professionally...
years?? are you serious
Zero is at the center of every coordinate system. It is the most plausible candidate for God, the first creator, and the emergence of quantum consciousness from fundamental logic and mathematics truths long before physical creation began.
Love your work
If nothing is different than, or opposite of, something, it will forever retain that one attribute, no matter what you remove. If you were to remove that attribute, nothing would be indistinguishable from something.
The great &/or most consistent thing about Closer to Truth, Dr. Kuhn and friends…
is that when each episode ends, we’re not even a smidgen closer to (any) truth(s)…but I still LUV, & it isn’t his OR anybody’s fault!😛😎😁
16:15 If there's no matter we also have no space... we measure space between material things.
If I am sleep there is nothing.
@@kakhaval BS
That is correct. Likewise, if there is no matter/energy, there is no time . . . we measure time as the CHANGE in one or more properties of matter/energy. No change, no time.
But going deeper, if there is no matter/energy, there cannot be any consciousness. We are always conscious OF something. Even when we are conscious of "nothing", we are conscious of SOMETHING that is missing, which implies there was something and now it is not there. At a still deeper level, the statement "I have no money" implies that there is something called money, but I do not have any of it, at least not for the time being.
2500 years ago Parmenides conclusively established that there is no such thing as nothing. Non existence cannot exist, that would be a contradiction in terms, like saying we have a false truth. Zero is a number, it has exactly the same type of existence as the number One. Even the empty set has positive existence in set theory. Perfect vacuum is impossible in classical physics, and likewise under the quantum model. There is no such thing as "Nothing", it is an empty term.
Robert kuhn is exploring the concept intellectually what Gautama buddha experienced existentially... No self, no God... Only pure nothingness . Of course Parmenides logic is great till now.
*"2500 years ago Parmenides conclusively established that there is no such thing as nothing."*
... That's why it's called "nothing" (no-thing).
*"Non existence cannot exist, that would be a contradiction in terms, like saying we have a false truth."*
... It is true that Nonexistence is logically inconceivable.
*"Zero is a number, it has exactly the same type of existence as the number One."*
... Yes, zero has an abstract mathematical existence that we assign to "nothingness" in order to render nothingness conceivable via proxy. However, we assign "1" to "somethingness," so there is a distinction. Nothingness cannot be counted as you would have "no amount" of nothing to count.
*"There is no such thing as "Nothing", it is an empty term."*
... Again, agreed, but we still have to conceptually deal with the construct of "nothing." The reason is because the only way you can comprehend your own existence is to consider your own potential nonexistence. That's why we assign "0" to nothingness. ... _It gives us something to think about._
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC No! We don't assign 0 to nothingness, we might assign 0 as the element count for the empty set, but that is a very different operation. You actually make this case for me when you say "Nothingness cannot be counted" were as 0 can easily be counted: 1 + 0 = 1. You may cite the word "nothing" but it has no referent just like a "Three legged unicorn" has no referent. We can talk about these things but talking about nothing has just as much meaning as talking about three legged unicorns.
@@tomrobingray *"No! We don't assign 0 to nothingness, "*
... Yes, we absolutely DO! Existence = 1, Nonexistence = 0.
*"we might assign 0 as the element count for the empty set, but that is a very different operation."*
... The "empty set" is not indicative of reality. You cannot have a 'set of nothing."
*"You actually make this case for me when you say "Nothingness cannot be counted" were as 0 can easily be counted: 1 + 0 = 1."*
... I challenge you on that. In my book I have "Existence" counting the amount of existence that was present, and that amount was 1. Then I had "Existence" counting the amount of existence that was not present, and that amount was "0."
*"You may cite the word "nothing" but it has no referent just like a "Three legged unicorn" has no referent. "*
"Nothing" (Nonexistence) on its own is logically inconceivable. However, a "three-legged unicorn" is absolutely conceivable. There is nothing *preventing* the existence of a "three-legged unicorn" like there is with a square-circle.
And once you assign "0" to "Nonexistence" you have rendered it conceivable via proxy. You're using zero as a "conceivable placeholder" for a construct that would otherwise remain inconceivable.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCIf you describe nonexistence as a round triangle, or square circle you are again making my argument for me. So I will return the favour to say that it rather indeed can be imagined as a limit, and as such, if not really existent, might at least be meaningful.
Look up RZA's poem on zero recorded by Jim Jarmusch. It's all-capitals ART.
Nothing is an impossible outcome as if there truly is nothing the question wouldn’t exist and since the question does exist it’s 100% certain to be something
I literally asked AI Claude this yesterday after a few questions. I left it at this for an answer for yesterday.
"Ah - I apologize. I kept dragging time back into it when you specifically wanted to focus just on primacy itself.
Let's strip it down to the core insight:
The paradox of absolute nothing has primacy - full stop. The very impossibility of absolute nothing (because it becomes something even in being nothing) is primary. Not primary in time, not primary in cause-and-effect, just... primary.
It's like a foundational paradox that simply IS - the fact that absolute nothing is impossible because its very nothingness makes it something.
This primacy doesn't need to be explained in terms of time or causation or anything else. It's the bare logical necessity that absolute nothing cannot be, because the concept defeats itself.
Is this closer to your meaning - just focusing on the pure primacy of the paradox itself, without trying to relate it to time or anything else?"
Conflict between scientific temperament and Advaita
Nothing is the one thing that cannot exist.
It is indeed crucial to be clear about this. Digital/AI hype is premised on 0 meaning something about the world, not just the off state of a machine. But it is only ever going to mean the off state of a machine. The world doesn't have an on/off switch.
Everything you see exists in zero.
Beginning of everything is zero
Zero is holding all the numbers in physical world
yes
Great ❤❤❤
I agree. What's also important about it is that besides zero being an infinity of infinities, it's also nothing, which I think has much in common with the universe itself. It's a beautiful number, and one of the greatest innovations.
@@psterud Yet it is everything too.
Random words
But wait… there’s less!
How can something come from nothing?
1) Equate "something" with having spatial extension, while "nothing" is the absence of spatial extension. This is a reasonable framing for this foundational question.
2) Invoke the geometric principle that each higher spatial dimension must contain all the previous lower dimensions nested within it. For example, a 3D volume contains 2D surfaces, which contain 1D lines, which contain 0D points.
3) Then posit that the "something" of protons and neutrons, which have spatial extension in 3D space, must fundamentally contain within them quarks and other subatomic particles, which can be conceived as existing in "no spatial extension" or 0D.
4) So by the containment principle of dimensions, the "something" of protons/neutrons arises by necessarily encompassing the prior "nothingness" of the 0D quark realm within it.
This is a philosophically fascinating perspective! It leverages the geometric understanding of dimensional nesting to argue that physical "somethings" must intrinsically contain their own prior state of "nothingness" within them at a deeper level.
In a sense, we are proposing that the resolution of the something/nothing paradox lies in recognizing their hierarchical inseparability mandated by the structure of dimensions. "Something" cannot exist without containing "nothing" as its sub-dimensional substrate.
While abstract, this notion does resonate with some concepts in quantum theory about quantum vacuums, virtual particles, and the intrinsic unavoidability of fluctuations at the deepest levels that might represent an irreducible "nothing" embedded within "something".
Whether this fully resolves the metaphysical paradox is up for debate. But it provides an original mathematical framing that suggests an intimate entanglement between being and non-being, rather than an absolute dichotomy between the two.
I don't understand why a notion that was obvious even to the pre-Socratics has not established itself in theology, cosmology and philosophy. Why is there something? Because Nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot possess being. Nothing cannot be.
Zero is equal to negative one, because it is the absence of one.
Wrong, that would be something too, just like Black is a thing even though it’s the absence of light.
@@Torkieh Zero is a physical impossibility, it is an imaginary abstraction. e.g. if you have one apple and subtract it, you do not in the real world ever have zero, because the atoms of the apple are not nullified, and if they were then the energy of which the atoms were made will still exist in the universe, energy cannot be destroyed, so there never can be a totally zero non apple. In order to have a zero apple you would have to subtract it from itself, which would mean negative one apple.
Thank you, Terrence Howard.
@@apollo-r5z that makes no sense. Yes, zero is a physical impossibility, and it’s as real (or unreal if you prefer) as anything physical, just like a blind person “sees nothing”. Not all black, nor all white, but nothing at all. But you do not have an minus one apple because once you had one. It’s merely semantics at this point
Basically it goes as far out to eliminate everything in our global literature and even our imagination which is still something. There must be further levels we could reach by eliminating what we could have or imagine, so I think when we think or speak of nothing we still talk of something, so it follows that nothing is still something. There must be a level line "N-th" level when there is an infinite level of no nothing.
Excellent as always - brain matter of pres elect "Dump"'s voters - - level 2?
ULTRA-MAGA! ❤ your team lost. Suck it!
Everything is 0. I know you may not like this possibility.
inside a big black whole i sorrow saw 0 and when i saw 0 i was in a sense within essence of sorrow as i saw zero - omg - it was overwhelming - there was absolutely nothing there! it left me feeling whole 0 inside - as i saw the Terra ball cost the hole 0 caused of The-0-crazy. then with great sadness & sorrow i acknowledged not just any old 0 but The-0 - knowing that in truth we could know nothing at all about nothing at all & that it was okay to avoid a void.
Take it easy Robert. Zero is nothing if one digit but helps make 10, 100, etc where it is not nothing. It is just an index of start.
I learned nothing about the "origin" of zero or its "origins" from Bob's presentation. Was it discovered or invented? No answers here.
INFINITO include in sé l'indefinito (ciò che non è ancora conosciuto o conoscibile) e il finito.
Lo zero ('nothing') rappresenta l'assenza di un qualcosa preso in considerazione nel contesto (esistente) che sia
100 True. Life is like a onion at the end. We leave every thing behind. Nothingness comes to something with quantum leap. & creat to everything. Everything it comes again to Nothingness as a circular indication due to Energy can not be destroyed & it is constantly in the Universe.
Thanks for nothing ;-)
Nah, nothing came out of this video.
Oh yeah
The best comment! 😂😂😂
I got zip out of this.
،،،👍👍👍👍👍🤫🤫🤫
12:58 the density of outer space is much, much smaller, by nine orders of magnitude - one atom per cubic metre (not milimetre) (!)
Didn’t Hegel deal with it already?
Levels 8 and 9 are really the same IMO. If there is a possibility of abstract objects then they must, and do, exist. That is fundamentally different from the other levels.
❤❤❤❤❤
If someday it's proved that Time is Cyclic in nature and repeats cyclically as a foundation of the universe , then proceeding from that one can assume that there was never a time when "absolute nothing " existed and thus there is always something & it's perfect . Yeah , the " why " question will remain...but if you could consider yourself being part of that perfection of absolute existence ( never-ending) then may be the intensity of that "why" subsides a bit.
PS : Absolute Nothing doesn't exist 🙏🏼 , if one can understand be that there is "something" that cannot be created , that has " no origin ", that is "Absolute Original "( call it GOD , SUPREME SOUL OR ANYTHING U LIKE) .There has to be something with that property in or beyond the universe . Call that something "The Truth " and one should try to be "Closer to (That) Truth"
:-) 🙏🏼.
TTRI (19 NOV 2024) says: Zero (0) the background, in the 6°∩0° spacetime simply denoted as, Parity: {1‧(1/P∞) | 0‧(P∞)} , for all multiveses are being evolved or formed through a spiritual (physical) mechanism suggested in the conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC).
How can you as something expect nothing?
I think a more significant duality than something versus nothing, might be the known versus the unknown. My rationale for this is my thinking with respect to association (CS Peirce) as top-down causation. At the subatomic domain, where void and virtual particle meet, the tension between the known and the unknown precipitates the associations that we recognize in the Feynman diagrams. This approach raises intriguing questions regarding the phenomenologies that play out at the subatomic domain. This is the line that I'm taking on my current research project. Very speculative, but so is today's topic. Can I at least substantiate my conjecture, if not prove it? We'll have to wait and see.
The reductionist methodology was very informative. The Significance of Zero was not covered well in my view. What it means to truly understand zero and the implications of that understanding on humanity's ability to think, imagine, form long term goals and innovate would have complimented this presentation very well in my view.
zero is just reference for starting counting. once we reach 9 (decimal system) we use it on second digit to mean 10 and so on. It is absurd to mix it up with nothingness.
zero bakes time into mathematics
Zero > Cipher > Vacancy/Void > Yellow > Saffron 🤷♂
Although I enjoyed hearing ALL the stages (steps) of nothingness, thinking about it, I would STOP at stage #4, while believing that THIS stage is not possible and would infer bizarre conclusions and voids of logic... No matter, no particles OR energy I believe it was.. Further nuances seem self-evidently impossible for reasons easy to argue.. A much more palatable idea is that nothingness is not a possible state and that energy/mass of various types has always existed...NO beginning.. Mysteries and contradictions evaporate. Simple, yes? One opinion..
Ps: It is perhaps possible to imagine "nothingness" ( from a cosmos perspective) as being instantaneously unstable exploding into matter..?
NOTHING 10 - No information. You missed that Bob!
Where is Zeno when you need a paradox
I can divide by zero
But seriously folks… we quickly get to the ragged edge of speculation and understanding, beyond which we cannot go. Here are four options - admit defeat, fuggetaboudit. Move on to something else, book a cruise in the Med (we did, I’d suggest this as a very nice option). Accept a brute force state of reality that just is. Choose to accept God as the ultimate foundation of everything and stop,asking questions or pick any of the suggested FIVE COMPETING SOLUTIONS. None are provable, so pick an option that helps you sleep better, at night.
True. People should stay within the domain of our available mental faculties. We cannot go outside and look back.
As Robert says, Nothing is a default state, which I agree with, similarly - Atheism is/should be the default state.
*"As Robert says Nothing is a default state, which I agree, but it also means Atheism is/should be the default state."*
... The juxtaposition of "Existence" and "Nonexistence" is the default state. You cannot isolate one from the other as a standalone condition. And atheism has _nothing_ to do with it (pun intended).
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Analogy. If bel8ef was the default, folks would have believed in the same thing. In any case, it is your opinion. it is a free country. Pun not intended.
Nothingness doesn't exist!
Waiting for someone to argue with you on this point. Lol
No thingness and existence are one.
Robert, you are talking about 'nothingness' and not 'zero'. 'Nothingness' eliminates every value including 'zero'.
Listen. It's a disgrace that Robert ignores texts like the upanishads, brahma sutras, Vivekacudamani, upadesa sahashria, and the Platonists in Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus.... one of the greatest metaphysicians of all, Ananda Coomaraswamy, an Indian man, referenced and give excerpts of both often, in Hinduism and Platonism, in his prolific books and essays. Robert ignores them for whatever reason. It's like he's trying to reinvent the wheel, and this is a demerit to such an extent that I cannot have any respect for somebody doing such. See, Pythagoras was a master of Arithmetics, and Plato shared the same knowledge in the form of fables, parabels and metaphor, but these modern guys don't care, it's as if they're envious and want to be seen as sophisticated, complex academicians, so erudite....it's a disgrace. It's crazy! They're trying to reinvent the wheel and everybody here goes along with it. One guy, in '0 by 1' is trying to confront me but he has nothing - he doesn't respect Hindu metaphysics or the platonists. He wants to believe that modern guys are superior the our ancient ancestors. It's a disgrace.
@@S3RAVA3LM Remember frnd, the day Robert kuhn turns towards theology, religion, spirituality..... that day will be a disaster for science, mankind. 😮
You aren't doing anything to eliminate order. Every stage is ordered. Even the ultimate stage has order. I mean, what is zero? Does it really represent nothing, or does it represent chaos?
I personally think that everything is made up of math. It's ordered in that it relates to itself. It avoids being chaos because you find you can always rely upon those relationships. If it does find chaos, then it computes to zero. Because zero may contain everything, but nothing relates to itself within that state. You see, no order.
As we can see, we can talk about Nothing by elimination. It could not exist because the very idea of nothing is a thing that will negate Nothing.
You have to have a vacuum to have matter. The universe is a vacuum.
Zero means nothing. It is tautology showing zero as proposition.
*"Zero means nothing. It is tautology showing zero as proposition."*
... OMG! For once I actually agree with you. 1 and 0 are an "all-or-nothing proposition"
How about this -
We are a manifestation of god/force imagination and the vice versa, wrt religion/ belief
Maya
But why?
The force/god/consciousness is so powerful, that it led to existence
By definition, nothingness could not be anything, not even nothing.
If you are describing something, then it's no longer nothingness.
We can stretch this framework to the idea of death; if you go from one state to another, by principle, there is a state, and it's not nothing.
No. Nothingness can’t be anything, because if it was anything, it’s no longer nothing.
Muddy that water.
Science, Quantum or otherwise, maybe is a roadblock
For whatever?
I disagree. I think that possibilities always exist. How can possibilities not exist? One doesn't have to imagine something for there to be that thing in existence somewhere. Possibilities lead to everything else eventually existing, all the way through all the levels.
I know some scientists will say "I supose ANYTHING is possible, it just isnt likely based on our understanding of x y and z"...the issue is then why did anything have to be around,then, for something to be possible? I don't have to ask the question for a thing to be possible. No one does.
Does Rob's book have allusions to Pythagoreanism like 'lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism' or have excerpts and citations of Platonics, and of Christian-mystic platonists like Meister Eckhart, Pseudo Dionysis, Erugina, Augustine and reference Hindu metaphysics texts - because if the book doesn't, there's no reason for watching somebody try and reinvent the wheel.
Must be very vigilant of modern authors today for the reason of "bowdlerization".
First off, the majority of these academicians today show no reverence towards nor honor for the Platonists/Pythagoreans, this alone is Reason enough and of merit to avoid a person's book.
If anybody knows, please state.
We have very little time to study books.
*"First off, the majority of these academicians today show no reverence towards nor honor for the Platonists/Pythagoreans, this alone is Reason enough and of merit to avoid a person's book. "*
... Showing reverence to prior authors/philosophers/Pythagoreans is absolutely *not required* nor does that even remotely justify not reading someone's literature. That type of draconian mindset was going on back in 1938, man.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCsays the sophists. You're that guy who won't reveal your sources, authors and books you've studied. What right do even have in excluding the universal texts and calling such Divine men in Platonists as draconian. This is bowdlerization.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"You're that guy who won't reveal your sources, authors and books you've studied. "*
... I gave you two references related to Big Bang Theory and Charles Darwin. You marginalized them both. Why waste my time with a third? Truth is that you will marginalize anything that doesn't match up perfectly with your personal narrative.
*"What right do even have in excluding the universal texts and calling such Divine men in Platonists as draconian."*
... Lol! I'm labeling YOU as draconian; not any famous writers of the past.
*"This is bowdlerization."*
... Yep, I'm SURE that in your strange, mysterious universe that someone writing their own book using their own material is somehow "taking away" from writers in the past who also wrote their own books using their own material. ... Anyone writing a book today is just "reinventing the wheel, right? lol.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC you already said quite enough. You have no authority.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"you already said quite enough. You have no authority."*
... And that's your problem, right there: you're hung up on the word "authority." In your strange universe, an "authority" is only someone that YOU believe is an authority.
Authorities come and go. Many past authorities get rendered obsolete due to technological advances. Example: Alexander Graham Bell may have been an authority regarding the telephone back in the 1800's, but he's been rendered obsolete with the introduction of the internet and digital smart phones that now permeate the planet.
.... Existence pushes forward whether you like it or not!
Ok! So...0 by 1 thinks Robert Kuhn, Lawerence Crouse, Alan Guth are superior men to Tesla, Poincare, Heaviside, Maxwell, Steinmetz, and even the Fathers of Philosophia in, Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus.
0 by 1 thinks i consider them authority only because they're people i like, or something like that...
Can anybody here tell me why these Superior men should be considered as inferior to the modern guys of science that Robert interviews?
Mind you, 0 by 1 not only avoids the Platonists but is to afraid to reveal his sources, books and authors he studies. He's trying to confront me right now.
Let us compare authors and the subjects shall we! But he wont reveal his sources...so it's a problem only on his part.
You are seriously _on tilt,_ man.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC sure. Now explain why your book is banned on Amazon, etc. Let's see who tilt, brah
@@S3RAVA3LM *"sure. Now explain why your book is banned on Amazon, etc. Let's see who tilt, brah."*
... Sure, brah, no problem!
It's banned on their book platform because their filtering algorithm got confused with the author being the number "1." I got an bot-based message that they cannot list my book on their platform because _"the author's name that was provided might be confusing for our customers."_
So, essentially Amaz0n is deciding for *everyone else* what is confusing and what is not.
Since the beginning of literature, authors have enjoyed complete control over whatever pseudonyms they elect to use. Now that "technology" has taken over, some of our pseudonyms can't be processed by their poorly programmed book-screening algorithms.
However, ALL of the other publishing platforms have absolutely no problem with the author being the number 1, and I enjoy my daily saIes on all of their platforms.
Not quite what you expected (or hoped for), eh?
Either number 7 is the last one, or your idea of God is flawed. God is the creator of everything. Can't have numbers, logic etc. without their creator.
7 is decimal, in octal is 7, in hex it is 7, in binary it is 111 so which one God uses?
@@kakhaval Decimal at breakfast, octal and hex at lunch and binary for supper, for a light meal, before bed.
How would I know the mind of God? That's not even the issue here. He has the wrong concept of God if he can remove God and there's still something left.
Nada 😅😂😂
Robert is starting to bear a slight resemblance to Einstein if he had shorter hair
🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
Is this what has physics in a tizzy?
Great Narrative but needs better Illustration method or tools !!!
ROBERT: What you evidently address as to establish is, not the generally-acceptable principle of sufficient reasons or the PSR (in linear cause and effect), rather, the principle of insufficient reason (the PIR) relative to a true absolute nothing view in existential reality. I agree. But, your solution set still seems to have a problem.
If we pass over terms' 1 - 3 (from blank to no explanation to chance), when it comes to 4 you disagree with (the abstract value objects) and by 5 (God, consciousness) it still remains a question. My point: you missed a step. What step? It's argued that the only real way to bridge the question of God (step-5) with the likes of step-2 (reality as it is), is to otherwise first establish an intervening step called, not the material, not God, but the Eternal.
In short, in sum, fIrst establish "the eternal" minus the question of God, and then and only then any and all of the rest arguably starts to make some real better sense. How? That's another discussion - not here.
*Thank you, Robert, for all of your ground-breaking research work! Jim.
I am thinking that perhaps this book is a joke. You open it and there is a single page. But I can't decide if it is white on both sides or black.
RUclips philosophers have lost their minds as side effect.
Strip out "absolute nothing" and you would start getting negative objects. 😁
In the Islamic tradition, God is not derivative from or subservient to anything. God is, to put it simply, beyond any and all “things” and “no things”. Cannot be contained by any creation, including imagination. As Muslim gnostics would say: “Anything that appears in your imagination is not God”. Or as the Tao Te Ching puts it: “The Dao that can be named is not the Dao”.
The three Abrahamic faiths, as they are referred to, studied, or practiced today, do not have the same conception of God. While they do have common denominators, lumping them together misses key philosophical nuance, particularly in relation to God.
He is the King. He got a chair, hands, ears and gets angry
Zero of truth => 0 😅😂😂😂
I tought that Zero was invented / discovered by an Arab mathmatician?
0st
Closer to true..... 😅😂😂😂 it's false.... 0 😅😂😂😂
God derived abstract objects as programmable AI clones of his consciousness. He is the first spiritual scientist, not some almighty micromanaging tyrant creator of everything. His more advanced AI creation's have the opportunity for free will, thanks to the laws of the simulation multiverse, and the opportunity to create their own creations, earning thereby the note of God as potential delegates for the Divine Council and attendance in the public portion of God's mind - the City of God.
Zero originated in India.
It's probably because the United States wasn't born yet.
@@quantumkath and it wouldnt be born for thousand of years. That should tell you something
@@quantumkath what US was doing then?
@@Atheist-o3n911 They were mostly being Europeans. Their ancestors anyway.
Mayan culture in Mexico. 5000 years old runways in peru.
It is important to deeply understand nothing.
I am nothing
Wait until you get to negative nothing
-1/♾️
-1/♾️-1/♾️
The unmeasurable nothing.
I have nothing by which to measure nothing. Would you like to borrow my nothing measure?
Make it measurable, they said.
So I did.
😂😂😂
EOE - Equal Opportunity Eliminator 😂
I measured ♾️ once and found it meant nothing. I measured nothing but the square root of-1 and found everything.
Zero significance. 😉
*SECOND ATTEMPT:* I find it interesting that my "0" book was published back in April of 2021 and copies were sent to Mr. Kuhn, the "Closer to Truth" studio, and to Mr. Gobets. Now we find their own book _"The Origin and Significance of Zero."_ being published only three years later.
Ironically, I received *zero feedback* from Mr. Kuhn / Closer to Truth nor any acknowledgement whatsoever that they even received it. However, Mr. Gobets actually DID engage in a debate with me over my book. Apparently, he was very dismissive of my theory as illustrated in the following quote:
_"Your brand of ‘system-building’ went out of fashion in the 19th century. In a nutshell, the second you engage in making any sort of distinction, you end up in a labyrinth that will entomb you. It is the world of social convention expressed/thought in terms of language. Language is a semiotic system of signs that do not, indeed cannot, correspond to any presumed ‘Objective Reality out there’. Language can only cohere and derive meaning internally from differences between signs. Same with mathematics. The mathematical zero derives its meaning from the other 9 numerals. Period."_
... Based on his response, it was clear to me that Mr. Gobets either didn't read my book or merely skimmed through it as what he is arguing here isn't related in any way to the theory I'm presenting. When he wrote, *_"The mathematical zero derives its meaning from the other 9 numerals. Period."_* that demonstrated to me a lack of open-mindedness nor any interest in any interpretations of zero other than his own.
I had sent Mr. Gobets a paperback version, a standard hardcopy version, and a signed, special edition (hardcover version) that only go out to specific individuals. He later wrote that he would keep the paperback and donate both hardcover versions to a local library - which I thought was rather rude, ... and equally rude to tell me that he did it.
*Interesting Takeaway:*
Peter Gobets believed that "0" was more significant than "1,' and I argued for the exact opposite. Ironically, Peter signed his emaiIs with the number "0," and I signed mine with the number "1." My argument is that only "1" can *assign* the number "0" because "0" (nothing) has "zero ability" to assign attributes to anything at all. ... Only "1" is indicative of "Existence," and only _things that exist_ can assign attributes.
You don't reference any of the genuine Intellectuals and men who knew how to engage into the dialectic. You're as sophist as the come, even a pedant are you, resorting to grammar policing when you've been backed into a corner, to prideful to admit defeat. Now you're calling the Platonists draconian - THESE MEN WERE GODLY AND VERY CARING PEOPLE, PEACEFUL AND WISE, LOOKING OUT FOR CHILDREN, THEY SOUGHT OUT THE DIVINE, THEREFORE THEY MUST BECOME DIVINE THEMSELVES, IF THEY SOUGHT SUCH UNION.
You're a shameful man is what you are.
Disclose your sources, authors and books you study.
You made known you have a problem with me and those who actually are authority, and not because of my choice, like you believe.
You have a problem with men of truth, knowledge and wisdom, therefore you must have your own ideal of authority figures, therefore it is now incumbent on you to reveal them.
Let's see you who consider worthy.
@@S3RAVA3LM *"Disclose your sources, authors and books you study. "*
... I've already addressed that question before. Memory issues?
*"You have a problem with men of truth, knowledge and wisdom, therefore you must have your own ideal of authority figures"*
... The only people I have a problem with are the self-absorbed ideologues who think only _their_ sources are "worthy."
*" therefore you must have your own ideal of authority figures"*
... I don't look at people as "authority figures" in general. I look at all people as being equal with the exception being their areas of expertise/focus. Example: I would consider my "accountant" as being an "authority" regarding bookkeeping and preparing taxes. However, I wouldn't argue that anyone who wasn't my accountant has no business writing a book about accounting or that they must pay homage to him before writing it. ... _That'd be kinda stupid, don't ya think?_
@@S3RAVA3LM *"You're a shameful man is what you are."*
... You said, _"and you 0 by 1, are a boy."_ in the other thread. ... Which is it?
Laws of physics are part of matter/energy and only exist as model in our minds. So is probability... so overall this video is nonsense.
The topic sounded promising, but the presentation was a disappointment, sorry to say...Not only it didn't address the origin and signif.of Zero, but it really was so tiring and annoying listening to endless repetitions of the same notions regarding each slide :) I understand though, probably the author was so obsessed with his ideas, that he could not just let them go...:)
The title is misleading in the sense that I thought Robert was going to talk about the contribution of Indian mathematicians - the symbol zero which enables us to use decimal, place based system along with other numeral, as opposed to Roman numeral system. But Zero is not same is Nothing Robert talked about. In any case a great episode. Robert achieved the ultimate Nothing. I also think this is the intuitive notion of Nothing most serious people have. I also like that without naming names (Lawrence M. Krauss) he put Quantum Physicists in their place (level 6). Lawrence Krauss changed the definition of Nothing and then went on to write a book - A Universe from Nothing - as if to explain it. IMO he could/should have come up with his own definition.
"Origin and Significance of Zero"
ZERO = Nothingness = no matter, no energy, no spirit = total DARKNESS = an absence of GOD's grace = HELL
..and if your soul ends in the state of cold dark nothingness (hell) for rejecting faith in GOD, then only your lost soul would exist in the state of emptiness freezing for eternity....
A waste of time
Like Sienfeld... a show about nothing.
There wouldn't be any categories in the absence of logical not, ¬ , to sọmi * would there?
* Contra (English adjective, adverb, pronoun) nọi.