Re: Assigning number values to none existent things
Posted: August 27th, 2022, 8:40 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 27th, 2022, 8:23 amThank you for the helpful information,Whitedragon wrote: ↑August 26th, 2022, 6:59 am If we take a notion of something that doesn't exist, example, no matter or energy might have existed in zero-t conditions, can we say that the E =mc^2 is zero for E and m, or are we prohibited from assigning a number value to something that doesn't exist, and what would this mean for c?
We say that t is zero in zero t. By this argument, does it mean time exists, but just has a different property? If time does not exist, how can we assign a value to it, since the enigma of zero hasn't quite been solved.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 26th, 2022, 11:22 am To assign a number value, we must first have something to assign it to. If the thing we try to assign it to if non-existent, the assignment will fail. Non-existent things don't exist, and so their attributes cannot exist as they can't have any. And so on.
As for E = mc^2, if m is zero, E is zero, and this says nothing at all about c, one way or the other. If time is stopped (as opposed to 'stuck' at zero), then there can be no velocity, and c is meaningless.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "zero-t".Whitedragon wrote: ↑August 26th, 2022, 11:36 am By zero-t I refer to the cosmological notion as "before" the big bang. What can we expect in how c will behave in zero-t? if there is no matter or energy as well as no space, would c not be different in that it is not hampered to a finite value in the absence of E and m?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 26th, 2022, 12:57 pm If there is no matter or energy as well as no space, then c is meaningless. Without 'space', there is no physical volume, so there can be no movement (velocity) within that non-existent 'space', so c is undefined.
If zero-t is 'before time', then all bets are off. What would that even mean?Whitedragon wrote: ↑August 26th, 2022, 1:19 pm I guess the next logical question is, was there something other than E and m in zero-t? We stated that non-existence cannot have number values assigned. So if we assign zero to t, c, m, and E, that means we're dealing with existential physics, denoting existance pardoxes in that zero means these elements must exist since we've assigned values to them, albeit in different states or essence.Einsteinian physics prefers to look at things in the universe as spacetime entities. I.e. they have three physical dimensions — length, breadth, and height — and one time dimension. Your "zero-t" thought-experiment removes the time dimension entirely; time is non-existent.
Lastly, would abstract objects and possibility spaces exist in zero-t? If so, is consciousness also an abstract object or relating to abstract objects? Can existence in itself be an abstract object.
So the three physical dimensions might still exist (?), but the lack of time causes some significant changes in the way our imagined universe works. Because there cannot be a sequence of events of any sort — there is no time to separate the events — all events will happen simultaneously, or they won't happen at all. Or am I stopping too soon in this chain of reasoning? Can an 'event' actually 'happen' in a timeless universe? After all, an 'event' conventionally occurs at a fixed and given point in time?
This universe is static. There can be no change, no dynamic process of any sort. Whatever state this universe is created in, is retained. I wanted to say "retained forever", but of course that would be meaningless, as "forever" is a direct reference to time, which doesn't exist here. As I said: "significant changes".
You ask if there could be "something other than" E and m in zero-t? What sort of 'something' do you think there might/could be? Energy and mass have no time component, so they can presumably exist in this strange pretend-universe. The physical dimensions still seem to exist, we imagine. So are you wondering about something physical, that might exist alongside E and m, or something else?
Finally, you refer to paradoxes, but I think a better description might be "errors". The contradictions you note might well be consequences of an initial assumption that was badly mistaken, and not a paradox at all.
Can we consider zero-t as an empty set?