Can you completely destory one of the three dimensions of breadth,lenght and depth?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by river, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    Is there a value of -1 K ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I deliberately left that one out. It's a special case because the real-world value is impossible.

    That doesn't change the fact that 0 Celsius and 32 Fahrenheit are exactly the same thing. So how can you claim that 0 has no value?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,927
    Wrong comparison I think

    0°C and 32°F just are what IT is regardless of ANY value or name given

    They are exactly the same even on worlds without humans

    Attaching a value name to IT does not alter the fundemental ITNESS of IT

    The only reason anything has a name is for humans to communicate the information they are discussing is the same SOMETHING

    ANYTHING and EVERYTHING do not have a fundementals NAMES or VALUES

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    0 = 32 ? That is a relative measurement between different sets of temperature measurements.

    It is only if you place the zero in a series of + and - values, that it gives a demarcation point in a set of numbers where positive values change to negative values. It is purely a relative number, with no value in and of itself. It is useful!, but it has no value in and of itself in reality. In the measurement of temperature it is a fundamental condition which cannot be reduced. Zero K is a number which indicate the absence of a lesser value, regardless if you measure it in C or F.
    There is no temperature less than - 273.15 C (0 K), the temperature of nothingness.

    That's why zero degrees Kelvin is called absolute. There is (to our knowledge) no value lower than o K.
    That makes it a starting point of a number series which might be called the dimension of temperature, which can only change to the positive side. + 1 K is warmer that 0 K.

    Relatively, -272.15 C = 1 K , which indicates a degree of warmth, not cold. But that's why we have to qualify the relative number set used.

    0 K is the temperature of nothingness, no matter, no movement, absolute stillness. That's why we cannot ever reach it. We can get close, I believe something like 5 K, but never 0 K, as far as I know.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    I disagree, the names and values are human constructs, which have no meaning outside the human experience or observation. The universe has no names, it just functions by implacable mathematical imperatives dictated by the physical potentials inherent in matter and prevailing conditions, the Implicate (enfolded) Order, which unfolds in a hierarchy of discrete ordering steps, a phenomenon which we have named QM.

    That's why humans must use GR ! For us there are no absolutes, because you'd have to observe from outside spacetime, which we can't and that's why we cannot create a state of 0 K, because that would place us outside space-time.

    At 0 K , there is no wave function, no physical existence or interaction. It is an unknowable cosmological condition outside our universe, but it may contain certain inherent potentials, which eventually led to the unfolding of our universe.

    This is why I posed the question if we could theoretically imagine what those potentials might be.

    Hence my probative question of a possible tensor potential as an inherent result of a permittive condition which is both infinitely large and infinitely small, i.e. a duality of simultaneously opposing states of nothingness.

    IMHO, if we can latch onto a something which is potentially self-contradictory, perhaps we can formulate a model which makes it inevitable that the universe had to emerge spontaneously, even from a state of nothingness .

    Logically I cannot wrap my head around about the notion of "no beginning", because that would imply "no end" and we know that thermodynamically this is unlikely.

    Eventually this universe will attain a state of zero degree Kelvin, the end of matter and movement and will cease to exist as a space-time universe.

    Again, I qualify this as probative, but I am trying to use pure logic as a foundation for this inquiry.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    Those named values are not fundamental at all, the just indicate a relative and variable environmental condition where H2O changes from a liquid to a solid.

    But as far as I know zero Kelvin is an absolute environmental condition where nothing can change.....difference.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    p.s Michael, after rereading your post , I do agree with your opening statement
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    The point is that IT is the same whether you call it zero or one. therefore, there can not be a fundamental difference between zero and one. They differ only in size.
     
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    Yes. Riddle me this, Batman: When does zero equal thirty-two? When the units and origins are different.

    The location of zero still denotes a specific temperature, just like the location of one or the location of minus one. You can move the zero to any location on the temperature scale, so it is indistinguishable from one or minus one.
     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,927
    The point is there is no difference between

    IT and

    ITself

    In other words 0°C and 32°F are the same IT just with different names

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    That's what I said. Therefore, the claim that zero is different from other numbers is false.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    I have already said it is a useful number as a demarcation point. A point of departure from positive to negative values .
    In context of Temperature, zero K is a constant.,i.e. the absence of any measurable temperature, regardless how you want to describe or use it for other relative purposes .

    I am proposing that Temperature is an emergent Dimension in one direction only. Our arbitrary degrees of C and F are actual human inventions for practical applications in GR, such as measurements of freezing point or boiling point at the earth's surface . But in terms of Kelvin, all of these relative measurements are just used for convenience. Temperatures can rise or fall (relative to a specific measurement), but never below 0 K.

    Zero K is the absence of any temperature, very similar to the concept Time where t= 0, is the beginning of the emergence of Time. Outside the universe t = 0. Outside the universe K = 0

    We can use the dimension of time also as a relative concept for practical purposes such as before the start of a race.

    But in cosmological terms t = 0 is the moment of the BB, when Time began. All other measurements of time are relative to specific individual events, which create their own time-lines. Times can rise or fall, but never below t = 0

    And so it is with Temperature.
    Before the BB, temperature was @ K = 0, just like time was @ T = 0 .

    Anyway, that is my take on the absoluteness of 0 K
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    But you haven't explained why it is only a demarcation point. You haven't explained why 0 Celsius and 32 Fahrenheit are different when they refer to exactly the same thing.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    Because 0 does not equal 32. They belong to different measurement sets, where zero in one set is not equal to zero in the other set. This is why you have to specifically identify which set you are using and that always involves the use of a modifier (conversion unit)

    Simple example; if 0C = 32F, does 1C = 33F ?
    No! 1 C = 33.8 F .
    The only time where the temperature is indicated by the same number is @ -40 C = -40 F. This is a purely accidental equivalence.
    http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/celsius-to-fahrenheit.htm

    As Michael posited, in each table (set) the number only indicates a relative interpretation of a state of temperature, an IT.

    I proposed that this IT may be called a specific point in the Dimension of Temperature
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    Because you made it up? They describe the same thing, but they are from different number sets..
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    Because they are both false (but useful ) numbers. Look at this rule of thumb justification for using those temperature scales.
    http://thevane.gawker.com/fahrenheit-is-a-better-temperature-scale-than-celsius-1691707793
    IOW, these temperature scales as they relate to humans. We made them up for convenience.
    OTOH,
    Note that Kelvin uses degrees of Celsius as its counter.
    The unit 1 K = 1 C , but 0 K = -273.15 C , and 0 C = 273.15 K . Do you see the contradiction?
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    No, because the units are different. But your example does not explain how 0 and 32 are fundamentally different. You claim that zero "has no value", yet it has exactly the same value as 32 on a different scale. How is that possible if zero "has no value"?

    There is no contradiction. The origins are different. The same value can be designated by different numbers if the origin and/or the units are different - but the value is still the same. 0 Kelvin is the same as -273.15 C and 0 C is the same as +273.15 K, so how can 0 be fundamentally different from -273.15 or +273.15?
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    So what? If the same real quantity is represented by zero in one place and some other number in another place, how can you claim that zero is fundamentally different? It has a real value.
     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    What's that supposed to mean?
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    We made them up for our convenience.
     

Share This Page