|
On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The person who put the sticker on the car should be held accountable for any direct damage done as the sticker gets pulled off, but not really for the indirect damage caused by someone else getting offended and further vandalizing the vehicle.
The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property.
If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car? Good question; I don't know. I still feel like the whole "He triggered me into committing violence" is a childish argument. The sticker guy is a dick, but you should have enough self-control not to destroy property simply because you see something that offends you. Grow up, recognize that there's such a thing as freedom of expression, recognize that you're not going to agree with everyone on everything, and just ignore it. Should adults need to be told *not* to destroy property? Meh.
What if it was a kid who keyed the car (lets say a 14-y.o. to ensure it's a minor). Sure, it's a 14-y.o. dick, and his parents are responsible for not raising him properly, but should children nned to be told *not* to destroy property?
All we were told is that there was a trump bumpersticker, and that led directly to the car being keyed (as per the note left by the perp). We know nothing about the perp except his motivation (*TRUMP RAAAAGE*).
|
On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The person who put the sticker on the car should be held accountable for any direct damage done as the sticker gets pulled off, but not really for the indirect damage caused by someone else getting offended and further vandalizing the vehicle.
The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property.
If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car?
Then you have to assess the probability of the car being damaged after someone puts a Trump sticker on it. If it's unlikely then you shouldn't hold that person responsible just like you shouldn't charge someone with attempted murder because he stuck a target marker on someone's back, even if he really thought it can lead to that person's death
|
On May 04 2016 00:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The person who put the sticker on the car should be held accountable for any direct damage done as the sticker gets pulled off, but not really for the indirect damage caused by someone else getting offended and further vandalizing the vehicle.
The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property.
If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car? Good question; I don't know. I still feel like the whole "He triggered me into committing violence" is a childish argument. The sticker guy is a dick, but you should have enough self-control not to destroy property simply because you see something that offends you. Grow up, recognize that there's such a thing as freedom of expression, recognize that you're not going to agree with everyone on everything, and just ignore it. Should adults need to be told *not* to destroy property? Meh. What if it was a kid who keyed the car (lets say a 14-y.o. to ensure it's a minor). Sure, it's a 14-y.o. dick, and his parents are responsible for not raising him properly, but should children nned to be told *not* to destroy property? All we were told is that there was a trump bumpersticker, and that led directly to the car being keyed (as per the note left by the perp). We know nothing about the perp except his motivation (*TRUMP RAAAAGE*).
They should be told so, by their parents. That is the whole point of parents being responsible for them. The "what about children" argument is a really beaten one though - and it is easy solved by understanding that a person is either responsible form themselves or has someone assigned who is responsible for them. Again, I don't get why you are trying to make excuses for the offense. It doesn't serve any purpose.
On May 04 2016 00:28 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The person who put the sticker on the car should be held accountable for any direct damage done as the sticker gets pulled off, but not really for the indirect damage caused by someone else getting offended and further vandalizing the vehicle.
The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property.
EDIT:
If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car? Then you have to assess the probability of the car being damaged after someone puts a Trump sticker on it. If it's unlikely then you shouldn't hold that person responsible just like you shouldn't charge someone with attempted murder because he stuck a target marker on someone's back, even if he really thought it can lead to that person's death
No, you shouldn't have to asses it. Even if it were probable, it is still 100% the fault of the guy who did it, not the guy who put the sticker. I want to live in a society of order, but freedom, not in a society of lawyers investigating every move if it couldn't be milked for some damage.
|
|
|
On May 04 2016 00:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The person who put the sticker on the car should be held accountable for any direct damage done as the sticker gets pulled off, but not really for the indirect damage caused by someone else getting offended and further vandalizing the vehicle.
The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property.
If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car? Good question; I don't know. I still feel like the whole "He triggered me into committing violence" is a childish argument. The sticker guy is a dick, but you should have enough self-control not to destroy property simply because you see something that offends you. Grow up, recognize that there's such a thing as freedom of expression, recognize that you're not going to agree with everyone on everything, and just ignore it. Should adults need to be told *not* to destroy property? Meh. What if it was a kid who keyed the car (lets say a 14-y.o. to ensure it's a minor). Sure, it's a 14-y.o. dick, and his parents are responsible for not raising him properly, but should children nned to be told *not* to destroy property? All we were told is that there was a trump bumpersticker, and that led directly to the car being keyed (as per the note left by the perp). We know nothing about the perp except his motivation (*TRUMP RAAAAGE*).
If the perp got away with it, then he got away with it. I don't think it's appropriate to make someone else pay for the damages unless there's a solid argument as to his accountability as well, and I don't know if the guy who put the sticker on should really be held accountable for someone else's actions.
If it's a kid, then what adult was accompanying him at the rally? Was he not being supervised properly? Where are his parents/ guardians/ other adults? (Not to mention: Why is a child at a Trump rally to begin with!?  )
|
If someone keys your car, and no one was there to notice it, then was your car really keyed at all?
|
On May 03 2016 21:43 Cascade wrote:Maybe I start to understand what you are trying to say. Maybe.  Are you trying to say that I can't point to an empty bowl and say that it contains 0 apples? While I can point at it and say that it contains 2 apples? And thus you say that the mathematical number 2 has a "representation in the universe", while the number 0 doesn't? Did I get that more or less right? Maybe I didn't.
If that bowl contains 2 apples, it does, yes.
The things that are there, are there, whether or not there is a human (or other sentient being) to observe them. In contrast, you need a human (or other sentient being) to interpret (observe/postulate/...) the absence of something.
E.g. you could say the bowl contains two apples, but that it doesn't contain anything else. You can't even make a claim that there is negative anything, because that would be absolutely nonsensical. Which makes the entire point of 0 and negative values in the universe completely ludicrous.
Edit: to stay on topic, I agree with everything DPB has said about the carkeying
|
On May 04 2016 00:06 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 23:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, putting Stickers on Cars that are not your own is actually not really legal and you probably would have to pay damages if the removal of said sticker does any harm to the car.
Keying because of this sticker is another issue, intent/situation should paly major roles here. It's probably "not really legal", but it's not a crime, not even a "minor crime" (don't know the English term) - the damage done is extremely minor. The most you can get for it in a reasonable country are some fatherly looks.
People are crazy about cars, and for some reason even the slightest amount of damage to the paint of a 15 year old car is worth thousands of euros in repairs. I am constantly utterly confused by this, but it appears to be the case. I think the reason is because the standard applied is "What does it take to make it look like the damage never happened" with an added "The guys repairing it don't have to negotiate because the guy paying for it doesn't have a choice" and a bit of scammy "Hey repair guys, how about you do the shitty repair for a tenths of the money, say that you did the expensive repair, and we split the remainder 50/50" thrown in. As opposed to for example "How much would you be willing to pay to get this problem fixed if it were your own money" or something along those lines.
And thus, if there is a slight problem with the paint, you obviously have to replace the whole door, because if you just paint over it, you would see a slight difference in tone, and if you just paint the whole door, there is x random made up problem.
I personally think that cars are already extremely overrated, and the whole car repair market is a gigantic scam.
|
On May 04 2016 01:17 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:06 opisska wrote:On May 03 2016 23:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, putting Stickers on Cars that are not your own is actually not really legal and you probably would have to pay damages if the removal of said sticker does any harm to the car.
Keying because of this sticker is another issue, intent/situation should paly major roles here. It's probably "not really legal", but it's not a crime, not even a "minor crime" (don't know the English term) - the damage done is extremely minor. The most you can get for it in a reasonable country are some fatherly looks. People are crazy about cars, and for some reason even the slightest amount of damage to the paint of a 15 year old car is worth thousands of euros in repairs. I am constantly utterly confused by this, but it appears to be the case. I think the reason is because the standard applied is "What does it take to make it look like the damage never happened" with an added "The guys repairing it don't have to negotiate because the guy paying for it doesn't have a choice" and a bit of scammy "Hey repair guys, how about you do the shitty repair for a tenths of the money, say that you did the expensive repair, and we split the remainder 50/50" thrown in. As opposed to for example "How much would you be willing to pay to get this problem fixed if it were your own money" or something along those lines. And thus, if there is a slight problem with the paint, you obviously have to replace the whole door, because if you just paint over it, you would see a slight difference in tone, and if you just paint the whole door, there is x random made up problem. I personally think that cars are already extremely overrated, and the whole car repair market is a gigantic scam.
You are trying to tell that to someone who has just shelled out 1200 euro for a small dent in a fender of a rental car ... But it's really tangential to the discussion, you can substitute anything more reasonable for the car and all the points stay the same.
I really thing it's an excellent thought example and wish more people really thought about it instead of saying the first thing their cultural background makes them say.
|
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters?
|
On May 04 2016 01:14 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 21:43 Cascade wrote:Maybe I start to understand what you are trying to say. Maybe. Are you trying to say that I can't point to an empty bowl and say that it contains 0 apples? While I can point at it and say that it contains 2 apples? And thus you say that the mathematical number 2 has a "representation in the universe", while the number 0 doesn't? Did I get that more or less right? Maybe I didn't. If that bowl contains 2 apples, it does, yes. The things that are there, are there, whether or not there is a human (or other sentient being) to observe them. In contrast, you need a human (or other sentient being) to interpret (observe/postulate/...) the absence of something. E.g. you could say the bowl contains two apples, but that it doesn't contain anything else. You can't even make a claim that there is negative anything, because that would be absolutely nonsensical. Which makes the entire point of 0 and negative values in the universe completely ludicrous. Edit: to stay on topic, I agree with everything DPB has said about the carkeying
OK, thanks. So I got it more or less right?
Do you agree that it is an entirely philosophical point? It's not mathematics that can be proven or disproven. And it's certainly not empirical science where we can measure of you are right or not.
It doesn't make any sense at all in my head, but being philosophy I won't pretend that can prove you wrong. So well, no point arguing, which we probably could have concluded a few pages back.
|
On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters?
I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime.
|
On May 04 2016 00:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 22:37 ThomasjServo wrote:On May 03 2016 22:24 JimmiC wrote:
What id like to see in video games is a senior division for people over 35 or 30 Than ragers would really make me laugh and hopefully be very slow.
Also wouldn't be against kids with super fast fingers 😜 Mentally, that is what I was thinking, also some amount of understanding for, "oh the kid stuck a fork in the socket, he isn't very bright brb." That being said, probably wouldn't stop ragers. Adults could well be more prodigious ragers than their teen counterparts in some instances. probably true, but then I can enjoy the hilarity of some over 30 year old man or woman getting super mad at a video game. And not worry that some poor 12 year olds feelings are actually getting hurt.
Good point, and you can make an even wider array of references with a greater chance it won't fall on deaf ears.
|
On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime.
How exactly does that sticker "help" the murderer?
|
On May 04 2016 01:14 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 21:43 Cascade wrote:Maybe I start to understand what you are trying to say. Maybe. Are you trying to say that I can't point to an empty bowl and say that it contains 0 apples? While I can point at it and say that it contains 2 apples? And thus you say that the mathematical number 2 has a "representation in the universe", while the number 0 doesn't? Did I get that more or less right? Maybe I didn't. If that bowl contains 2 apples, it does, yes. The things that are there, are there, whether or not there is a human (or other sentient being) to observe them. In contrast, you need a human (or other sentient being) to interpret (observe/postulate/...) the absence of something. E.g. you could say the bowl contains two apples, but that it doesn't contain anything else. You can't even make a claim that there is negative anything, because that would be absolutely nonsensical. Which makes the entire point of 0 and negative values in the universe completely ludicrous. Edit: to stay on topic, I agree with everything DPB has said about the carkeying
How is it ludicrous for there to be no apples in a bowl, as well as it being ludicrous that there is a bowl with apples--and we take those apples away from the bowl. There can be no apples in a bowl, much like there can be two apples in a bowl. A bowl with two apples is also a bowl with zero jellyfish and zero Captain Americas. And when you take two apples from the bowl, the bowl now has two less apples while the procurer now has two more apples. At the same time, the bowl still has zero captain americas and the procurer now has zero more jellyfish.
Are you saying that the universe doesn't accept transition of energy from one point to another, nor does it look at localized states as having temporal narrative? What the object was, what the object is, and what the object will be--as well as geolocal narratives such as where the object was, where the object is, and where the object will be?
|
On May 03 2016 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 12:42 Cascade wrote:Wtf are you guys smoking? "Physical definition of 0"? There is no such thing... 0 is a mathematical object. Force has a physical definition, length and time has. "0" hasn't. When you do calculation on for example force, you sometimes end up with 0 Newton (unit of force), which means no force. Where is the problem here?  The original problem was that thepungun initially made the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". And then in the next sentence he said that 0 doesn't exist (presumably as its own magical floating physical entity), which is fine but we can still apply the concepts of 0 and other numbers and math to the real world (and several people listed examples of those applications), to which there was some backtracking and redefining of the number zero (and what it's "allowed" to be applied to, according to thepungun... which is that it can't be applied to anything unless it's simultaneously applied to everything, and he said that if we can't have absolute nothingness in this universe- there's always *something*- then there's no representation of 0 at all).
I never said 0 can't be applied, ofc it can, that's how math works.
I only mentioned that the closest to 0 in the physical world is the smallest distance, which i personally find facinating, because it means that even a vacuum is something and not 0. Yet the concept of 0 only exists in math, just because you cann apply it and it works in math does not mean it exists in our physical world.( I even posted several links, with the smallest distance and scientific proof of it.)
edit: I had a long stressful day yesterday at work so my arguments may have been a bit short and today isn't any better( even though it's only been an hour so far xD), sorry if any of this seems rushed, 
|
On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The person who put the sticker on the car should be held accountable for any direct damage done as the sticker gets pulled off, but not really for the indirect damage caused by someone else getting offended and further vandalizing the vehicle.
The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property.
If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car? Good question; I don't know. I still feel like the whole "He triggered me into committing violence" is a childish argument. The sticker guy is a dick, but you should have enough self-control not to destroy property simply because you see something that offends you. Grow up, recognize that there's such a thing as freedom of expression, recognize that you're not going to agree with everyone on everything, and just ignore it. Should adults need to be told *not* to destroy property? Meh.
I'm not excusing the guy who keyed the car. I'm just saying that saying "The one who puts the sticker should hold all the responsability" is, as a general statement, as invalid as "The one who puts the sticker should all no responsability at all".
On May 04 2016 01:17 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:06 opisska wrote:On May 03 2016 23:14 Velr wrote:
Uhm, putting Stickers on Cars that are not your own is actually not really legal and you probably would have to pay damages if the removal of said sticker does any harm to the car.
Keying because of this sticker is another issue, intent/situation should paly major roles here. It's probably "not really legal", but it's not a crime, not even a "minor crime" (don't know the English term) - the damage done is extremely minor. The most you can get for it in a reasonable country are some fatherly looks. People are crazy about cars, and for some reason even the slightest amount of damage to the paint of a 15 year old car is worth thousands of euros in repairs. I am constantly utterly confused by this, but it appears to be the case. I think the reason is because the standard applied is "What does it take to make it look like the damage never happened" with an added "The guys repairing it don't have to negotiate because the guy paying for it doesn't have a choice" and a bit of scammy "Hey repair guys, how about you do the shitty repair for a tenths of the money, say that you did the expensive repair, and we split the remainder 50/50" thrown in. As opposed to for example "How much would you be willing to pay to get this problem fixed if it were your own money" or something along those lines. And thus, if there is a slight problem with the paint, you obviously have to replace the whole door, because if you just paint over it, you would see a slight difference in tone, and if you just paint the whole door, there is x random made up problem. I personally think that cars are already extremely overrated, and the whole car repair market is a gigantic scam.
A German thinking cars are overrated? Wtf my whole world is shaken
|
On May 04 2016 02:28 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2016 12:42 Cascade wrote:Wtf are you guys smoking? "Physical definition of 0"? There is no such thing... 0 is a mathematical object. Force has a physical definition, length and time has. "0" hasn't. When you do calculation on for example force, you sometimes end up with 0 Newton (unit of force), which means no force. Where is the problem here? The original problem was that thepungun initially made the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". And then in the next sentence he said that 0 doesn't exist (presumably as its own magical floating physical entity), which is fine but we can still apply the concepts of 0 and other numbers and math to the real world (and several people listed examples of those applications), to which there was some backtracking and redefining of the number zero (and what it's "allowed" to be applied to, according to thepungun... which is that it can't be applied to anything unless it's simultaneously applied to everything, and he said that if we can't have absolute nothingness in this universe- there's always *something*- then there's no representation of 0 at all). I never said 0 can't be applied, ofc it can, that's how math works. I only mentioned that the closest to 0 in the physical world is the smallest distance, which i personally find facinating, because it means that even a vacuum is something and not 0. Yet the concept of 0 only exists in math, just because you cann apply it and it works in math does not mean it exists in our physical world.( I even posted several links, with the smallest distance and scientific proof of it.) edit: I had a long day yesterday at work so my arguments may have been a bit short and today isn't any better, sorry if any of this seems rushed,
The issue with your definition is that its a false statement.
IF Plank Length = 0 THEN 0 > |0|
I disagree with the axiom that Plank Length = 0
The reason I disagree with it is because one can't point to an object with positive value and say that that value being greater than zero means there is no zero.
I'm more in the
IF A = A THEN A-A = 0
This is because, to me, "numbers" or "value" is a localized process and not a totality. A number is the focusing in on an object, and looking at that object as itself. So that either that object is present, absent, removed, or added. Shifting the discussion towards zero needing to be a vacuum is weird to me, because it is impossible to "look" at a vacuum (with current technology) which means you're starting with the axiom of "Assuming we can't prove zero, how can zero be true?" Which is a self destructive opening argument that automatically proves itself with the axiom it initially presents.
|
On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime.
I think I disagree with you here. Putting a Kick Me sign on someone's back makes you a dick, but other people aren't forced to kick someone just because you put a sign there.
|
On May 04 2016 02:28 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2016 12:42 Cascade wrote:Wtf are you guys smoking? "Physical definition of 0"? There is no such thing... 0 is a mathematical object. Force has a physical definition, length and time has. "0" hasn't. When you do calculation on for example force, you sometimes end up with 0 Newton (unit of force), which means no force. Where is the problem here? The original problem was that thepungun initially made the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". And then in the next sentence he said that 0 doesn't exist (presumably as its own magical floating physical entity), which is fine but we can still apply the concepts of 0 and other numbers and math to the real world (and several people listed examples of those applications), to which there was some backtracking and redefining of the number zero (and what it's "allowed" to be applied to, according to thepungun... which is that it can't be applied to anything unless it's simultaneously applied to everything, and he said that if we can't have absolute nothingness in this universe- there's always *something*- then there's no representation of 0 at all). I never said 0 can't be applied, ofc it can, that's how math works. I only mentioned that the closest to 0 in the physical world is the smallest distance, which i personally find facinating, because it means that even a vacuum is something and not 0. Yet the concept of 0 only exists in math, just because you cann apply it and it works in math does not mean it exists in our physical world.( I even posted several links, with the smallest distance and scientific proof of it.) edit: I had a long day yesterday at work so my arguments may have been a bit short and today isn't any better, sorry if any of this seems rushed,
Okay, lets assume that a vacuum still has "things" in it, because zero point energy is a thing (it probably is, but it is not proven). I don't see how this is relevant to the existence, or non-existence of 0.
The mass of a photon is exactly 0 (by definition, insofar as I know, because otherwise general relativity breaks). The gluon is also massless (theoretically at least).
There are also 0 particles of phlogiston in the universe, despite medieval beliefs to the contrary. Now we cannot point to a vacuum and say "there is nothing there", but we can still point to a vacuum and say "there are 0 apples there". That is a perfectly sensible physical description of the universe, and the absence of any apples in that particular part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
