Zero is New Olds

A second part of reporting my thoughts upon reading “Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea” by C. Seidel.

From Zero. (2000). Used without permission.

Recall that my work centers upon orientation upon objects as the significant philosophical issue of our time.

The excerpt pictures above gives a manner by which to apprehend the coupling of history and idea that informs subsequent reality.

“It is hard to imagine something with no width and no height — with no substance at all — being a square.”

Why?

The statement is not axiomatic. It is not a truism either. Rather, it is a cosmological statement, A statement that reflects a view upon the world that is taken to be accurate of the actual universe.

This is to say, if I can find an instance which takes a count of the mathematical conundrum that is presented, and yet defies the conclusion that appears automatically common and sensible, then we can say that the statement is reflecting a belief rather than an actual instance of a true universe.

I propose that it is not hard to imagine something with no width and no height that is also a square: It is an idea of the square.

Likewise: the area of a rectangle with a zero height or zero width is the idea of the whole universe.

These two instances, these examples I just give are exactly the opposite of what is implicitly proposed as assumed of the mathematics drawn upon for this book.

There is an assumed coordination between the physical reality of the universe and our ability to analytically and logically come to formulations about it, but along a particular orientation as to our relationship with the world.

In the exercise just in this particular post, we can notice that there is a gap, I kind of invisible space that twists the view that we have for that we gain. We miss that there is a difference between the idea of the rectangle and an actual rectangle, and we superimpose these upon one another. But the superposition does not align, and we glaze over that, we forget about it, we set it aside for the sake of our belief. This is to say that “our idea” is not actually “our“ idea. It is an idea that arises within a particular faith in what is being given to our knowledge. And we could even go so far as to suggest that the infamous poststructuralist analysis of the situation indeed finds subjective repression. Ideology posed as absolute knowledge.

This is very similar to what the sociologist Bruno Latour calls a pass in his book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence.

Zero is Old New(s)

I’m reading “Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea” by C Seife.

It starts off telling us about the properties of 0. And thus how weird it is.

But, it never tells us why such mathematical properties are such.

For example: Why does 0 x 4 = 0 ?

A quick search on the web got me:

I’m sure there are other answers, but I feel that this one gives us a very usual one.

Perhaps you math people can give us a better answer. I think that guys answer is plain incorrect; I absolutely can visualize zero times: it is what is still there. .

In my example: 0 x 4 should equal 4 Becuase I have multiplied 4 by nothing, by an absence, a blank spot, a place holder.

If I do nothing to something I do not end up with nothing. On the contrary: I still have what was there.

Just the same: if a have zero times something, I have not done anything with it or to it. Zero of something is something, if anything, it is zero. Which is still some thing.

It is zero. In reality, though. If there is a can of peanuts, and I attempt to multiply it Zero times, I have the can of peanuts.

It seems math as based in a particular fantasy that defies reality, rather, it makes us believe that reality is not what we see it as.

Similarly, if I divide a number by zero: I should get the number itself.

A pie divided by zero should equal the whole pie, not an irrational or infinite pie that can’t be eaten, Enjoyed or digested.

Any thoughts ?

Philosophical Stats: Kierkegaard’s “contemporary“ represented in mathematical terms.

Kierkegaard is often misunderstood to be speaking of every individual human being. The misunderstanding arises because he talks about the “individual”, for example, he even has an essay called “the crowd is untruth”.

Yet another mistaken idea of his that is often used by born again Christians to reify their faith, is his talk about “the contemporary”.

I decided I would try to give a more tangible example of what he’s really saying by using math.

*

For every philosophical proposal a, two conditions arise to the individual thinker as to classification:

Open or closed: 1/10,000

– Philosophy for the closed group means the potential for any kind of thinking.

For the open group:

Interested or not interested : 1/10,000.

– Philosophy for the not interested group means a potential for a particular kind of thinking.

For the interested:

Not Invested or invested: 1/10,000.

– Philosophy for the invested means a particular professional skill or adherence to a proper method for truth.

So, the chances of an open interest, non invested Philosophy is (if anyone knows about statistics perhaps you can correct my layman mathematical art, lol):

1/10000 x 1/10000 x 1/10000 =

1e-12

0.0000000001 percent of the population at any time for any philosophical proposal will understand it.

The present population of the planet earth is:

7,714,576,923

World Population HERE.

Thus, for any philosophical proposal at any time, less than seven people will understand it.

Yet, if you take the number of people cumulative since Kierkegaard, say for example, then we have a different kind of dynamic because then we have to account for “any moment”.

At some point in the future of Kierkegaard there will become such a saturation of those who would understand what he is saying that in fact what he is saying will become “untrue” by virtue of the fact that the crowd, then, will be understanding “what is true”.

The absurdity involved in these two equations in an effort to reduce to some sensible understanding of Kierkegaard to all the individuals of the human race, thereby shows that there is no reconciliation in these two manners.

And that this is the irony of the situation as described by the master of irony himself.

😜

The Canonical of a priori and a posteriori Variational Calculus as Phenomenologically Driven. Note Quote.

The Canonical of a priori and a posteriori Variational Calculus as Phenomenologically Driven. Note Quote.

https://altexploit.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/the-canonical-of-a-priori-and-a-posteriori-variational-calculus-as-phenomenologically-driven-note-quote/
— Read on altexploit.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/the-canonical-of-a-priori-and-a-posteriori-variational-calculus-as-phenomenologically-driven-note-quote/