Consider the "two empty cups"...as meta points out...and as was my point to him....they are never really empty...and even if I put "pure vacuum" inside...there is still dimension...and it is so in each and every case...if and when the dimension in question (our cup) has the "absence of a given value"...or just air.....then that is zero...an "empty dimension"....

empty = nothing = absences of a given value

Because for a very well educated opinion..."nothingness"...does not exist in this reality...

Very well posted...and thank you...

Yes...I could have been more precise in exactly what it is I meant by "nothing"...this I think was meta's point...but alas....much to do about nothing.....

I am claiming here that the concrete and the abstract number are not really separated...that is the abstract numerical quantity, and the dimensional unit quantity should both be accepted as part of any given numbers cardinality. That is zero...while the absences of a "thing" in question...is not nothing...it is a dimension of abstract space.

If I claim the dimensions are to remain abstract and undefined at all times...that is fairly general is it not? Only the quantity of dimensions in question is what is needed here...and as I suggest 0 has a quantity of dimension..

Again thank you very much for the post. Polite and well presented opinions.

To all:

Clearly I disagree about the non-sequitur bit....again what does that have to do with the philosophy of this idea....absolutely nothing. They pick not at the idea, but at me. They are trolls. I would have hoped this site would have had better.

Things to address...

The existence of nothing in this reality....
Zero and nothing, and if they are the same....
What exactly zero is....

All would have been fair play...claiming someone made a non-sequitur statement instead of addressing the philosophy is childish and very un-philosophical like sportsmanship...

Key hint to trolls: the personal insults....

I wish you better luck astonishing the world with your mathematical prowess than you have been able to do so with your philosophical abilities. You can always take solace in the maxim that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country. — MetaphysicsNow

I wouldn't bother playing around with Conway — MetaphysicsNow

Trolls for sure.

wrong again...I refer you to the definition of sequitur that I linked...It would seem no further communication is necessary between us. Thank you for your time.

wrong again....I refer you to the link on the definition of sequitur...thank you for your time...it would seem no further communication between us is necessary.

If I had said...

"is nothing"

therefore

"is zero"

yes then it would have been a non sequitur....

but this is NOT what I said is it?

Since some people don't understand what it means to be sequtor

Lets assume I agree my statement was a non-sequitur....what does it have to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing....the point of his "you non sequitur" statement had to do with his wrong assumption that I wanted to define abstract space...

So does anybody...anybody at all have something of relevance?

F = is nothing


this is NOT correct

F = There is not a nothing in this reality


don't waste my time

For those that might be confused here...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

statement 1: "There is not a "nothing" in this reality"

This is a fact...

statement 2: "Therefore zero can NOT be "nothing"

IF statement 1 is correct...then LOGICALLY statement 2 follows...

Therefore sequitor...

And again....this idea may "allow" "nothing" to exist...in any form one may wish it..but it does require that this "nothing" not exist in our reality....hence my argument that the existence of "nothing" is not relative to this discussion...whatever "nothing" may or may not be.

It is not a non sequitur...and if it was...it makes no difference. You know good and well what I mean by "nothing". You argue just to argue. Perhaps you can find a meaningful point to debate...then we can discuss this and its soundness.

But it does seem to me you just want to debate nothingness.....lol...which is not the point.....lol

By the way...definitions for all symbols were given stating exactly what the refer to....

Did you read the op? Does not seem like it. I am claiming zero is NOT nothing...and that there are varying amounts of it. I may have varying amounts of empty space. Empty space is what zero is...so I claim...the unicorn has noting to do with anything, the difference between the particular and the abstract has nothing to do with this idea. You made the assumption that I claimed there to be a length and width of something abstract...I DID NOT...you continue on this line for I do not know what reason. My quoted statement by you was accurate...if not semantically and logically so....

FACT 1: There is not a "nothing" in this reality
FACT 2: Therefore zero can NOT be "nothing"

*note fact 2 is well accepted as truth by mathematicians: observe exponents of zero....


And again...the difference between particular and abstract...has nothing to do with this idea....the existence of "nothing" with in this reality does...yet you do not argue this...you argue the difference between abstract and particular....something I am not debating here.

I take no issue with you discussing the philosphy of this idea. I am glad for it. My point remains however...the particular question you are asking...does not matter in this case.

Suppose there is varying amounts of "nothing".
"It" does not exist in this reality....therefore...
zero can not represent "it".....

I made no claim that any unicorn was actual...only abstract...the length and width of width of which does not matter...surely you agree with that?

We need not discuss varying amounts of nothing...the idea relies on the axiom that nothing does not exist....should you disagree...there is no reason to consider the mathematics...

If the unicorn in question....is abstract...it is fictional...there should be no disagreement...

In any case...you do not need to believe the axioms...either the math works or it does not...

However...I am willing to discuss just the philosophy...and as I say...the unicorn was declared abstract...that is the same as fictional.......and in either case has noting to do with zero being space or otherwise...

1. Anything that is abstract...also has an abstract space. There is an abstract unicorn...it is abstractly 2 feet tall. The length and width of abstraction is arbitrary...as stated in the op. I think you might have mis-read the op. I had said...let all abstract width and length remain undeclared.

2. Zero is given a dimension for many reasons. All of which are philosophical...

2a. Nothing can NOT exist: therefore 0 can not be nothing.
2b. All that exists is either space or value, 0 is not value, therefore it must be space.
2c. Assigning a dimension to zero is the process that allows for division by zero.

I may go on but will wait and see is you agree...

Lastly there is a great difference between 0 seconds, 0 centimeters, and so on....

In all cases I have 0 of the thing given....but in no case do I have nothing....therefore varying amounts of zero, or alternatively. I may have two cups before me, both empty...but of varying size. Therefore varying amounts of zero. There is more space between Jupiter and the moon, then between the moon and earth. Therefore varying amounts of zero.

I hope I have answered all of your questions sufficiently. Thank you for you time.

Thanks for reading and sharing.