The Zero Conjecture

High Priest

Human beings are drawn to simplicity. We have an intuition that no matter how intractable a problem may seem it must ultimately be reducible. And as to confirm our hunch the path of enquiry has led us from the bewildering complexity of the cosmos to an understanding of underlying simplicity. But some problems are so ethereal that even phrasing the question is difficult. Pondering the nature of God, consciousness and the universe finds us juggling hard science and philosophy with mysticism. If we could find a common factor, a datum edge fundamental to all of these questions that is naturally simple we would be closer to a greater understanding of our universe and ourselves. The Zero Conjecture proposes that this pivotal commonality is the information that the number zero represents.

We shall seek to define God as that which is uncaused. That which exists has information. That which does not exist has zero information. Zero represents the absence of information which is of itself information. Zero is information. Furthermore, information is physical. The implications of this can be better understood by examining the relationship between objects and space. When objects are present space has dimension. And when objects are not present it can be said that the space has zero dimensions. Genesis; a space of zero dimensions is a single point. As with the absence of objects the same is true of space; without space there cannot be multiplicity. A space that does not contain objects is a singularity. This uncaused dimensionless singular point is the progenitor of the universe.

Now it must shown how this singular physical simplicity can manifest itself as multiplicity - the universe. We can consider the singularity to be in superposition with the void. Let us designate the singularity 1 and the void 0. When there is division in this duality the manifold reveals itself. We can express it thus; 1/0 = infinity (undefined). This is the only interaction that does not produce 0 or 1. Infinity is infinite number. This is our multiplicity. But multiplicity on its own cannot account for the complexity that we see in the universe. It must be shown how complexity can arise from this undefined multiplicity. Again, information is physical. Our singularity can be considered the fundamental information bit. Within the superposition the bit is infinitely spread out. If we consider this spreading to be quantized this may account for complexity. The quanta are effectively an infinite matrix of interconnectivity. Complexity can emerge via this mesh of entanglement. From these complexities follow the localised perturbations that lead eventually to stars, galaxies and us. From God (zero) comes the singularity (one) and by their interaction, the universe (infinity).

Gravity is Love

The longing to be as close as you can to that which you love is an emotional manifestation of the force of gravity. When we experience love we are being acted upon by a force whose effect is to draw us together. Love and gravity are one in the same – they are both the denial of space. Does this mean that the capacity to love or be loved is proportional to mass? The differences in body type in our species are so negligible that it would never be significant enough for us to notice. However, given the mass of our planet relative to an individual it is reasonable to assume that we would have a deep emotional attachment to the Earth. And this is indeed the case. In most cultures this attachment is expressed as deity worship, holistic philosophy or reverence of nature. It could be said that environmentalism is merely an expression of gravity. But our species also has the habit of destroying our environment. Such behaviour can only be described as hateful. Hate is repulsive. It is that which forces us apart. It appears that there must be an opposing force to gravity that is expressed in us as hate. The fact that we experience hate is proof that this anti-gravitational force exits. In light of recent astronomical observations this force could be responsible for the increasing rate of expansion in the universe. A question - why does matter aggregate as a spheroid in zero gravity? Because a spheroid is simply the lowest energy configuration. The purpose of gravity is unity at zero energies – the singularity. Love/gravity is the conduit by which union is sought for all things. Do we diminish love by equating it with gravity? I think not. Gravity is the most mysterious of the forces. Newton’s description of gravity is an approximation (an incredibly accurate approximation I grant you) and attempts to formulate a quantum description of gravity have thus far proved unsuccessful. Love is the centripetal imperative. The poet and the scientist each have their own end of the elephant but are ultimately both describing the same animal. If gravity is that which leads to the zero energy singularity then we can say this – love is the way to God.

SkepticOne

Another one that is being posted around the message boards.

bus77

I like this. But Simu the High Priest around these parts, is going to have your ass. Away to the spirituallity forum with you. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=535

High Priest

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was a forum for philosophical exposition. Tis true I have tendered my thoughts on other boards but I assure you that I am no 'netbot'. Perhaps you should subject me to a Turing Test.

Dades

I see your philosophical exposition as a thinly veiled attempt to proselytise.

:cool:

SkepticOne

High Priest wrote:

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was a forum for philosophical exposition. Tis true I have tendered my thoughts on other boards but I assure you that I am no 'netbot'. Perhaps you should subject me to a Turing Test.

It's only a problem if there's no engagement with the points raised. For example, you post the same thing here but don't respond to queries raised.

simu

Well, you seem to be engaging with the thread so you're ok for now, on that level.

As for what you wrote - you seem to be trolling or else you've juggled philosophy, science and mysticism so much that they've become a horrible muddle.

The longing to be as close as you can to that which you love is an emotional manifestation of the force of gravity.

To take but one example, how can you possibly come out with the claim above? It doesn't make sense in any way unless you see it as a poetic metaphor which isn't what you're trying to do at all. (or unless it's all a big joke)

Argh!

mr_angry

I'd just like to point out that something with one dimension is a point. Something with zero dimensions is not a point. I think its time to re-think that whole theory.

robindch

> Perhaps you should subject me to a Turing Test.

Tell me more about yourself.

High Priest

I see your philosophical exposition as a thinly veiled attempt to proselytise.

From an atheist I would expect nothing less. I assure you I have no particular faith to impart. I suppose you could call me a pantheist. As such we ultimately occupy the same ground. The atheist believes in nothing (0), the pantheist in one (1). The Zero Conjecture seeks to show that they are in fact the same.

…you've juggled philosophy, science and mysticism so much that they've become a horrible muddle.

In the words of my six year old nephew – it was like that when I got here.

It doesn't make sense in any way unless you see it as a poetic metaphor which isn't what you're trying to do at all.

No metaphor intended. Gravity is love. How does light make you feel? Do you prefer it to darkness? Electromagnetism prompting an emotional response?

I'd just like to point out that something with one dimension is a point. Something with zero dimensions is not a point.

A space of zero dimensions is a singularity. Think in absolute terms.

Tell me more about yourself.

I am the High Priest of Zero.

simu

High Priest wrote:

No metaphor intended. Gravity is love. How does light make you feel? Do you prefer it to darkness? Electromagnetism prompting an emotional response?

Oh, maaaan. I think you're seriuously confused tbh.

nesf

Gravity is love?

Nah mate, gravity sucks. Just ask any black hole.

*baddum tschh*

mr_angry

High Priest wrote:

A space of zero dimensions is a singularity. Think in absolute terms.

Eh, no actually. A singularity is defined as something approaching (not even becoming) a mathematical point. And since a point has one dimension, that means it has more than one dimension. Black holes and the like are actually 3-dimensional.

Best of luck with the recruitment though. Lets just hope none of them notice that this series of random words in sentences isn't just rubbish disguised as psuedo-intellectualism.

High Priest

Eh, no actually. A singularity is defined as something approaching (not even becoming) a mathematical point. And since a point has one dimension, that means it has more than one dimension. Black holes and the like are actually 3-dimensional.

I see you like to be spoon fed. Fine, but please do not regurgitate your pop science pulp without having digested it first. We are discussing singularities not black holes.

Lets just hope none of them notice that this series of random words in sentences isn't just rubbish disguised as psuedo-intellectualism.

It saddens me that one with a supposed interest in Philosophy should make such a statement without citing examples. Of course, that would require cogitation of the subject matter.

clearz

This has all the hallmarks of hallucinogenic drugs. Gives the impression of something wonderfull but when looked at properly is just a load of gibberish.

Sapien

Sorry guys - as much as I love to vituperate the noobs, especially the massively arrogant ones, but these ideas do in fact have a place in the Philosophy forum. They are, however, a little out of date.

As far as I can see, High Priest has advanced in no way upon the ideas of the presocratic philospher, Empedocles.

[H]e postulated something called Love (philia) to explain the attraction of different forms of matter, and of something called Strife (neikos) to account for their separation. He was also one of the first people to state the theory that light travels at a finite (although very large) speed, a theory that gained acceptance only much later.

Tell me High Priest - do you wear a lot of purple?

Shivvv

High Priest wrote:

However, given the mass of our planet relative to an individual it is reasonable to assume that we would have a deep emotional attachment to the Earth.

How is that a reasonable assumption?

High Priest

I. Information is fundamental.
II. Information is physical. (Claude Shannon)
III. ‘Zero’ is information.
IV. ‘Zero’ is intrinsically physical - creatio ex nihilo.
V. ‘One’ is information.
VI. ‘Zero’ and ‘One’ represent the same information.
VII. ‘Zero’ and ‘One’ are equal.
VIII. ‘Zero’ and ‘One’ are analogues of totality.
IX. Information necessitates the informed – consciousness.
X. Consciousness is fundamental.

Avos 5:1

Can anyone smell petroleum?

bus77

Apologies for telling you to go to the spirituality forum High Priest. I was away fighting my own battle when I ran into your ideas.

Sapien

High Priest wrote:

I. Information is fundamental.
II. Information is physical. (Claude Shannon)
III. ‘Zero’ is information.
IV. ‘Zero’ is intrinsically physical - creatio ex nihilo.
V. ‘One’ is information.
VI. ‘Zero’ and ‘One’ represent the same information.
VII. ‘Zero’ and ‘One’ are equal.
VIII. ‘Zero’ and ‘One’ are analogues of totality.
IX. Information necessitates the informed – consciousness.
X. Consciousness is fundamental.

Avos 5:1

This is all second rate Hermetic Emanation philosophy. It would be more at home among tarot trumps and sephiroth. To the Spirituality forum, I say. Or the mods could set up a forum for "New Philosophical Models", and set The Zero Conjecture against Effectuationism. I'll wager 400 quatloos on the newcomer.

nesf

Sapien wrote:

This is all second rate Hermetic Emanation philosophy. It would be more at home among tarot trumps and sephiroth. To the Spirituality forum, I say. Or the mods could set up a forum for "New Philosophical Models", and set The Zero Conjecture against Effectuationism. I'll wager 400 quatloos on the newcomer.

I couldn't agree more