Hi Neil:

I appreciate the gist of what you're saying and accept it in the manner offered. However, there are some problems you need to consider:

Since infinity isn't a determinable value we can't say subtracting it from itself is equal to zero, or anything else for that matter. In a sense, it doesn't hold still long enough to permit being measured and thus can't be measured. It goes on indefinitely, at least in theory. We can't even say it's equal to itself. Because as soon as you attempt to do so, it would become finite which is contradictory.

AlphaNumeric: Firstly, infinity minus infinity is undefined, you can't say it's zero.

Mike: Agreed and well-done. You're off to a great start.

AlphaNumeric: Secondly, you've just 'created' an equation to suit your philosophy of the universe, not an all governing equation.

Mike: Now you've strayed off the path of accomplishing anything positive or useful at this point, which means you're wasting your time and every else's. He didn't create an erroneous equation to justify some philosophy of the universe. That contrivance only exists in your own mind being the result of arrogance.

His equation was invalid due to the lack of complete understanding of the notion of infinity. He's not alone in making that particular error. Anyone who's been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity of studying mathematics (such as yourself) for many years wouldn't have likely made his mistake. However most others which haven't had that advantage would (and often do) as you've seen occur previously, more than on this singular occasion. The failure to have a complete and thorough understanding of a particular subject doesn't make someone a bad or evil person, except to you and by your erroneous way thinking in that regard.

To crucify him for having made an honest mistake or for lacking only one part (where he may have gotten all the others right) regarding the meaning of infinity, is completely unjustified and unwarranted. Just as in the case of (someone) knit picking the fact (another) made a simple honest misspelling (typo) in one of their posts, which any human being can easily do.

It's not particularly very helpful or useful crucifying someone for having made such a simple honest error as that, is it? Nor does intentionally badgering and intimidating someone encourage and make them more receptive to seeing things your way and accept what you're trying to convey. Rather, it only turns them off and drives them away as it would any human being.

AlphaNumeric: Having the view that there's always an opposite to everything is fine, but don't try to throw in an equation you think is profound but is actually BS just to try and validate your views.

Mike: Now you've really gone completely off the deep-end and driven away nearly everyone (other than one or two of your admirers which I'm not presently one) with that absurdly abusive statement.

In point of fact, assuming there's always an opposite to everything (like you do with respect to QT) isn't fine. It's an entirely false assumption for the reasons pointed-out in today's thread entitled Time and the property of finality also appearing in the Space section of the forum. Further, he never claimed his equation was profound in any way whatsoever. That's an erroneous assumption you've inserted (once again) because of arrogance. Your use of profanity (abbreviated or otherwise) was completely unwarranted and uncalled for (as it most often would be) particularly in this setting and occasion.

Perhaps you can learn for this experience yourself, if you're willing to do so. Realize, if you'd taken the time to explain to him where his assumptions went awry and why (which you honestly started out doing but then strayed) without the chip on your shoulder you carry around at all times, he might very well have finished reading your reply all the way thru and gained from it. However, as most everyone does with your posts, he likely stopped reading and abandoned it, once he realized the intent of your reply was to attack and intimidate, rather than help explain and teach.

You of all people have a great potential to do a lot of good on this forum. But you continue to allow your personal biases and shortcomings (which everyone has) to overcome your better judgement and destroy any such possibility. I genuinely hope you'll try to work on those tendencies and get them completely under control. Scientists and researchers, more so than most any other professionals, must have the ability to completely divorce themselves from their personal biases and preferences, in order to achieve valid and unbiased results.

Finally, all of those decent things I said about you in the January 14th entry I made to your feedback profile are true and I genuinely meant every one them, as I believe you know. But realize, you destroy each and every one of those outstanding attributes when you allow yourself to get out of control and become abusive.

The day you can resolve those self-destructive tendencies I'll be your staunchest friend and admirer. You have my word on that. Further, I believe you have the capacity within yourself to do so, if you set your mind to it. Anyone who's worked as long and hard to learn the many things you have, must certainly have that potential.

I just have to throw in my two cents.

What you are talking is about is null. Infinity - Infinity = null, not zero. Maybe that will help paint a clearer picture.

I got this quote from Ghost in the Shell in which a Tachkoma droid is explaining the concept of God to a cyborg. The droid thinks their commander is concerned that the droids have attained individuality. It goes like this:

"You remember that existence of God thing that I had so much trouble understanding? Well guess what? I think I'm starting to grasp it now. Maybe just maybe it's a concept that similar to zero in mathmatics. In other words, it's a symbol that denies the abscence of meaning -- The meaning that's necessitated by the delineation of one system from a another. In analog that's God, in digital that's zero. What do you think? What I'm getting at is this: The basis of our design and construction is digital, right? So for the time being no matter how much data we accumulate none of us [droids] will ever have a ghost [soul] but for analog-based people no matter how many digital components you add on through cyberization or prothestics your ghost will never diminish. Plus because you have a ghost you can even die. You're so lucky. So tell me what's it feel like to have a ghost?"

This got me thinking and studying emergence, cybernetics, system theory, and network theory.

First, zero does not denote the abscence of meaning, just value, an dthey are not the same. Null is an important concept that is being overlooked. It's like we're talking about space as though it were nothing when it is something, so if you use that analogy space is zero and null is nothing. The catch is null is required as the "space" where numbers like zero can exist. It's the platform, the canvas, the landscape which defines the rules that math follows.

I know that's BS, but not because it isn't true, it's because the rules are defined by the contrast between null and zero, not zero and one. By contrast I specifically mean the delineation of one system from another - the delination of zero from null is what defines the equation for infinity, not the delineation of one from zero.

Visulaize the infinity symbol and imagine all mathematics are with in it. Everything outside of it, is null. Null is outside of inifinity, but zero one and mathematics are contained within infinity.

I think of null as the vacuum of space. Zero would be space, matter would be one. Throw the infinity symbol in and it looks like a black hole. Apply physics to that and it's a collapsing wave function, where the center of the symbol is where mathematics comes into contact with null. Where the reality of the universe is defined by the collpasing wave function of probability.

The delineation of one from zero defines what is confined within the landscape/realm/model of inifinity, not what's outside it. In a dynamic linearly perceived universe there is nothing outside of it, but if you look at the time before the universe existed on that perceived scale it takes you back to some place outside the universe - some null-space where the universe came into existence.

Spontaneously null may have spawned zero at the beginning, and the equation that defines that is what I think would be significant empirically. Beyond that, the equation when applied to one spawning from zero becomes a subjective analysis/appplication and the only ones that really matter as far as relevance to reality/the real world of applications. The catch is figuring out the equation for the dynamics of infinity, or more specifically the delineation of zero from null.

That's what I think at least. I'm hoping people smarter than me will see the truth in what I'm saying and run with it to more meaningful applied ends. I can explain more if needed, for what it's worth.

The universe is best described by 42

psych0fred. Clue :

Add plus one trillion to minus one trillion and you get zero but not null. Zero has infinite capabilities providing both sides cancel out.