Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
There is no dark without light. No silence without sound. No nothing without something.
Take the "no"s out of that and it's still true.
No it's literally impossible.
You didnt even try, did you?
I did and then of course explained that the result is more than false, it's literally impossible.
There is dark without light. Sound without silence. Nothing without something.
These are all true sentences.
No, it's literally impossible.
English is probably not your first language, but still, this should be pretty clear to anyone with a basic understanding of it. Reread the sentences
People say shit like this, but it's just not true. If darkness is the absence of light, then it's dark so long as there isn't light. If you observe a universe where there are no photons, it'd be dark everywhere. (it'd also not have the EM force, but let's put that aside for now.) You can have darkness without light, but if you aren't aware of light, then you simply wouldn't have a word for darkness; you are confusing the conceptualization of thing with the thing itself. In my circles, we refer to this fallacy as confusing the map and the territory.
Imagine a flat universe without up and down and then you might arrive closer to the truth.
I'm a mathematician. I work in multidimensional spaces. Did you know you can have coordinate systems with boundaries? You can also have universes where movement is possible in a particular direction, but not the other. We actually live in such a universe; you can only move forward in time.
Your entire argument is "I can't imagine darkness without light, therefore it's logically impossible." All you've proven is that you lack an imagination and don't understand logic.
You're still limiting your thinking too much. Would you say it's possible for something to be impossible, or that that's simply not possible because everything is possible?
This is the least coherent thing I've read all year. Congratulations.
But why?
These concepts are each defined in relation to something else. Without that something else these concepts are meaningless, absurd, and do not exist.
But that assumption, of how reality works, is based on the premise that reality is, has always been, and can only work that way. Maybe opposites coexist in some other concept of reality?
There are logical impossibilities, for example in no universe does 0 = 1, and the same is true for these concepts.
Your example is wrong even in our universe lol. In the trivial ring (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_ring ), 0=1 is true.
What you are probably imagining when talking about 0 and 1 are their representatives in the "integer ring" or maybe the ring of real numbers. Both are simply definitions made by humans and in no way universal truths.
There's no math that makes 0 = 1. When you cannot see the error it does not mean there is no error.
How many years have you studied mathematics? If you really believe that, it can't be more than 2 after high-school.
Edit: better question: Can you define "equivalence relation"? I don't want you to be creative, I want the standard definition you come across in any foundations class.
The fact that time is relative disproves this already. Our understanding is limited by our ability to perceive.
This is actually wrong. You can have an equivalence relation where 0 is equivalent to 1. Furthermore, in the Trivial Ring (that is, the ring algebra of a single element) the multiplicative identity (written as 1) and the and the additive identity (written as 0) are the same element, and thus in the context of the trivial ring 0=1. Isn't that fascinating?