Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Wed, 3 May 95 11:00:42 CST
In article <3nt8ef$ovj@eplet.mira.net.au> proff@suburbia.apana.org.au (Julian Assange) writes:
> Infinity may well be an intellectual concept. Zero certainly isn't and is well
> understood in many circimstances, where it merely means "does not have this
> property" or "not applicable".
>
> Zero cats are dogs.
> Zero protons are electrons.
>
> -Proff
Well, gee, Proff, since zero didn't even exist as a concept prior to around
800 A.D., then why is it _not_ also an intellectual concept?
Also, why would zero be a negation of a property? Not applicable would not
mean zero, but rather, it would mean not a, or -a, wouldn't it?
Can you hold nothing in your hand? Seems rather "intellectually conceptual"
to me.
Also, since when has "intellectual" come to signify that which is not
believed to have a tangible parallel readily available in reality?
Finally, would one million also then be an "intellectual concept," while one
is not? After all, it has been well proven that the human mind is incapable
of conceptualizing the true size of immense quantities without reference
to written numerals, whereas we can certainly see and imagine the concept
_one_.
I feel that the use of the term "intellectual concept" is somewhat
sloppy, while also being conveniant to your point of view.
As well, the zero used in the proposition "zero cats are dogs," is a
different zero than the zero which falls between -1 and +1. Your prop
utilizes the _word_ zero in a form that is synonymous to negation. It could
just as easily be said that "no cats are dogs." However, "no" will not
substitute for zero when we count from -3 to +2.
|