Emptiness Is The Only Requirement For Life (proof)

[Dodo]

Note: You've never seen a real dot, real line, real plain, they are all 0, nothing, as seen from the third dimension.

How many 0s are there in a 0? 0=0+..+0 (inf times) or 0=0*inf;

Dot = 0(height)*0(length)*0(depth) = 0
Infinite amount of dots next to each other create a line (………..)
Line = x*0*0 =inf*0*0*0 =  inf*0 = 0
Infinite amount of lines next to each other create a plain:
Plain = x*y*0 = inf*0*inf*0*0 =  inf*0 = 0
Infinite amount of 2d plains next to each other create the 3d reality:
3d Reality = x*y*z = (inf*0*inf*0*0) * inf=  inf*0 = 0

This is proof that all we need in order to have a 3d reality is emptiness.

 

Any number = 0*inf; 0*inf is undefined real number. Sounds a lot like what we are experiencing, no? Undefinable real experience.

3d Reality = inf*0*inf*0*inf*0 = 0+0+…+0 = 0

This is mathematical proof that the 3d Reality is emptiness itself. This is how something comes from nothing basically! Emptiness is the building block of the entire universe, emptiness is the only building block and is what the entire reality is made of.

Absolute emptiness is absolutely infinite. This is what allows it to create all those experiences! It's all maths, if there is emptiness, there will be 3d reality also, automatically generated by the emptiness, the way I explained above.

I hope this tickles you in a nice way. If you see a fault in this reasoning, please elaborate!

There's nothing more to say other than OMMMM!

Edit: Oh yeah, and you are that emptiness, that infinite zero! Kaaazooooooo!!!

Edited May 2, 2017 by Dodoster

[Shin]

This is how my mind see you right now:

(It also wants to know the name of the substance you just take)

 

 

 

[Toby]

You cannot proof something which itself just uses definitions which itself are just assumptions. "0" is a definition. And "0" by definition is part of the field which means it cannot be beyond it. So "0" cannot really be emptiness as it is defined.

[Max_V]

This is quite interesting. Thanks for making my brain malfunction for a sec

[Loreena]

I know only basic mathematics

[Dodo]

3 minutes ago, Toby said:

You cannot proof something which itself just uses definitions which itself are just assumptions. "0" is a definition. And "0" by definition is part of the field which means it cannot be beyond it. So "0" cannot really be emptiness as it is defined.

Ofcourse hehe, 0 is a label pointing to emptiness, I think we should be pass explaining that point.

I cant show you pure nothingness in a post, but I can talk about it. 

Why don't you have a problem with dots, lines and planes, since they are also not the label? Also every word ever spoken lol...

Actually, considering thay everything is emptiness, this post including all labels in it, even those that arent the label 0 are the emptiness itself so there! I did put emptiness on a post for you after all, you just are not seeing it as a 3d entity, just like you arent seeing dots, lines and planes.

[Dodo]

8 minutes ago, Loreena said:

I know only basic mathematics

This is super basic Loree, that's why I could write it out  

[Toby]

"0" is not a label of emptiness. It is a label for an element of the set over which the field (here R) is defined over which the vector space (here R3) is defined. So it cannot represent emptiness as emptiness "should" go beyond "something" and definitions.

Edit: as you can see you cannot define a field without the "0": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Classic_definition

Edited May 2, 2017 by Toby

[Dodo]

7 minutes ago, Toby said:

"0" is not a label of emptiness. It is a label for an element of the set over which the field (here R) is defined over which the vector space (here R3) is defined. So it cannot represent emptiness as emptiness "should" go beyond "something" and definitions.

This is just mental masturbation here. Zero cannot point to anything other than pure emptiness. It is the definition of the word itself.

Just because you can do maths with it does not mean it is not pointing to emptiness. It means more that entire field of maths is about things that do not exist, but are helpful to think about.

I know mathematicians did not want for a long time to place a label on 0, because they didn't want to put something to point to nothing.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Dodoster

[Toby]

Hey, I did this mental masturbation called "math" for 1 year at university and things like this are the first things one learns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Classic_definition

[Dodo]

6 minutes ago, Toby said:

Hey, I did this mental masturbation called "math" for 1 year at university and things like this are the first things one learns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Classic_definition

So if you learned something in school it means it's 100% pure Gold? 

Tell me this,  why cant 0 be both pointing at emptiness and at the same time defining all those things? 

That does not disprove anything,  it only shows that emptiness defines reality. You're just going the wrong direction in this observation.

1 cow - 1 cow = 10 spiders - 10 spiders = x - x = Emptiness = 0

Sometimes too much knowledge is a bad thing @TobyToby TobyToby

[Toby]

Didn't someone say that you were studying mathematics? I'm a bit confused that you are not able to see what I'm talking about.

[Dodo]

25 minutes ago, Toby said:

"0" is not a label of emptiness. It is a label for an element of the set over which the field (here R) is defined over which the vector space (here R3) is defined. So it cannot represent emptiness as emptiness "should" go beyond "something" and definitions.

Edit: as you can see you cannot define a field without the "0": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Classic_definition

I just see the edit: i am really happy with this one! It's basically saying the same thing. You cannot define a field without emptiness. It's right in your face. 

Emptiness is also a label, but you're using it?? Completely contradicts what you're trying to enforce: 

So it cannot represent emptiness as emptiness "should" go beyond "something" and definitions.

Why would emptiness not have a definition. A definition is only anothet type of pointer, not the thing. Hehe.

[Dodo]

20 minutes ago, Toby said:

Didn't someone say that you were studying mathematics? I'm a bit confused that you are not able to see what I'm talking about.

For me mathematics is not about definitions,  it's about pure and simple logic. About using what is given to you in order to find the solution. 

ALso @Toby have you considered the "Both option"?

Im not saying what you're saying is wrong, I'm saying that both are right. Thats why emptiness is God, it is absolutely everywhere if you dig deep enough. 

0 = no thing

Emptiness = no thing

no thing = no thing

no thing = definition/pointer for emptiness

0 = definition/pointer for emptiness

It really couldn't be any simpler. I don't know how it could be any other way.

You're putting way too much baggage on the symbol 0, which even as a symbol is like circling of empty space within. It's exactly what it points to. Emptiness

@Toby you are caught red handed! 

Quote

So it cannot represent emptiness as emptiness "should" go beyond "something" and definitions.

^ This itself is a definition for emptiness. Does it mean it is untrue??? Hehehehe!!!! I see double standards!!!!!!

Edited May 2, 2017 by Dodoster

[SOUL]

50 minutes ago, Dodoster said:

pointing to emptiness

[Toby]

So, let's say we have {0,1} which is a field. How can the "0" here represent emptiness when the set itself has only two elements? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Hsinav]

Less is more and everything is nothing.

[Dodo]

5 minutes ago, Toby said:

So, let's say we have {0,1} which is a field. How can the "0" here represent emptiness when the set itself has only two elements? Doesn't make sense to me.

You say it's 2 elements, but have you seen either in reality? roflmao They both point to emptiness (as explained with first post). The entire world points to emptiness.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Dodoster

[Toby]

So, do you study mathematics at university or not?

[Loreena]

@Shin This is how I see you right now