Comments by "" (@NoahBodze) on "penguinz0" channel.

Zero doesn’t exist. In fact, naming nothing is nonsense. What we call zero is really “neutral,” because our number system runs on plus-minus axis and numbers represent the material world and zero is the literal opposite of that. You have to realize that 2+2=5 can’t be false because it’s technically an incomplete statement. 2x+2x=5x is false. Implied in the equation is a representation of the material world; numbers are actually adjectives and the X is a noun in the expression. “OX” — zero X — is literal nonsense. Zero doesn’t exist under its own definition because you have to conjure an X to show that there is no X. Literal nonsense. We should call what we call zero “neutral.”
32
Can you believe the coincidence that he discovered it? I can’t!
26
@pr6897 No. The very definition of zero is self-negating. What is 0x ( zero X ) ? It’s not even nonsense. You have to create at least one x just to take it away to show what zero might be. If math is a representation of the material world, then zero can not exist. We should call what we call “zero,” now, “neutral,” because math works on an axis with which the cross point, what we now call “zero”, is not nothing.
11
@bobbobert9379 Zero isn’t a number. At best, conventional math doesn’t treat zero correctly, but it’s more the idea of its name than how it represents the world. That’s the best you can alter math. Everything else is nonsense because it’s not what math is, which is a language. A language is a representation of the world. That’s all it it.
2
@BabahsGuhjSikartja Whether it's Kant, Wittgenstein or Madonna you listen to, all three are correct when they say that we live in a material — and ONLY a material — world. 1 question — how can zero "be." 2 question — is zero an invention or discovery? That I don't have an answer, either, should tell you something. 3 Question — did you know that even if you put a "0-Question" in front of the "1 question" above that "0-Question" would still be the first question, right? Zero would be what Wittengenstein would call nonsense and nonsense is something you not only do not name but also pass over in silence. My proposition is to change "zero" to "neutral" for where "zero" is now. Our number system works on a material axis of pluses and minuses of material things, more like a ledger than anything existential. "Neutral" is a better word for it because We're livin in a material world And you are a material girl Terial-ahhal A Material world.
2
@apokkalyps6 Incorrect. Math is a representation of reality. Repeat that, because it can’t not be. Any direction you want to take your ideas that violate “math is a language that represents reality” is incorrect. If I have a list that goes 1-Onions 2-Lettuce 3 Bacon There is no zero. You think you can write 0-Mustard above the “1 -Onions” and suddenly validate zero. You didn’t do that. Zero is literally immaterial and, at best, esoteric. That you call a point in an axis “zero” is as arbitrary as you calling it “Mustard.” “Neutral.” Replace zero with “neutral” and it matters. You have believed the bullshit people tell you against the material world through mathematics that preachers use to seduce their flock, too. The material world is all we can account for. That’s all.
2
Right? People blame politicians for our problems but those politicians are just a symptom of the problem. The problems is almost everyone. So many people don’t even know what they don’t know but should:
1
@pr6897 All language — every thing that we make esoteric — is a representation of the material world. That you ask “who says?” is you inadvertently understanding this fact.
1
@G.A.C_Preserve Yes, stupid.
1
@apokkalyps6 Where does it start, stupid. You’re building all of your ideas on a concept you don’t even understand, stupid. What is 0x. Explain it to me without using “x” to explain it. What is the noumenal zero? Your primal understanding is nullified by Kant “ding an such.” What is zero in itself, stupid?
1
@nickcunningham6344 there’s that word — represent. What do numbers represent? The material world. They can represent nothing else and still be associated to the real. But math is a language, and like any other language, it is our own apostori social construct to explain the world around us. But it is based on the world around us — it is material and only material and can’t not be. Numbers are esoteric. Return to Kant and the concept of pneumena, or the ding an sich, which are similar, but not the same things. Kant’s basic idea is this – there is a phenomenal world in which things like life and language exist for us to discuss and interact with. From this world is an elementary fact, or facts as things in themselves. These things would still exist whether we’ve perceived them or not. If a tree falls in the woods, and none is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes. Yes. This must be the case. I’ll ask again – is zero, or infinity, an invention or discovery? The irony is that it’s neither because zero is not represented anywhere in the material world and can not be discussed, nor can infinity, except in our minds so long as we live as denotative nonsense. They are entire figments of our imagination in some feral attempt to make order of the world so absurd we can’t even understand what we don’t understand. Again, extricate zero from our number system because our numbers aren’t ex Nilo. Our numbers are built on a ledger system, where the concept of the ledger exists before one can discover the neutral point in an axis. Being at the neutral point in an axis is not 0 — it’s the neutral point in the axis with summations based on the naming of the scale for which the neutral point is based and negative and positive productions of that basis on scaled number exist en Potencia. Understanding that you no longer have one cow, gets you know closer to understanding what is zero is to what having Infiniti cows is. Furthermore — if you have infinity cows, then how can you have infinity of anything else? 0X is denotative nonsense. Neutral X makes sense because it presupposes X in quantity that exists in the material world.
1
@nickcunningham6344 it’s also odd that you think God because God has way more in common with zero than anything else in the world because both are entirely metaphysical and literally immaterial. You can say they exist, but you have to admit that they exist on the same terms.
1
@fibonaccicats7179 A number is a representation of the material world, stupid. Math is a language. What does zero, as you understand it, represent in the real world?
1
@SeventhGod77 Why? They didn’t come up with zero.
1
@ananananananananananananananananananananananananan my point, exactly. Zero is not an idea that corresponds to what it is. Athletes put 0 on their jerseys to prove your point, too. An athlete with a 0 jersey is denotatively absurd, but there it is. Zero doesn’t exist — but because someone has named something that doesn’t exist they can use that word to MISNAME other things now. Zero represents nothing in the world and has no noumena; it’s an entirely artificial, a posteriori concept.
1
@ananananananananananananananananananananananananan That’s not “zero.” That’s “neutral.” Zero is not neutral. Zero is nothing. Three rocks existing in the world is apriori knowledge. We esoterically represent these rocks, aposteori with words and numbers. These rocks would exist without our ability to count them. Show me zero rocks. Because you have to show me one rock and then take it away as your solution shows me only what having one rock and then not having that rock is. You haven’t shown me zero. Zero not only doesn’t exist, it can not exist. Numbers are on a scale, what you think is zero is accurately described as “neutral.”
1
@tmgn7588 x is a thing IN ITSELF that zero CANNOT represent. What is 0x? C’mon. Out on your big boy brain, if you have it. What would Kant say about “0x.” What’s funny is you don’t have the mind for this.
1
@tmgn7588 2+2=5 is an incomplete statement, a contraction of what is really being represented, so its neither true nor false. 2x+2x=5x is what the contracted expression represents, which is also false. Math is a language that represents the world. So I will ask you again — what is 0x. Explain "zero" to me without discussing "X". That's what you all don't understand. In Kantian logic, there is the noumena — the thing in itself outside our comprehension — and the phenomena. "Zero" has no noumena. Nothing can be said about "0" that doesnt require something else to discuss it for the sole purpose of negating that thing. 0x is denotative nonsense.
1
@thatpotatotho6792 The human mind is aposteori. What is 0x? Explain zero without X. You can’t, because x represents an object in the world and “zero” is no object of any kind. Learn what apriori and aposteori are before you waste anyone’s time again.
1
@themexicansensation2698 No. it doesn’t. This is why Kant matters. Neutral is a state of affairs for an a posteori rendering of apriori knowledge. Describe zero, apriori. This is above your head but doesn’t have to be if you just did the reading.
1
@Katierandolph9629 By by logic, “neutral” replaces zero, stupid. I HAVE logic. That’s how you and I differ.
1
@drcgaming4195 2X+2X=4X. You forget that numbers are adjectives, not nouns, in the linguistic formulation of an equation. That forgetting is why you will always be wrong. Math is a language and languages reflect the material world.
1
@ There are zero Terrences. Explain.
1
@ Because neutral is the central point on the numbers axis — how we quantify things — and zero is literally meaningless unto itself. Draw for me 0 elephants. Notice how it looks exactly like 0 planets and 0 Hungarian crowns? The concept of zero has no apriori meaning OR aposteriori and represents nothing.
1
@ I’m not saying anything of this — the facts of the world and how we perceive this are. You’ve obviously never read Kant and have not concept of math as a material representation of the material real, so you’re stupid AND lazy and that’s boring to me.
1
@ Draw 0 elephants. If you can do this, you win. But you can’t, because you must recognize that you must quantify it — 1 elephant — in order to negate it, which is denotative nonsense. You’re not even trying, lazy, stupid and boring person certain of his squalid thought! Lazy, stupid and certain is boring to me.
1
@lilybirdflowergum8683 More boring cliches. See how unfun that is, boring cliche boy? You're 0x.
1