Zero—a Tangible Representation of Nonexistence: Implications for Modern Science and the Fundamental

Sophia 60 (3):655-676 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A defining characteristic of modern science is its ability to make immensely successful predictions of natural phenomena without invoking a putative god or a supernatural being. Here, we argue that this intellectual discipline would not acquire such an ability without the mathematical zero. We insist that zero and its basic operations were likely conceived in India based on a philosophy of nothing, and classify nothing into four categories—balance, absence, emptiness and nonexistence. We argue that zero is a tangible representation of nonexistence and constitutes all nonzero numbers, which together represent existence. It appears that zero’s journey out of India somewhat separated its mathematical and philosophical aspects, with the former being more valued by some cultures and the latter by others. The European culture, in which modern science grew, largely ignores a philosophy of nothing due to a deep-rooted Greek philosophical base, although this science relies on the notion of nonexistence through zero. Consequently, zero is a mere number of convenience without its foundational philosophy in science, and techniques to circumvent zero are developed. We insist that, while such techniques contribute to the progress of science and mathematics within the current framework, a tendency to avoid zero and its philosophy leads to approximations and may hinder a deeper understanding. Finally, we argue that nonexistence may notionally constitute existence, and hence may be the fundamental. This implies that, if a supernatural being exists, it is not the fundamental. The independence of modern science from a supernatural being is consistent with this.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,758

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Mathematics is a Science!Luca Granieri - 2019 - Science and Philosophy 7 (2):113-124.
Mathematics and Science.Ronald E. Mickens - 1990 - World Scientific Publishing Company.
Whose Devil? Which Details?Gordon Belot - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (1):128-153.
Procedural Representation in Michael Faraday's Scientific Thought.Ryan D. Tweney - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:336 - 344.
Fundamental and accidental symmetries.Peter Kosso - 2000 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (2):109 – 121.
Modern Physics and the Philosophy of Science.Dudley Shapere - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:201-210.
Grounding nonexistence.Daniel Muñoz - 2020 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 63 (2):209-229.
Fundamentality, Explanation, and the Unity of Science.Gregory N. Derry - 2019 - In Anthony Aguirre, Brendan Foster & Zeeya Merali (eds.), What is Fundamental? Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 115-121.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-09-07

Downloads
49 (#332,011)

6 months
14 (#200,084)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis.John Hospers - 1956 - Philosophy 33 (124):70-71.
Indian Philosophy.S. Radhakrishnan - 1927 - Annalen der Philosophie Und Philosophischen Kritik 6:134-134.

View all 16 references / Add more references