4 ms·

> There are no 0 things in the world, it's just an abstract concept. So, empty water bottles don't exist? Or do you object to saying "this bottle contains 0 ml

> There are no 0 things in the world, it's just an abstract concept. So, empty water bottles don't exist? Or do you object to saying "this bottle contains 0 ml of water"? Why? Or do you think that no water bottle is the same thing as a water bottle with no water in it? > I have 1 car, not 0. And what about someone who has no car? Are there no people who don't have cars? Or do you object to saying "this person has zero cars"? Why? Or do you think that no garage is the same as a garage with no car in it? > If I had a lineup of cars, the first one would be 1, not 0. No, it wouldn't. Unless you arbitrarily decided to label it as such. It would be the first. That's an ordinal number. Also, you would have 1 car. That's a cardinal number.

goatlover 10y ago
>> So, empty water bottles don't exist? Or do you object to saying "this bottle contains 0 ml of water"? Why? They exist conceptually, because a water bottle could be empty of anything that fits inside. We say it has 0 ml of water and not coke or sand because we've designated it to be a water bottle, but nature obviously doesn't care what goes in the bottle, as long as it fits. It's just a useful idea we have to say there is zero something to designate a lack of something. But there isn't zero water in nature, anymore than there are zero unicorns, or zero Kings of France. >> And what about someone who has no car? Are there no people who don't have cars? Or do you object to saying "this person has zero cars"? Why? Or do you think that no garage is the same as a garage with no car in it? << Are there no people who don't have dinosaurs or time machines? The things we have zero of are infinite. But you don't actually have zero pink elephants in your backyard. >> No, it wouldn't. Unless you arbitrarily decided to label it as such. It would be the first. That's an ordinal number. Also, you would have 1 car. That's a cardinal number. So if we were to label to cars in increasing numeric order from one end to the other, we would start with 0 instead of 1 at the first car? We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. 0 Would be the basement level.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  > It's just a useful idea we have to say there is zero something to designate a lack of something. But there isn't zero water in nature, anymore than there are zero unicorns, or zero Kings of France. That's just confusion on your part. All of language is just a useful idea we have to designate whatever we designate with it, and you are just confusing things for no reason at all. You obviously understand what "zero something" means, and that what it means is indeed something that can describe aspects of reality, and then you go on and claim that somehow it doesn't. When I say "there are 0 ml of water in this bottle", you understand what it means, right? And if there is indeed no water in the bottle, what is there to be confused about? It does mean that there is no water in the bottle, but it also means something else at the same time? Or there is no water in the bottle, but there is also not no water in the bottle? > The things we have zero of are infinite. But you don't actually have zero pink elephants in your backyard. Yes, I actually have. "having zero <whatevers>" is, as you evidently know, a synonym for "having no <whatevers>" or "not having <whatevers>", and I absolutely certainly actually do not have pink elephants in my backyard. > So if we were to label to cars in increasing numeric order from one end to the other, we would start with 0 instead of 1 at the first car? There is no such thing as "we would start". You can start wherever you want. That is, as derefr has already explained to you, an exercise in assigning serial numbers. You can use whatever numbering scheme you like. Obviously. Some might be more useful than others, though. > We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. 0 Would be the basement level. Except you don't enter on the first floor. The "first" thing in any order is defined to be the thing without a predecessor. Obviously, if there is a basement, the ground floor is not the first floor, because the basement precedes it. Just because the ground floor is commonly called the "first floor" for historical reasons, doesn't make it the mathematically first floor.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. In some places (e.g., most of North America), that's the convention. In others, the "first floor" is the one immediately above the ground floor.
- Nadya 10y ago
  I feel zAy0LfpBZLC8mAc responded to the rest of your post fine - so I'm only going to add my own opinion regarding your last statement: >So if we were to label to cars in increasing numeric order from one end to the other, we would start with 0 instead of 1 at the first car? We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. 0 Would be the basement level. We opted for the word "Ground Floor" instead of "Zeroth Floor" likely due to the associations people make of "zero" (ie. not existing) and because it may have sounded weird but the concept is the same. The U.K and U.S refer to different storeys as the "first floor". In the U.S, the first floor is considered the ground floor and in the U.K the first floor is considered the second storey. A source of headaches when told the place you're looking at is on the first floor and you spend ages looking for it on the ground floor.

goatlover 10y ago

>> So, empty water bottles don't exist? Or do you object to saying "this bottle contains 0 ml of water"? Why? They exist conceptually, because a water bottle could be empty of anything that fits inside. We say it has 0 ml of water and not coke or sand because we've designated it to be a water bottle, but nature obviously doesn't care what goes in the bottle, as long as it fits. It's just a useful idea we have to say there is zero something to designate a lack of something. But there isn't zero water in nature, anymore than there are zero unicorns, or zero Kings of France. >> And what about someone who has no car? Are there no people who don't have cars? Or do you object to saying "this person has zero cars"? Why? Or do you think that no garage is the same as a garage with no car in it? << Are there no people who don't have dinosaurs or time machines? The things we have zero of are infinite. But you don't actually have zero pink elephants in your backyard. >> No, it wouldn't. Unless you arbitrarily decided to label it as such. It would be the first. That's an ordinal number. Also, you would have 1 car. That's a cardinal number. So if we were to label to cars in increasing numeric order from one end to the other, we would start with 0 instead of 1 at the first car? We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. 0 Would be the basement level.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> It's just a useful idea we have to say there is zero something to designate a lack of something. But there isn't zero water in nature, anymore than there are zero unicorns, or zero Kings of France. That's just confusion on your part. All of language is just a useful idea we have to designate whatever we designate with it, and you are just confusing things for no reason at all. You obviously understand what "zero something" means, and that what it means is indeed something that can describe aspects of reality, and then you go on and claim that somehow it doesn't. When I say "there are 0 ml of water in this bottle", you understand what it means, right? And if there is indeed no water in the bottle, what is there to be confused about? It does mean that there is no water in the bottle, but it also means something else at the same time? Or there is no water in the bottle, but there is also not no water in the bottle? > The things we have zero of are infinite. But you don't actually have zero pink elephants in your backyard. Yes, I actually have. "having zero <whatevers>" is, as you evidently know, a synonym for "having no <whatevers>" or "not having <whatevers>", and I absolutely certainly actually do not have pink elephants in my backyard. > So if we were to label to cars in increasing numeric order from one end to the other, we would start with 0 instead of 1 at the first car? There is no such thing as "we would start". You can start wherever you want. That is, as derefr has already explained to you, an exercise in assigning serial numbers. You can use whatever numbering scheme you like. Obviously. Some might be more useful than others, though. > We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. 0 Would be the basement level. Except you don't enter on the first floor. The "first" thing in any order is defined to be the thing without a predecessor. Obviously, if there is a basement, the ground floor is not the first floor, because the basement precedes it. Just because the ground floor is commonly called the "first floor" for historical reasons, doesn't make it the mathematically first floor.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. In some places (e.g., most of North America), that's the convention. In others, the "first floor" is the one immediately above the ground floor.
Nadya 10y ago
I feel zAy0LfpBZLC8mAc responded to the rest of your post fine - so I'm only going to add my own opinion regarding your last statement: >So if we were to label to cars in increasing numeric order from one end to the other, we would start with 0 instead of 1 at the first car? We don't do that with building levels. You enter on the first floor, go to the elevator, and you push a button for the floor level. The first floor is 1. 0 Would be the basement level. We opted for the word "Ground Floor" instead of "Zeroth Floor" likely due to the associations people make of "zero" (ie. not existing) and because it may have sounded weird but the concept is the same. The U.K and U.S refer to different storeys as the "first floor". In the U.S, the first floor is considered the ground floor and in the U.K the first floor is considered the second storey. A source of headaches when told the place you're looking at is on the first floor and you spend ages looking for it on the ground floor.