Zero

Does ‘zero’ exist?

‘Zero’ is an interesting cognitive concept. Zero doesn’t exist without one.  Nobody starts counting from ‘zero’ but from ‘one’. ‘Zero’ is invisible and doesn’t exist in our physical sensing world. 

‘One’ is visible and can be sensed. When there is an apple, you can say one apple. Then, ‘zero’ can become meaningful. No apple, but not no orange or tomato. Without one, zero is meaningless. Without ‘one’, ‘zero’ has no identity. ‘Zero’ for what? 'Zero' is insensible. Without defining what is in your mind, it doesn’t mean anything. Nothing. But nothing is everything – every possibility. Everything is infinite.

Only after ‘one’ is defined with a name, can ‘zero’ have its meaning. Without the name of an object, ‘zero’ doesn’t exist. 

Counting is linked to visible sensing and touching stimulation, but ‘zero’ is not. ‘Zero’ is cognition that is strictly dependent on a name. 'Zero' has no linkage to senses – void.

‘Zero’ is the concept of “doesn’t exist”. But what does not exist? Anything outside of the current sight. It is the possibility of everything - infinite. The only requirement is that it needs to have a name to recall it, because it is outside of our physical senses.  

Without ‘one’, ‘zero’ doesn’t exist. Without a name, ‘zero’ doesn’t exist. ‘Zero’ is outside of the current senses. ‘Zero’ demands the prior existence of a name. A name must exist before ‘zero’ to be recognized. A name can be a representation of something outside of our current senses, but exists in the past or future. This is the cognition of absence in the present moment. A name enables cognition of time. The concept of zero inherently involves time.  Very interesting.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." – Henry Ford

I like this quote. ‘Zero’ exists only in hindsight. The concept of automobiles arose only after they became available. It was only in Ford’s mind as a crazy daydreamer. A daydreamer became a visionary retrospectively after his success. You can find the same pattern in Steve Jobs with Apple’s iPad. The concept of portable tablets was only in science fiction for most people. Jobs made it a reality.  Only after the product was created could all efforts associated with the process be realized. If they were not successful, there would be no ‘first one’. Thus, there would be no ‘zero’.  Probably, many other unsuccessful inventors existed at the same time and attempted something similar. However, without the success, ‘one’ was not created. Therefore, no ‘zero’.  

Until the first one is formed, there is no ‘zero’. Without the first one, there is no name for it. Once the name is created for the ‘one’, the point ‘zero’ can be identified.

‘Zero’ doesn’t exist until ‘one’ is formed. 0.1 or 0.5 doesn’t exist until one is formed. Zero, 0.1 and 0.5 are all retrospective hindsight points of the view from after ‘one’.

From ‘zero’ to ‘one’ is not logic. But imagination, courage, resilience and luck. Without ‘one’, everything is nothing and simultaneously infinite. No way to be correct before ‘one’. Insensible becomes being sensed – as the ‘one’ with its name. Then, the insensible is cognized as ‘zero’.

Zero and infinite are very close concepts – void. Nothing but everything. They are the same, but sit on two different nested layers – two distinct dimensions. Should never be on the same dimension. Interestingly, calculus captures this. On the other hand, a Cartesian graph places zero and infinite on the same plane dimension.  Or maybe not. Infinite disappears in it with the expense of the presence of ‘zero’.   Interesting.

After all, ‘zero’ is not a natural number that only exists in our cognitive mind because of names, which are the basis of language.