Algebra as a complete philosophy

As I was wondering about the principles taught in today's schools in the domain of mathematics as algebra, I stumbled across this seeming illogical part of the fundamentals of it's rules.

It concerns the use of zero as a value in solving equations. Depending on how one defines zero, there are these obvious possibilities.

1) Zero is a place holder for an empty set.
2) Zero is a valueless quantifier.
3) Zero is actually an unknown since "nothing" is not rationally knowable except by delusion or absence.

I can remember the statement, "You are comparing apples and oranges."
Yet this is not an irrational not illogical premise.

Both apples and oranges are fruits. If in the set (domain) of fruits there are apples and oranges, and in a sample there are only apples, does that mean that oranges have no existence as an empty set?

Possibly conceivable. The set of all birds is a subset of flying creatures.

Pterodactyls and gooney birds are on record as having had an existence, but cannot be found in even one living example, thus nullifying the condition of being able to fly.

In the same sense, a stone thrown from and invisible source can be said to fly, but as far as we know it cannot fly by its own volition.

So, getting back to practical versus theoretical algebraic math, the reality of zero in a statement is valid by condition of definiton, and is not absolute in the sense of having a real existence, but merely an imaginary one.

Not too crazy since solving quadratic equations often produces imaginary roots. Do imaginary roots exist? Rationally yes. Existentially by common sensual verification only upon amplification have been verifed.

The best example of this I can think of now is the use of electromagnetic energy for communications. When radio was discovered by searching for evidence of invisible or undetectable effects under amplification and detection of electrical energy, Faraday did it by proving he could move something detectable over a distance without any evidence of a medium.

It was known that sound seemed to travel mysteriously through space, but the mechanism was not clear until sympathetic resonance was actually produced.

Chasing the mathematical logic of unseeable events became a favorite pastime of the curious, and oddly enough showed a glimmer of light in the imaginary and complex roots of quadratic equations.

However, zero remains an enigma in algebra and philosophy because it requires a relative construct to define it.

To exist or not to exist. That begs a question.

This is one question it begs: Does a false conclusion (answer, result) from a false equation (argument, formula) when it is in agreement within its range and domain of truth value, make a false conclusion valid in truth value?

In other words, is it possible to make something false appear to be true by relative agreement? Or, is it possible to replace true and false in a set of statements and remain a valid argument?

Oddly, yes. It is possible to say that false is true. We accept the value of "false" as self contradiction by assuming false to be true.

For example. "Is it true that the moon is made of green cheese?" If you say yes, you are not replying in truth. If you say "no", "That the Moon is not made of green cheese, then you are replying in truth by agreement, even if you still think the Moon might be made of green cheese or not.

Agreement is not a guarantee of the truth value of an argument in all cases, because we have to accept "false" as true.

To think that something is true or not must by necessity require a third value, "unknown". This is the existential argument for the existence of God in the Bible, that God does and does not exist, depending on the evidence to support the claim, which is faith.

It is written in the New Testament that Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God. Why? Because his being in existence did not nullify the argument of whether God exists or not.

The existence of any unknown is based on an assumption. How that assumption is formulated in thought or deed, is an approximation of its expected value.

Christianity thrives because the belief of the reality of the existence of Jesus is a best fit example of what God is. By any other name, the personification of an unknown or set of unknowns, remains valid only by consistent persistence over time. And also the fact that Jesus was accepted as human consistent with specifics; not a mere imaginary being. He had real flesh. bone and blood. Is matter equivalent to energy?
Energy equals mass (matter) multiplied by the square of the speed of light. Thus, if God is light; for God to become mortal, the value of the square root of the energy necessary to equivocate the existence of the mass of a mortal at the speed of light has to be in existence. That is, a 150 pound man multiplied by the speed of light, is about 27,900,ooo pound-miles per second. The Roman pantheon was named after planets as was the Greek. The Judeo-Christian Theos is a unitary, (or triune) spiritual entity.

What validates the assumpton is the Resurrection.

41:008:035 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
41:008:036 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
41:008:037 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

58:004:011 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
58:004:012 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Religion is best understood, (to me) by searching its metaphysics compared to everyday life. If it succeeds it is true. If it fails, it is also true.

True and false are both true possibilities. True or false are a choice.

The moral values of truth and false named as good and evil, provide two more parameters for evaluation of statements and arguments.

A statement can be false and evil to be good and/or true, but true cannot be false, false can be true, (in that it is false), and good cannot be evil.

Thus, evil, even if true or false, cannot be good.

With this I thought, "what about black holes and the big bang?"

It occured to me that heat as energy is a more significant parameter than time in the extrapolation of event horizons.

Thus the big bang is nonsense and black holes are "colder" than absolute zero. This does not nullify the possibility that catastrophic events must occur. They do.

Tine and light are by definition an inseperable pair. No light, no time.

Heat and EMF (electromotive force), and gravity are products of the experience of life. No life, no humans, and no word for light or time.

Thus consciousness of light and time are relative to human existence. And as we can often assume that the perception of time, energy, gravity, and motion are common to life, the harmonies of their existence are common. Fish, for example, seem to suddenly become aware of air, lack of buoyancy, changes in the dynamics of a different medium compared to their familiar habitat.

Amphibians and reptiles (also birds) have their range and domain of function, yet outside of that set, a different set of parameters changes what is perceived.

I cannot assume that human consciousness will ever be a perfect and absolute child of the universe, yet the possibility of that, seems very plausible.