Does everything have an opposite?

[MisterJingo]

Regarding some of the examples given. Negative numbers do not exist, they can be construed as a deficit of a positive sum, but they hold no reality in themselves (take an apple from nothing). They are a construct of maths to help the mind of man conceptualise various phenomena - such as like pretend time etc.
Regarding opposites, hard and soft? Diamond is harder than stone, water is softer than a viscous liquid. If we regard such a thing as an absolute, absolute hardness, absolute softness. Does every degree in between have an opposite too? If so, what about the substance which is directly between the two extremes?
This can be applied to any of the examples.
I do not believe everything has an opposite, I do believe that primitive man founded the idea due to a limited outlook. Oh look: man, woman. Sun, moon. Day, night. Life, death. These are just man made associations. Woman is no more the opposite of man then cold is the opposite of hot (how cold, how hot?) They are just states.

[maddutchman]

the opposite of zero is the square root of negative 1

[Ybom]

When you think about changing the polarity of zero, which could be considered the best way to think about the concept, wouldn't you yield everything that isn't zero?

Seriously, I don't believe the concept of nothingness is explored enough. Negative space, holes, etc. These things are important.

[almost there]

I love semantic discussions, which is why I registered for this board to add my input.

Absolutes have opposites:  black/white, for example.  In my reality, such opposites exist only as abstractions, to imply a continuum between them -- in other words, all the shades of gray.

Whether relativistic concepts have opposites depends not only on the concept in question, but on the preferred definition of "opposite."

What's the opposite of "orange"?  Some would say that it has none, but in the common expression, "comparing apples and oranges," the opposite of orange is apple.

[Anubis]

Day-Night
Light-Dark
Good-Bad
Yes-No
Maybe-?

[maddutchman]

maybe-not?

[Ybom]

I love semantic discussions, which is why I registered for this board to add my input.

Absolutes have opposites:  black/white, for example.  In my reality, such opposites exist only as abstractions, to imply a continuum between them -- in other words, all the shades of gray.

Whether relativistic concepts have opposites depends not only on the concept in question, but on the preferred definition of "opposite."

What's the opposite of "orange"?  Some would say that it has none, but in the common expression, "comparing apples and oranges," the opposite of orange is apple.

So when someone asks you a question, such as; "Do you like pie, yes or no?" then technically you have two types of answers at your disposal, the absolute answer and the continuum answer? (well of course there's also the no answer, but we'll not go there) I seem to have a habit of answering on the continuum rather than with an absolute; is this a bad thing (yes or no? )

[Wronski Feint]

didnt sombody say that only fools beleive in absolutes?

and numbers shouldnt count, cause the opposite of blue inst negitive blue.  or the opposite of night isnt negitive night.  Numbers just confuse everyone.  And things have different opposites.  Like, whats the oppisite of red? der? green? see it could be either visually opposite or the opposite color, or it could be written upside down.  whats the opposite of a person, an evil one.  But the opposite of a fish is a bird.  its all screwed up. :\

[Quarternote]

Something having an opposite is based more on perception rather then reality in my opinion.

Think of color compliments such as red/green. Hold up a piece of red or green paper and look at it for a minute. At the end of the minute move your eyes to a white wall or paper. You'll see the opposite color.

That's the human body's eye working. It's a trick of the biology. So what does that hold for how we see night and day?

What we see as opposites could all be the same thing or something entirely different then we know from physical science.

[dirty_blonde]

not everything has an opposite.  Look at this deductive argument:

-For something to have an opposite, that opposite must exist in order to be.

-By nature, Non-existence does not exist.

.:Therefor, non-existence cannot be the opposite of existence.

An "opposite" is intrinsically an existence, a being, thus the only thing without an opposite (i suppose) is existence/being itself.  Saying that non-existence is the opposite of existence would not only contradict the nature of an "opposite", but it would also contradict the nature of "non-existence."  

so what do i win?  

[javascriptman221]

No, I think what he's trying to say is that...

Think of it as magnets, lets say we here in this universe have a positive charge.  We could have an exact twin, in a parallel universe, except with a negative charge.

What I think would happen, if both bodies met, is that we would explode.

[IequalMC2]

Ha, You win a Blue Peter Badge!

"Blue and Green can never be seen!"

An "opposite" is intrinsically an existence, a being, thus the only thing without an opposite (i suppose) is existence/being itself. Saying that non-existence is the opposite of existence would not only contradict the nature of an "opposite", but it would also contradict the nature of "non-existence."

[dirty_blonde]

yes!! a badge!!

wait, what exactly do you mean by "blue and green can never be seen"? It seems a little cryptic to me right now.

[gdo]

Not only that, Zero also means no-thing as in no one differentiated thing.  Or no named thing or object.  Before there can be one of any specific thing there is only the ALL.  There for Zero means before any enumeration or division of the ALL.

[CFTraveler]

In other words, there can only be relative oppossites, no absolute oppossites.

[gdo]

Everything that is, is.  The appearance of 'opposite' is one of perspective and the limitations of language and culture.  Naming something is to limit it after all.  Naming is a convenience for cultural intercourse, and not definitive, by any means.