/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13100343]

what is the nature of time? if matter cannot be created or destroyed, isn't it the case that the universe and all of the matter it contains has existed and will exist forever? and if that is the case, and the universe has existed forever, doesn't that mean that an infinite number of events have happened? isn't that impossible?

[Anonymous No.13100352]

>attempting to deduce the quiddity of temporality ontically and not ontologically

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.13100358]

>>13100352
ontology is reddit tier

[Anonymous No.13100368]

>>13100358
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.13100378]

>>13100343
>and if that is the case, and the universe has existed forever, doesn't that mean that an infinite number of events have happened? isn't that impossible?
Yes, which is proof enough that time is "circular", aka eternal reoccurrence here we come

[Anonymous No.13100430]

>>13100378
does this mean that any given moment has occurred infinite times and will occur infinite times again? is there a way to deduce the length of this eternal cycle?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » lmxvabIoSIE No.13100438]

>>13100368
That's the second fake butterfly.

[Anonymous No.13100440]

>>13100343
>the laws of thermodynamics always apply everywhere no matter the context!

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13100463]

>>13100438
Take Rei’s old wiggle marks off.
You look ridiculous

[Anonymous No.13100475]

>>13100440
they certainly apply everywhere in the material universe. by their very premise, they must. either they always apply to the material universe or they are incorrect.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » lmxvabIoSIE No.13100477]

*takes a fat greasy derailing dump on your thread*

[Anonymous No.13100478]

>>13100343
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[Anonymous No.13100480]

>>13100475
did you sleep through high school physics? that's not how science works at all
>or they are incorrect
a bit simplistic but essentially true

[Anonymous No.13100496]

>>13100480
please explain your reasoning, or at least provide any example of matter being created or destroyed.

[Anonymous No.13100514]

>>13100496
already did >>13100440
also: quantum mechanics
also also: the beginning[sic] of time
also also also: your mum's gaping cunt
I'm an actual STEMtard you cumgobbling hobbit, don't try to bullshit me. Here's your crash course:
1: the "laws" of physics are really just models based on our observations
2: those observations are limited and almost certainly insufficient
3: any conclusions we draw from them are at least partially untrue (easy example: everyone thought Newtonian motion was accurate until Einstein put together his relativistic equations. Those probably aren't completely true either, but they're more accurate for a wider range of circumstances)
4: there is no such thing as a physical "law" in the sense you're thinking. Such laws may exist, but they are unknown to us and anything and everything we believe now should be understood in context

[Anonymous No.13100523]

>>13100343
>>13100352
These two posters stand in substantial relation to each other and the fact of ethics suggest that there are consequent outcomes

[Anonymous No.13100549]

>>13100514
>already did
calling me a brainlet isn't an explanation of your reasoning.

i am aware that the laws of physics in general are not flawless, but specifically the law of conservation of energy transcends this fallibility as it is based upon the principles of logic, rather than pure observation.

nothing is created from what does not exist. for everything would be born from everything without the need for seed. and if that which is destroyed were dissolved into what does not exist, everything would be destroyed, since that into which they were dissolved does not exist.

[Anonymous No.13100602]

>>13100549
>brainlet
that's an image of a black hole
>principles of logic
you're getting into philosophy there, which is less of my forte, although I think that what you say is still contentious. Fortunately, that model can be attacked from an empirical footing as well, so if you want specific examples of this one specific law being insufficient here you go:
1: conservation of energy only applies in a time-symmetric system. The physical universe is not time-symmetric.
2: conservation of energy only applies in a closed system, but there is no reason to believe that the observable universe represents a closed system.
3: conservation of energy can be violated on the quantum level under certain circumstances (in unmeasurable amounts and for short periods of time)

[Anonymous No.13100674]

>>13100602
if conservation of energy only applies in a time-symmetric system, and the physical universe is not time-symmetric, wouldn't that mean that conservation of energy doesn't apply in the physical universe?

if the observable universe is not a closed system, what is it? the observable universe encompasses all physical matter, so where else is there matter to be transferred in and out of the system?

if the violation of conservation of energy isn't measurable, how do you know it's happening?

[Anonymous No.13100695]

>>13100674
>if conservation of energy only applies in a time-symmetric system, and the physical universe is not time-symmetric, wouldn't that mean that conservation of energy doesn't apply in the physical universe?
yes it would seem to imply that, wouldn't it
>if the observable universe is not a closed system, what is it?
an open system
>the observable universe encompasses all physical matter
what makes you think that?
>so where else is there matter to be transferred in and out of the system?
quantum foam, higher dimensions, parallel universes, metaverse systems, take your pick. This is all very theoretical right but the point is it's fully possible and one of these is most likely true
>if the violation of conservation of energy isn't measurable, how do you know it's happening?
because we know the principles by which quantum particles operate even if we can't directly measure every possible outcome

[Anonymous No.13100766]

>>13100695
>yes it would seem to imply that, wouldn't it
wouldn't that mean, then, the law of conservation of energy is entirely wrong?
>an open system
open to what? there is no other system. the physical universe, by being the physical universe, is everything that physically exists.
>what makes you think that?
the definition of the universe as the whole body of physical matter that exists, a definition i have come to understand as widely accepted
>quantum foam
no reason to believe in this
>other dimensions, universes, &c.
even if at least one of these does probably exist, it does not change the physical and logical realities by which this universe is governed, realities which provide no reason to suggest that intercourse with other universes and dimensions is remotely possible. also, on what authority do you claim that one of those things is most likely true?
>we know the principles by which quantum particles operate
you really don't though, at least not when it comes to conservation of energy. any statement that violation of conservation of energy occurs in quantum particles is just one drop in the massive sea of competing claims regarding quantum physics.

[Anonymous No.13100838]

>>13100343
You need to read Kant and his antinomies of pure reason. Basically, "every effect is preceded by a cause" is an objectively true principle for human experience, but not for things-in-themselves. Thus, considered for-experience, there is indeed an infinite regression of causes going back eternally. However, none of this need hold true of the universe-in-itself. The difference is due to the fact that "time" as you know it is human intuition overlayed onto sense-data to give rise to experience.

[Anonymous No.13100859]

>>13100343
>and if that is the case, and the universe has existed forever, doesn't that mean that an infinite number of events have happened? isn't that impossible?
No? What's impossible about that? As for the earlier half of your question, if you ask a physicist you'll get an answer of a sort. But speaking just of hypotheticals, if the universe had existed forever and an infinite number of events had occurred, I don't see anything about that which is impossible.

[Anonymous No.13100916]

>>13100343
>and if that is the case, and the universe has existed forever, doesn't that mean that an infinite number of events have happened?
Asserting the second implies the first

[Anonymous No.13100925]

>>13100378
Boring and idiosyncratic cope, not good enough