/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15509337
>there's no need to give this other weird definition, i already gave the proper definition. and yes, we don't have it.
The problem is you cannot actually quantify it, so of course it has no realm being spoken about in math/science. "To have done otherwise" is not something you can obtain, the potential for it was lost but could have been. I feel there is a need to give it because most if not everything in this universe has a beginning/end and those events happening influence other "wills" around it.
Suffice to say I don't believe in "free" will, but will of the elbow grease variety.

>but it's not about "going back"
There is no otherway to scientifically verify what you're saying as true. You can't actualize the potential if you let a time period pass in which it loses that energy. You cannot put the smoke back into the cigarette to see if not lighting it means it wouldn't have burned.

>it's about whether any alternatives were possible *at the time* (they weren't). there is no potential, only actual.
You don't know that because the potential wasn't actualized. You can't plant the acorn after it dries out to figure out whether or not it will grow. You need an entire season for the tree to gather the energy and attempt again.

>>15162892
It is only a problem to mainly 2 types of people:
1. Materialists who believe that only physical things control the universe, thus directing them to the belief that there either is no consciousness or that it is somehow "physical". This gives rise to a host of misunderstandings and introduces more and more theories (like dualism etc).

2. Spiritualists who believe consciousness is a gift/some sort of first sin/natural order from a higher caliber/god/source/ what have you with the lack of a true explanation. The explanation as to the lack of explanation is usually some unmoved mover "God did it", you cannot know etc.). This gives rise to more or less the SAME theory, only with different fancy descriptions accommodating each one.

The reductionist/monist negates both of these. Both the materialist and spiritualist usually don't consider that "absence" satisfies an unmoved mover. The materialist is looking for material, something to count, locate, "have". The spiritualist does the same only with ideas/idealisms/ as they look for liberation from the material world.

The soul is nowhere specific, therefore it cannot be material or quantified (for there is no "quantity to count") or "caused" (how do you cause "not specific")?. It's not spiritual either because "no where specific" isn't omnipotence, it's not a source. It's "undefined". Not an object for you to negate. No "god"/source"/common measure or place you can ask to liberate you. You're going to be liberated no matter what you believe in by the nature of how you aren't that 'uncaused cause".

You get "half and half". Temporal "objectiveness" to then be negated by everything else "objective" chasing the same subjective absence. Nature abhors a vacuum, which means it has to constantly fill it.

>But "nothing"/absence" isn't scientific! How do we solve this problem when we have nothing to go on?
It's not an object for you to negate, but you can always treat it like a subject to synthesize.

>>14961774
>Sounds to me like an intuitionistic made-up rule
No, "intuition" is not made up. That would be conscious reasoning having a dualism flame war with itself.

>Why can't something come from nothing?
Because from nothing comes nothing. It really is that simple. You are consciously overthinking "nothing" which is going to give you multiple answers despite there being no actual answer.

>Is that suddenly somehow proof that souls exist?
The fact that the materialist cannot actually posses it/ understand it or use it like a piece of material proves it doesn't exist? How do you love?

>I accept that maybe souls exist, but I need better proof than just "I can't imagine they don't."
Soul doesn't yield for you. Get bent.

>>14961844
>Semantics.
Define "Nothing".

>why can't something not have come from anything?

"Anything" is still not, some discrete "thing" you can point to. So there you go. You will never find soul, even though it exists. Because "it is nowhere specific", for the reason your double negative helped elaborate.

>>12019258
>https://home.cern/science/engineering/pulling-together-superconducting-electromagnets

Without magnets/electromagnetism this thing doesn't work. The phenomena it tries to research is induced by the object of testing itself that already works on the principles of electromagnetism. Hence the "wheel of Karma", only the wheel is made of electromagnetism and every new wheel made is just the same thing doing the same thing. Over and over. But I'm sure sinking trillions of dollars into a bigger one that also does the same thing this time around will certainly change the outcome.

>>12018923
It created the "WWW" intended for "acedemia". I guess academia is now drug/child trafficking and pornography, but the "internet" and foundation for it was created by DARPA.

>>10448311
>Why do religious people say a proof of god's existence is that Universe is perfect, harmonious and in perfect balance?
Which religion are you quoting?

>When the Universe is a big mess!
And yet there is order to everything. The sun revolves around the galaxy. The earth revolves around the sun. The moon revolves around the earth and so on. Even the most basic and dumbest of animals conglomerate with their like similar species as if there were order to them. A planet and an animal are not the same thing but "order" does not imply a balance or equality. Just "order".

Now where does the order come from? Well that's where religion/science/physics/metaphysics comes in, but regardless it is a self-evident truth that the "order" is there regardless of what you think it is.

>>10389824
>create
>unmoved
>mover

How can something that is unmoved be "created" in the first place? No thing, let alone math can "create" what you've described. It simply "is" and the explanation for such must be purely self-evident (because it alone, unmoved, has nothing other than itself to create).
If it itself is unmoved then how does it "move" other things? It could only give the illusion of motion since its own existence necessitates it to be unmoved.

>>10067066
>pic unrelated
Goddamn better well be.

>Why do electrons connect atoms?
They don't, it's field pressure mediations. Electrons don't exist, they're an abstraction used to simplifies maths and whatnot. This is why they can't explain why an atom is "99.9 percent empty space". It's not empty, it's full of magneto-dielectricity circulating the ether. To say it's just empty space is like saying the earths atmosphere is just "empty space". Not the case!
>>10068400
>le Einstein explains GPS
Point and laugh at this idiot

>>10067295
Do you even what electricity is? Protip: it's not caused my magical bumping particles flowing down a copper pipe like water.

>>10068439
Piezoelectrics.