/sci/ - Science & Math

The first thing whether it be an older universe or “quantum fluctuations” had to originate from something else. There is no way that something could just appear. That is the ultimate dilemma of time.

>>10139138
Exactly, so my argument is that there was no "first thing". Reality has always been around and always will be around in some form. I honestly see no dilemma and I don't get why the scientific community creates one from this. It seems to me to be the only logical conclusion.

>So why are scientists not more keen to point out that the idea that we came from nothing is wrong?
Because scientists by and large don't give a shit about what goddists think. The people who participate in these debates are the people who have pop science level knowledge, not actual scientists in the relevant fields.

The simulation theory can reconcile all issues with our universe. Of course it doesn’t solve the very beginning of everything, such as our creators creator and so on but religion, double split expierment can be explained. The Big Bang most likely never happened but instead was written in as our backstory. Further acceptance of this theory will reveal much more theories and provide leaps in technology based on the fact that hacks will most likely be developed.

>>10139240
If simulation theory is true it is highly unlikely we will ever be able to prove it. Our creators if they exist are probably leagues ahead of us in intellectual capacity and won't leave any flaws in the simulation that we will be able to detect. Proving that we are a simulation from within the simulation is as impossible as a 3D being truly comprehending 4 dimensions.

As such there is no point basing any science on a theory that cannot be proven in any way. The most likely way to prove it would be calculating Pi to a finite decimal or finding some other resolution limit of the universe on a quantum level- but neither of those things have happened.

>>10139240
Simulation theory is literally the same as believing in a god and is just as pointless and unprovable. Sick of this meme desu

>>10139263
I think there are many flaws, one is the double slit experiment, entanglement is another. The code was written to be observed on a macro level and to be rendered as it’s being observed. We’re no doubt not the first sims, just as we’ll start our own with self aware people who wrestle with the same issues. In order to get the civilization going we may drop in some instructions like the commandments or a messiah or maybe we just see where they go with no interference. Either way this theory will only grow with time as computer scientists notice more and more similarities and begin their own sims.

Imagine creating a sim that could run its lifetime in a few seconds, and extracting meaningless data like popular songs for your own world.

>>10139299
Things like quantum entanglement don't mean that simulation theory must be correct. It's just a law of our universe, same as the constant speed of light or the fundamental forces. I think that it is more likely that everything can be explained by the theory that reality is infinite and therefore everything has to happen, including the creation of this universe with these specific laws. If you think about it, infinity can explain pretty much everything.

>>10139149
>there is no first thing
That’s incomprehensible and doesn’t make any sense.

>>10139307
Reality infinitely existing despite every current scientific theory indicating we live in the infancy of a very finite universe with an impending heat death after which everything is just fucked is as unprovable as a God. Saying “no but this universe came from an already infinitely existing one that doesn’t follow the rules of this one” is LITERALLY claiming an infinite supernatural first cause.

I wish you fedoracore fuckwits would stop trying to dabble in ontology

>>10139431
Thats point u cant possible know what darkness is if u were born blind, u must be able to see lught so u can know what darkness is, therefore u cannot know the answer until u know the -

>>10139068
Earth is flat

>>10139068
Causality and conservation of energy have a cause themselves, which doesn't exist in big bang, so no causality and conservation of energy there.

>>10139431
Please elaborate on that.
>>10139501
Nope, I am suggesting no first cause, since that universe could have come from another, and another, and another, stretching into infinity. There needs to be no first cause to explain any of it, and simulation theory gives no first cause anyway and is ultimately just retarded as a theory in general. Anyway, I am not even claiming that before our universe there necessarily was another universe, that is just one possibility. Reality could have existed in another mode that couldn't even be called a universe. Can your tiny mind really not comprehend that things beyond what we perceive as reality might exist?

>>10139068
>pointing out that if God existed for eternity before creating everything, at what point in eternity did he suddenly decide to create everything- how did a conscious being like God exist before time? Makes no sense clearly.
This is not the argument made by Augustine and Aquinas etc. They were aware of the relationship between space and time and didn't posit an eternity before creation. They conceive of God as being outside time as time is a property of the physical universe.
Not even a Christfag mysepf but you need to make an effort to understand what you are dismissing

>>10139068
I am not a religious person but you do know that using other universes with different laws or some parallel universe/force causing big bang isn't really a good argument against 'god' or some conscious being/force suddenly creating the universe.

Scientists = "Our maths is bullet proof and has no holes, except in our equations we have 2 giant holes" #1 "We don't know what who or what could have caused it" #2 "We don't know who or what made sure it happened"

Also scientists = "You are wrong to call it god! We have no proof but me and my bros accept that it was either another universe or a mysterious force that started it all" "Proof? Err, let me tell you about quantum physics"

Religious dudes = "You say you don't know? Of-course it was god!"

My point being, instead of establishing a well accepted theory and every scientist calls it 'the most likely truth'. Both sides should just accept all 3 possibilities as the truth. #1 conscious being. #2 Mysterious force from another universe. # 3 Mysterious particle from our universe after the big bang, AKA the possible god particle

>>10139951
>unironically using "god particle"
pop-sci shiteating philosoffagot detected.

>>10139951
>Scientists = "Our maths is bullet proof

Kek. Go learn QFT and see the horror of their blasphemy against mathematics for yourself.

>>10139967
>>10139996
The absolute state of this thread. So this is your reply?

>>10139068
>at what point in eternity did he suddenly decide
>Why do so many documentaries about the big bang talk about it being the start of time and energy when those things likely existed before our universe?

Time is relative to our universe only. It does not make any sense to talk about time before the universe existed.

>Most scientists now agree that "quantum fluctuations" probably preceded the big bang, and that possibly other universes with different laws existed

No, popsci is not "most scientists". And holding a 'mathematical platonist'-esque view of the 'laws of physics' in that they are eternal is silly if not absurd. Especially when open to the idea of "other universes with different laws exist[ing]" meaning you hold the laws as peculiar to this universe and not an eternal truism that can beget the universe and therefore all universes share.

>>10139149
>Reality has always been around and always will be around in some form

Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.

>It seems to me to be the only logical conclusion

Because they are your opinion.

>>10139999
Did you mean to quote both?

>>10139277
>believing in a god and is just as pointless
Why is it pointless?
>and unprovable
Depends on the information available.

>>10139240
>Of course it doesn’t solve the very beginning of everything, such as our creators creator and so on but religion, double split expierment can be explained. The Big Bang most likely never happened but instead was written in as our backstory
The fuck are you talking about?
>>10139263
>flaws in the simulation that we will be able to detect.
What's the difference between a flaw and doing something on purpose?
>As such there is no point basing any science on a theory that cannot be proven in any way.
All of science cannot be proven in any way.
>The most likely way to prove it would be calculating Pi to a finite decimal
Why the fuck would math be affected by the universe being a "simulation"?

>>10140024
>Why is it pointless?
Why does it have a point?
>Depends on the information available.
Please share with us this privileged information that proves god or simulation theory

>>10139307
>that reality is infinite and therefore everything has to happen
>infinity can explain pretty much everything.

Infinity doesn't work that way.

>>10139431
When did 1+1 start to be 2 instead of 0?

>>10140047
The entire scientific and mathematical community disagrees with you brainlet

>>10140034
>Why does it have a point?
Why is siding with the negative better than the affirmative? There easily could be a point.
>Please share with us this privileged information that proves god or simulation theory
If the stars suddenly spelled out "That's it, you all are about to be smited by me God"
If the stars suddenly spelled out "Your free trial will expire in 3 days, click here to renew"

Not having information is not the same as the information not being able to exist.

>>10140054
You can pick random different numbers between [0,1] for infinity but you'll never pick a 2.

>>10140057
>[0, Inf]

>>10140057
But the universe does not have that limit. And if we expand reality to mean that universes with different laws can exist, there are literally no limits as to what can happen in reality. Add infinity/ eternity onto that and literally everything will happen an infinite amount of times

>>10140056
But until I see a shred of evidence that this is the case why the fuck should I pay it any heed? What advantage does this give me? Since when is science about believing in stuff without anything to back it up? Until the stars spell that shit out I'm just gonna ignore simulation theory

>>10139947
>Not even a Christfag myself but you need to make an effort to understand what you are dismissing
Famous scientists disagree

>>10140061
>there are literally no limits as to what can happen in reality
That's wrong though since infinite sets don't have to include everything. No reason to believe that in some universe Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin had a gay wedding today in Tehran, Iran.

>>10140068
>No reason to believe that in some universe Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin had a gay wedding today in Tehran, Iran.
If there are infinite universes then I would bet everything I had that this is the case. You must have heard of the infinite monkeys on typewriters, right? This is the same principle

>>10140067
I don't need to read a Dawkins tweet to know his point about the Reptilians is specious. I don't know where he gets his lizard stuff from, but it's totally stupid

>>10140067
>we are all africans

>>10140068
>Tehran, Iran
Good job you specified which Tehran you meant

>>10140059
You'll never pick -1
>>10140061
>infinite amount of times
Which infinity? Countable? |R|? Some crazy large cardinal?

>>10140079
t. part eggplant

God didn't make the universe!
Proof? 'Something caused it all and made sure it all went perfectly'

>>10140075
>You must have heard of the infinite monkeys on typewriters, right?
They will never type ばんざい

>>10140066
>Since when is science about believing in stuff without anything to back it up
String theory

>>10140110
Because the typewriter has a limit, reality does not have that limit if multiverse theory is true. Stop with these retarded false equivalences

>>10140145
But some things are common to all universes like mathematical-statistical facts

>>10140154
Perhaps, it isn't really possible to know whether even those laws apply to all other universes. We are talking about different modes of reality here so I'd say it is pretty narrow minded to assume anything like that. But say you are right, when I say "everything will happen", I mean that within the limits of reality, if there are limits. In either case, the creation of our universe could probably be attributed to the infinite nature of reality. Clearly the creation of universes like ours is a possible thing that can happen within reality, we are proof of that

>>10140145
>infinity means the set of all sets!!!

And this is why we need to genocide all popsci readers.

>>10139307
What if I told you that God is infinity

>>10140184
What if I told you that your mum's vagina is infinity

>>10139068
Because when you start talking about infinite universes, you are making the exact logical leaps that those with faith make.

>>10140450
the logical leap is to believe there is one universe and by a miracle it just happens to be perfectly suitable for intelligent life

>>10140509
>the logical leap is to believe there is one universe and by a miracle it just happens to be perfectly suitable for intelligent life
Problem pessimist?

>>10139240
When people think of a simulation they think of a computer and computer programmer.
But suppose instead as poets imagine we are a dream in the brain of an organism.
Obviously being outside of our universe such a being would not be like a person or even like life as we know it.
Perhaps, it would be alive only in the strangest senses of a virus or prions or an RNA soup.
What I am getting at is that simulation theory could be true in a sense but the simulation could come about only be by purely natural causes and for simple reasons such as maximising the ability to effectively absorb and process heat.
Perhaps this whole big exercise is simply like that of a battery running down.

>>10139068
>Primary argument
How about
1) Written Prophesies made hundreds of years earlier coming to pass
2) Eyewitness accounts of miracles both historic and modern.
3) The probability of God creating himself from nothing seems higher than shit washing off a rock and forming life.

>>10140108

What makes you think it went perfectly?

>>10139068

>>10139431
where does a circle begin?