/sci/ - Science & Math

Since I was a child I've been screaming internally about existence, it scares me how people are so calm.

>>10608310
What else would it be doing?

>>10608314
It's called being in control of your own emotions. Being unable to do so is a sign of autism.

This is a metaphysical question. You will not get a sophisticated response here.

>>10608314
Don’t worry, they’ve just deluded themselves into thinking their life is significant. Yeah, we’re just advanced primates living in a rock in a cold, empty universe, but muh job and muh friends and muh instagram profile are all I need.

>>10608359
I'm not going to /x/, too many schizos

>>10608310
Why wouldn't it?

The universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.

Read this nigga

>>10608349
I'm not going to /x/, too many schizos

>>10608310
Because there must be something instead of nothing. The purpose of existence is to exist. It cannot fulfill the purpose if it doesn't exist.
In anticipation of your next question,
>Then what is the purpose?
I don't know. Something, I supposed.

>>10608483
Why does existence have to be a thing then?

>>10608310
1. God or the equivalent
2. Conservation of energy doesn't apply to things that aren't contained in our universe
3. The universe has a negative energy counterpart so that the total energy of all systems (universes) is zero (similarly as quantum fluctuations which happen in our universe's vacuum)
4. The total energy of the universe is zero
5. The universe is decaying into a zero energy universe eventually (vacuum bubble, big rip...)
6. The answer is beyond our understanding since we are limited in our understanding by the physical laws of our universe

>>10608314
Why? Your only other option is nonexistence, which we all "experienced" before we were born, and will again all too soon when you take the long dirt nap.
You're not going to do anything besides drive up your blood pressure by worrying about things outside of your control.

>>10608314
There's a worse thing than non-existence:
Living in an universe where quantum tunnelling or the big crunch forces you to relive your existence for all eternity.

If it didn't exist you wouldn't be here to notice.

>>10608563
>the big crunch forces you to relive your existence for all eternity
The universe is not time symmetric, even if the big crunch was going to happen (it wont) it wouldn't be the universe on rewind.
Personally I'm more of a manifold universe guy myself.

>>10608591
What about quantum tunnelling? I'm not a physicist, but can particles overcome distances that not even light can (16+ billion light years)? If yes, the universe would rearrange itself an infinite number of times given infinite time.

>>10608525
Everything is made of information. Usually in our computer age, information is represented as 1 and 0, binary answers of "yes" and "no" to questions.

So now consider the question, "Does information exist?" If the answer is "no", then it contradicts itself, like the liar paradox. The answer itself is information. So the answer must be "yes". Therefore, information must exist, and the universe is made of information.

Now why it takes the form it does, I cannot answer.

>>10608604
Quantum tunneling does not have to do with FTL travel, it has to do with passing finite potential barriers that are higher than the total energy a particle has (and therefore unpassable according to classical mechanics).

>>10608310
Anime

>>10608604
Ignoring the fact that the probability for quantum tunnelling falls off exponentially fast so it drops to zero at the nano-metre scale, it isn't faster than light.

>>10608310
1) Truth exists necessarily.
2) Since Truth exists, it cannot be true that non-existence exists
3) Since non-existence cannot exist, there must be an existence other than Truth itself, which Truth will describe and contain.
4) Since Truth also exists, Truth must describe itself, or perceive itself.
5) The goal of existence is for Truth to know Truth.

6) God is Truth, and Truth is God

>>10608359
Significance is relative, being a doomer doesn't impress anyone

>>10608625
Let's give an example:
A radioactive atom decays. After some finite time, every photon/neutrino/atom it emitted is each one trillion light years apart. Obviously, at these distances space is growing faster than the speed of light. Despite that, can quantum tunnelling cause the original decaying atom to reassemble?

>>10608582
What was the point of this post, it certainly isn't an answer to the query

>>10608582
Not a sufficient answer. It doesn't explain the existence of a universe that is also life-conducive despite its sheer improbability (when vastly more non-conducive universes are conceivable). The anthropic princinple needs something like multiverse theory as a corollary.

>>10608633
Provide a proof of 1 or fuck off princess

>>10608638
>improbability

Compared to what?

>>10608633
I see two assumptions and two paradoxes here

>>10608636
>can quantum tunnelling cause the original decaying atom to reassemble?
No, but you can do something interesting with that phenomenon and the longest time scales of cosmology.
If you have a chunk of matter, like let's say a planet.
If you just let it sit there, for as long a time as you can let a thing sit there, unmolested. Eventually you're going to have quantum tuneling events where one nucleon finds itself inside another it creates fusion into heavier elements.

>>10608632
>Ignoring the fact that the probability for quantum tunnelling falls off exponentially fast so it drops to zero at the nano-metre scale
It still has a higher probability than 0, which means that it will happen at some point.
>it isn't faster than light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling#Faster_than_light

>>10608636
I think maybe you are confusing quantum tunneling with quantum entanglement? I don't see how quantum tunneling is involved in your example. Also entangled particles don't necessarily re-unite or reassemble, they just have correlated properties.

>>10608310
Read Liebniz's answer to the question. Four reasons why, a) he is smart enough to invent symbolic logic, b) he is smart enough to invent calculus.c) he is smart enough to invent binary, and d) he has an elegant and brilliant response to the question.

Godel believed that there was a centuries long conspiracy to prevent Liebniz's writings from being made public or being accepted. Make of that what you will.

>>10608651
>(when vastly more non-conducive universes are conceivable)
lrn2parse

>>10608658
So eventually everything that is gravitationally bound will form a black hole, correct?

>>10608643
If truth did not exist then it would true that truth did not exist. This problem is only solved by the existence of truth. Non-existence has always non-existed. It is simply paradoxical.

>>10608676
Define 'truth'.

>>10608633
cringe

>>10608660
You'd have to wait several magnitudes longer than the life time of the universe for a single particle to tunnel micrometers. So good luck with that.

Also that wiki link doesn't prove FTL, its a comment about some discussions on non-locality. Different thing.

>>10608664
PSR all the way brother :)
(I am replying to myself because no one responded to my post.)

>>10608665
Still waiting, what you can conceive has nothing to do with probability

>>10608633
Show that "non-existence" has "existence" or its negation as an applicable property.

>>10608676
Nope, truth is a human concept to define what we see as right wrong statements, truth has nothing to do with physical reality

>>10608664
>he is smart enough to invent calculus.
In westminster abbey there is a ghostly REEEEEing

>nothing exists
>no laws of physics to prevent things from randomly coming into existence
>things randomly come into existence
>our universe was one of those things

>>10608686
>You'd have to wait several magnitudes longer than the life time of the universe for a single particle to tunnel micrometers. So good luck with that.
If the universe bubble doesn't spontaneously 'pop' out of existence, there is enough time for such events to occur.
>Also that wiki link doesn't prove FTL, its a comment about some discussions on non-locality. Different thing.
But can a particle overcome a distance that not even light can?

>>10608702
*Right and wrong

>>10608704
see >>10608533
Energy conservation doesn't even really apply in our own universe. Dark energy is destroying energy all the time due to photons redshifting.

>>10608722
this again. didn't we discuss this like yesterday?

>>10608724
You must be mistaking me for some other Anonymous.
Why do you believe that my statement isn't true?

>>10608707
There's no time before the universe so you can't wait around for stuff to happen. It's a meaningless argument because we can't know and will never know. All we can say is the Big Bang happened and proceed from there.

> But can a particle overcome a distance that not even light can?
Quantum Tunnelling requires a particle with mass.

>>10608349
>This is a metaphysical question.
no it's not. it, like every other question, has a naturalist basis.

imagine believing in metaphysics in 214 + 1805

>>10608310
>>10608314
What makes you think it does?

>>10608707
In order for a particle to tunnel somewhere, it must already have a nonzero probability of being there at that moment, ie, its position must not have been measured long enough for its location probability to "spread out" to that location.
This spreading cannot happen faster than light, and environmental interaction keeps particles localized enough that they can't have enough time to spread over macroscopic distances.

>>10608732
Not that anon, but basically there was a discussion over whether the Landau Lifshitz pseudotensor can qualify as energy conservation or not.

>>10608322
not existing, which seems much easier to do... but with nothing there exists nothing which would prevent existance

>>10608669
iron or cobalt, since those are the most stable atoms and heavier ones would(?) decay. Though no decay of the stable lead isotope has been measured, so at least they would remain as they are.

>>10608702
>>10608702
>implying the physical reality is the only reality
There are no limits to what can exist. Anything you can imagine, and much, much more.

>>10608678
have sex

>>10609488
>There are no limits to what can exist. Anything you can imagine, and much, much more.

lol, [citation needed]

>>10609488
>t. I smoked DMT yesterday
yikes

>>10608310
If it doesn't we wouldn't be there to observe it not existing dumbass

>>10608310
You know, I was talking to my friend today about this question, and we were talking about other cultures and religions, discussing their religions and theories, and we found something funny. The Abrahamic religions (specifically Judaism), has a God called Yaweh, which roughly translates to "I am, therefore I am."

It just seems that no matter how deep we look, we will always ask "okay this exists and is made up of this, but why does this exist and what makes up this thing?" This is the loops we're forever stuck in, finding smaller and smaller things until they're no longer observable, but we still know there will always be smaller things. It seems like the micro scale just keeps going well into infinity.

Maybe it just does because it just fucking wants to, maybe the answer is well outside what our little monkey brains are capable of. Even still, I think that to be closer to the ultimate understanding in regards to our origins is the truest way of becoming closer to whatever it was (be it a God or a cosmic accident), and on the way to this understanding, we will become more like our God, understanding the wisdom behind our universe's creation.

t. someone who's totally sure that what he's saying isn't totally bullshit made up on the spot.

>>10608314
Man I can’t imagine screaming internally for 14 years.

I can't imagine being a low iq sadist

>>10610302
nevermind, actually I can. you are probably angry about your complete failure as a human being,but you are too stupid/lazy to really do anything about it. So instead of getting pleasure from achieving, you get instant gratification from taking out your frustrations on people and things that cannot fight back, which gives you a sense of power.

>>10610312
Different anon, kek

to ponder the question.

but we need not a universe to exist; universes are community driven. In our universe community of opposites outweighs the animal; this is probably Atomic 2, bigger star frequencies who's macro to micro planets due to rapid expansion; big bang defined star frequencies (an overdriven big bang and mani fold).

Other verses exist, probably much simpler, simulate, etc. Pondering the question then may not be such a hard answer. Perhaps the hard answer will find us again anyway.

>>10608310
because you're not traveling at the speed of light

>>10610291
>t. philosophy dropout who's too scared to look at the actual physics and instead reads popsci articles

What is the meaning of essence and existence, is there correlation

>>10609027
There is a thing called an iron star where quantum tunneling slowly turns a stellar mass body into a giant sphere of iron.
This is on the heat-death of the universe kind of timescales though.

>>10610359
Based schizo poster

>>10610431
I responded to the question with >>10608349 in mind.
Everything I posted previously was just 'tism my friend and I discussed, and wasn't meant to be taken as anything more.
Also you're wrong, I've yet to attend college, and I don't read popsci.

I don't see why /sci/entists seem so Hell-bent on dragging each other through the dirt instead of using constructive criticism as a means to their ends (if that end is to educate, that is)

>>10610561
His post was retarded, why would anyone be "scared to look at the actual physics" in relation to this? His post doesn't make any sense.

It's not like there exists physics that contemplate existence itself, it cannot be answered. Nor can it be answered by philosophy or theology. Even God would struggle with the question ultimately.

>>10610571
Maybe he meant to imply that I was a brainlet who was too scared to know his potentially small limits and challenge what I thought to be true. That's a good point though, and it brings up the age old question "who or what created God?"

Honestly the absurdity of the origins of anything at all is a reminder to me that maybe we shouldn't take life so seriously after all.

>>10608310
It just does, anon. there is no rhyme or reason to it.

>>10612367
there is no reason for being.

>>10612371
I think the idea that there must be a reason for existence is a product of modern thinking. I don't know where the pathological need for their to be a purpose to ones existence comes from, I got a heady dose of it, can never seem to shake this odd sense of unfulfilled entitlement that there should be a purpose to everything.

>>10612377
Your instincts tend to want to give you comforting answers that seem like non-sense. Maybe its just better to trust your instincts and not to question where this sense of entitlement comes from. People use flimsy rationalizations for almost everything in their daily lives, no matter how smart they are.

Better to be crazy and happy than sane and somber.

>>10612382
Its just odd that we feel a NEED for their to be a purpose, isn't it? Where does that sense of unfulfilled desire come from? Why does nothing we do seem to satiate it?

>>10608310
that's one of the many profound mysteries of the universe.

>>10612393
I'm not very good at metacognition, i tend to get lost in schizophrenic interludes. I'm really not the right person to ask this question.

I think the rational model of consciousness and understanding is appealing because it is the most useful, the one we believe most conducive to human happiness.

>>10612410
Of course, we could be wrong. Maybe we put too much faith in rationality. Alternative modes of consciousness might actually be better for our well-being, even if they are essentially non-sense.

So you can watch youtube videos of a fat retarded clown telling you why certain events in a manga could or could not actually happen due to the laws of physics

>>10608563 id much rather relive my existence over and over than not exist for eternity

>>10608396 which booke?
>>10608619 damn, that's a very interesting answer. did you get that from someone else? if so, who?

>>10608951 but similarly, nothing to function as a first cause

>>10608703 didn't both of them do it at the same time?
that's what i heard

>>10608896 for me, its similar to Descartes' argument for the self, even if my self is not truly a unified whole, there would still need to be something doubting the universe's existence, so there would be something rather than nothing

apologies for the badly worded sentence but i refuse to fix it

>>10610312
lmao, what a sad projection.

>>10610312
I'm not even sure if you understand what anxiety or the word internal is. Not everyone are like you.

>>10608591
If a universe, for whatever reason, 'just happens' then on an infinite course of time the same universe configurstion will occur again. The probabilities don't matter. The time scale doesn't matter. Eventually a universe will big bang itself in the exact same configuration as ours. It's only a question of how long from your death to the next incarnation of your naive perception.
Any statisticiane on the board want to number crunch?
My wager is 10^17000 years 95% confidence.

>>10612676
Excuse my spelling it's 4AM and the coffee has run out.

There’s plenty of Nothing in the omniverse

In fact, the Omniverse is so full of it that it occupies every nook & cranny available, apart from those filled with clumps of Something

You just notice the presence of Something because you are a corporeal being accustomed to living in a material realm

One day you will die. At this time you will become a habituate of Nothing, and Something would seem just as foreign a concept

>>10612693
>and Something would seem just as foreign a concept
it wouldn't 'seem' like anything

The only rational way I can think of it is that we're in a simulation, and those controlling us are beyond our imagination and we cannot understand it. Why? Because you can always go back and say "Well why does THAT exist?" - and so the only reasonable response is that we're in a simulation.

>>10612811
In what conceivable way is that a "reasonable response"? Shoehorning in a simulation doesn't clarify the problem one tiny bit. Now, instead of explaining the existence of your Universe, you must explain the existence of the simulator Universe. And saying "we just can't understand them" is a lazy non-explanation. You're better off just saying that the origin of our Universe is the thing we can't imagine or understand.

The universe is like a strict-simulatiuon, where you are literally bound to a simulation.

if we were to call it a simulation it would have to be considered a special kind. Simultations would be a different kind of space that could project an environment, where as in our universe, matter is wat creates environments, not simulation-energy.

>>10612705
based riven poster

>>10612914
can you make your words stop

>>10613005
GET OUT

>>10608314
Human experience is normally bounded by context. You worry about things that relate to you and your experience most, and worry less and less about things further removed.

You can't stop the end, you're not going to make it, and you will never understand. You're clever enough to know this. Now you have to make a choice: whimper, fold and let your spirit be crushed by the weight of the inevitable, or live in glorious, insane defiance, facing your destroyer with serenity.

If existence was easy, there wouldn't be a point. Your broadest contextual boundary is that exact struggle, by which the most fundamental nature of your soul is proved.

>>10612583
They did, but Newton still had a hissy fit and accused Leibniz of stealing his idea.

>>10608314
fuckin SAME
Also I don't think people really understand how large the universe is. That alone should push us all to madness and suicide

>>10610571
>Even God would struggle with the question ultimately
Lol klmight e a bit presumtiliois.

>>10613507
>That alone should push us all to madness and suicide
Why?

>>10612575
You know, I thought I got it from this section of an online webfiction called Unsong: https://unsongbook.com/interlude-%D7%A1-binary/

But upon re-reading it, it's a little different, so maybe it was actually my own speculation inspired by the book?

>>10608359
To their existence nothing matters outside this. And their existence is all they have. So yes it does matter to them

>>10608310
Anthropic principle

>>10613679
because there's no way in hell all life on earth, earth itself, even our system are remotely relevant in the grand, MASSIVE scheme of things.

because the can can can

>>10608393
I like that.

>>10614523
replies to >>10614249

>>10608310
Maybe most universes do not exist, and this is the one, or one of the ones, that does.

>>10608310
>Why does the universe exist?

Because there is no one to ask this question in all the realities where the Universe does NOT exist.

>>10614523
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjIl_xFUruM

Imagine the conscious contents of a cell trying to understand how the cell was created. That's how to understand it, just accept it.

t. multiverse

>>10613936
It's just like a small town. Peoples' universes revolve around themselves, whether that be at the city scale, or the planet scale.
Welcome to the human condition

>>10608310
God.

>>10608310
it can't not
simple as

I just read today that the discrepancy between the observations of the expansion rate of the evidence may be first proof of the variability of the laws of physics WITHIN our own universe. Suggesting there is a puzzle piece missing. Something must be influencing the physics "in here" from without, that if we had access to, would help to understand HOW our internal physics changes/will change. It may in fact be the first OBSERVATIONAL evidence of a multiverse. Exciting times to be alive.

I just read today that the discrepancy between the observations of the expansion rate of the universe may be first proof of the variability of the laws of physics WITHIN our own universe. Suggesting there is a puzzle piece missing. Something must be influencing the physics "in here" from without, that if we had access to, would help to understand HOW our internal physics changes/will change. It may in fact be the first OBSERVATIONAL evidence of a multiverse. Exciting times to be alive.

I heard a cool quote from Brian Cox that really stuck with me, I’m not sure its 100% related but i found it profound

> We exist because we must.

In an infinite universe, it is a mathematical certainty that everything than can occur will occur. Hence, humanities existence is the result of this law of probability

>>10615777
I agree with this, I think there is no such thing as “nothing” so therefore there must be something.

>>10615816
What's the limit of "can occur"?

>>10608310
despair

>>10615816
>assuming the universe is infinite
how do you deduce that we can exist from that? even infinity doesn‘t explain how anything exists

>>10615816
>In an infinite universe, it is a mathematical certainty that everything than can occur will occur.
This isn't true if the sample space of possibilities is larger than the physical space of events. Depending on how much larger, it may be that the vast majority of possibilities never occur in the physical evolution of an infinite Universe, and that it's highly unlikely that two possibilities will ever occur twice anywhere in the Universe (talking macro-scale events).

Universes exist for science, or out of interest (For experience)

Many universes exist, this universe is quote-on-quote strict.

If you ponder the question, "why does this universe exist?", then you want to understand from a perspective above it; whether that's agilty-wise or wise-wise "above", a perspective of a species above the universe, engaged with all universes or creation of universe. Line form intelligence, or light parasites are likely observations.

Don't think this universe is it, it's all you have to remember :) There are answers to what you seek; because of the high depth evolution of image that occurs in this universe it may help to discover things that benefit all universes or produce a source in it's own right.

You see, there are two routes we may go down.
1) There is no God. 2) There is a God. To an open-minded person they are generally equiprobable statements.

Let us delineate both options.
1) There is no underlying reason for it other than the laws, forces and initial conditions are self-existent. Inexplicably so!

2) If there is a God, first what is humanities purpose? Without weighing out all the possibilities here openly, let's run with mysticism(which personally seems most reasonable to me).

So if a human beings purpose is to become aware of his Godhood, why is there this universe of extra stuff? You could hypothetically just have a pure soul reach a state of mysticism with no outside interactions required.

Well, if there is a universe of stuff, that implies God has a reason for it. Could it be that God is trying to create the most glorious creation possible? Out of all things, a mystical soul is most glorious, and that a mystical soul could be made more glorious? One of the ways to increase the grandeur of the mystic, is if it were fully responsible for it's own divinity(its common sense that this should make for a greater person). Could this not be what the self-reliant system of the universe is, purposefully engineered so that the soul can power itself to a state of mysticism using its own will power just for the sake of honor?

Imagine a soul in isolation. It would function as a photon in a perpetual state of motion, although the state of motion would be the constant self-propulsion of awareness. So all you would have to do is redesign the interior of the soul so that it can be implanted in a system where it can function through operating in its environment. Gathering food, eating, and surviving to empower the body which empowers the brain which empowers the soul.

That's one option at least.

>>10608310
The universe exists so I can suck you off. YUMMYMYMMYMY

>>10615816
The universe isn’t infinite. If it was there’d be a random point that contained a device for destroying the universe.

T. Infinite Probability

>>10608310
Take the Buddhist-pill.

>God got bored.
>Pressed randomize button
>You’re god

>>10608310

Universe is for causing existencial pain

/sci/ can only answer how the universe exists
Only /lit/ can answer why

>>10608310

the only conceivable existence is one where you exist, right? so even if the chances of a universe existing are infinitesimal, the only reality you can possibly know is the one where it happens.

>>10610302
This gif would be better with the fortnite emote

>>10617362
>/lit/
wannabe intellectuals

>>10612579
not required if there is nothing that would demand such a thing

How is a rock/stone created?

>>10618031
volatile clouds.

>>10608664
PSR is what science is based on , thx Liebniz for science . I also like the way he destroyed the problem of evil .

>>10616289
>>assuming the universe is infinite
the universe isn't, but the multiverse is

The hierarchy is
MindRealityAnthropocentric RealityMind

>>10616289
and
>even infinity doesn‘t explain how anything exists
infinity doesn't explain the how, obviously. but it does explain the why. as in "why is ANYTHING in existence at all". all the little details don't even play into it. how is that humans have ten fingers and not fifteen. that's not even relevant. you were only asking WHY are there ANY fingers at all. which this answers definitively.

>>10618367
Wtf, my beautiful arrows

Mind
Reality
Anthropocentric reality
Mind

we needed a place me be to be fucking lit in senpai ayyy

>>10608359

You can realize the insignificance of your actions and life and yet remain completely calm

That is called "acceptance"
Crazy concept I know

>>10618412
get a load of this buddhist over here

>>10618412
To attribute insignificance to your action to a very stark thing to do
Is a light on, off, dim?
No meaning, utter meaning
Whoever opens his mouth first loses

Any doubters of infinity need to put down the math and science books and read Tolstoy's A Confession. That's as close to a proof of the existence of infinity as you're going to get.

>>10618423
>to a very
*is a very

>>10618423

It is also freeing don't you think?
Since you are already here, and your existence is meaningless, this means that you can do whatever the hell you want without fear of breaking some kind of supernatural law or offending some uber entity, or feeling like you have a mission to fulfill and as thus you have to follow X path.

It is the ultimate freedom to accept irrelevancy

>>10618432
It is meaningful
Your right handshake is firm as a warrior, but your left is limp as a child’s
It is meaningless
Do not let your mouth teach your mind
It is not meaningful, it is not meaningless
Now quickly say what it is

>>10613936
And a bucket can be full of drops of water.

>>10613936
Think about how odd and seemingly unnecessary it is that you are a piece of reality feeling itself. Think about how easy it would be to just be a meat machine that walks and talks like you do but without any phenomenological experience on the inside. Think about the fact that all of your memories and thoughts could just as easily be stored and computed without this subjective, feeling component that you are living your life through. Think about the fact that it is impossible to prove that any thing or any person other than yourself carries that sentient nature.
How exactly is this insignificant?

>>10608310
That's a question for another time.

>>10608310
It is human to seek meaning in every thing and when there's none, it is also human to create one.

>>10608310
It is human to seek for meaning in every thing and when there's none, it is also human to create one.

>>10608398
>/x/
go to /lit/

>>10608643
Proven by assumption

impossable to say according to the "academic authorities" the universe is constantly expanding. If true might be because of some inconceivable interaction on a scale we cant and likely will never comprehend.

Like water spreading one a flat surface being inconceivable to a bacteria,or smaller.