/sci/ - Science & Math

ex nihilo nihil fit

God.

>>10935734
It simply is. Ever. It may be a logical impossibility for there to be a true 'nothingness'.

>>10935734
100% of the worlds where you exist and are able to ask that question have something instead of nothing.

>>10935734
Because there isn't anything that's preventing something from existing.

>>10935734
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
To disprove causality.

>>10935734
>>10935750
Hmm let me try that again. Because logical possibility and actual existence are one and the same, on a really grand level. Our universe is logically possible so it exists. What we really mean when we say something could exist logically, but actually doesn't, is that it isn't part of our particular universe, which is just one among many.

>>10935734
Anthropic principle is short answer.

But Roger Penrose, a mathematician, tried calculating "the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang"...whatever that means...and found that it was an immensely small number
[eqn]\frac{1}{10^{10^123}}[/eqn].

Conclusions were made saying the anthropic principle is not sufficient to explain this number. Apparently the number should be a lot higher even after assuming life exists in said universe.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/teleological-argument-and-entropy-faq.htm

I personally don't understand what exactly he was trying to calculate or how exactly it disproves the anthropic argument. Knowing that he was just a mathematician and not a physicist, he could have made the wrong conclusions about the number or just made a mistake in the calculation. But my mind is open to the possibility that the universe was not accidental. But if that was the case, then "Why dose the creator exist?"....again we arive back at the anthropic principle.

>>10935743
That doesn't explain why there is something instead of nothing.

>>10935847
It does.

>>10935734
nobody can answer this question yet, so why are you asking it on an anonymous anime imageboard

>>10935734
Your retarded question assumes that “nothing” is somehow a more basal or default state of affairs than “something”. Let’s ask the better question, since we know “something” exists while there’s no evidence of “nothing” ever existing.

Why would there ever be “nothing” instead of “something”?

>>10935816
Calculating “probabilities” is itself dishonest since we don’t know if the variables involved are actually free to vary at all in any sense and if so, how much. The knowledge about how the characteristics of any particular universe are determined consists of absolutely nothing and only a deceiver with an agenda would attempt to do so.

>>10935869
>Your retarded question assumes that “nothing” is somehow a more basal or default state of affairs than “something”.
What gave you that impression?

>>10935869
Very pedantic response

>>10935877
>What gave you that impression?

It is the impression given by asking
“Why is there something instead of nothing?”

I’ll rephrase it for you.
“Why is there something instead of “nothing”, a concept of questionable logical coherence that we have no evidence of ever having existed?”

Why would “nothing” EVER exist instead of “something”?

>>10935889
Thanks, it’s the sort of reply these stupid pseudo-deep questions warrant.

>>10935897
>a concept of questionable logical coherence that we have no evidence of ever having existed
What does this have to do with your impression that '“nothing” is somehow a more basal or default state of affairs than “something”'?

>>10935863
>anonymous anime imageboard
Don't make me post THAT pic

>>10935907
>What does this have to do with your impression that '“nothing” is somehow a more basal or default state of affairs than “something”'?

That is what you’re implying by asking “why is there something instead of nothing” as if “nothing” is even a viable alternative.

We know “something” exists and is possible because of that. “Nothing”, on the other hand, currently lives in our imaginations.

>>10935923
No one was implying that, you sperg

>>10935740
>It may be a logical impossibility for there to be a true 'nothingness'.
What do you mean?

>>10935923
>That is what you’re implying by asking “why is there something instead of nothing” as if “nothing” is even a viable alternative.
Why does asking about an alternative assume that the alternative is "a more basal or default state of affairs"?

>>10935743
Doesn’t answer the question.

>>10935862
no it doesn’t you tard

>>10935869

>>10935863
>yet
True metaphysical knowledge isn't possible.

>>10935947
I’ll consider “nothing” a possible alternative to “something” when someone proves “nothing” can ex

>>10935910
It's definitely an anime website and no retarded pictures are going to make that stop being reality. It's right there in the name "4chan." Even a number of boards with topics other than cartoons are themselves named after Japanese terminology (/g/ is gijutsu, /k/ is kyouki).
Also try typing this without spaces and see what happens:
s m h
t b h
f a m
I honestly don't understand why anyone not into anime would bother using this website instead of sticking to your own non-anime zoomer websites. Why come here?

>>10935734
Because nothing doesn't exist.

>>10935949
>>10935951
It answers the question because there is no way to ask that question in the first place without there being something. Feel free to elaborate on anything you're not getting about that.

>>10935947
Prove “nothing” is a possible alternative

"Nothing" has neither an origin or an end.

If nothing existed, there would be no cause to it. "Why" being relative to causation, this question makes no sense.

The existence or nonexistence of matter predates causality.

>>10935971
>Prove “nothing” is a possible alternative
What does that have to do with my question?

>>10935974
>"Nothing" has neither an origin or an end.
>If nothing existed, there would be no cause to it.
Does something have a cause?

>>10935981
If nothing isn't a possibility then you don't have a question.

>>10935984
>If nothing isn't a possibility then you don't have a question.
The question was why asking about nothing 'assumes that “nothing” is somehow a more basal or default state of affairs than “something"'. Why would nothing being impossible make that question disappear?

>>10935974
Several things wrong with your post.

>If nothing existed
An oxymoron. No one phrased that question that way, but you.

>there would be no cause to it. "Why" being relative to causation
Obviously the question is what caused something to exist and not "what caused there to be nothing". You set up this fallacy yourself.

>The existence or nonexistence of matter predates causality.
That's a claim and doesn't answer the "why".

>>10935986
Will this go on forever? The other retard is too stubborn to admit his first post was just a strawman

>>10935983
who knows

cause and effect as we know it is a law governing matter. does it apply to a hypothetical scenario in which matter doesn't exist?

>>10935981
If nothing isn’t a possible alternative, why propose it as one?

>>10935986
>The question was why asking about nothing 'assumes that “nothing” is somehow a more basal or default state of affairs than “something"'.

A. Nothing is the basal state of affairs, meaning some sort of “thing” would have to happen to make “something” exist since “something” is what obviously exists now. This has obvious logical problems since causality happening means time exists and time is bound with space and what would cause anything if “nothing” is what exists? If “something” exists to cause “something” then there never really was a state of “nothing”. Where is that “something” anyway if there’s no space? Is it coherent to talk of things existing independent of space and time?

B. “Something” is the basal state of affairs. This is compatible with our observations.

C. Neither “something” nor “nothing” are more basal than the other. This is compatible with our observations. Either could be the case. In this instance, we can roll metaphorical dice and get “something” half the time.

>>10936006
>If nothing isn’t a possible alternative, why propose it as one?
I wouldn't propose it if it was known to be an impossible alternative.

>>10936006
>“Something” is the basal state of affairs. This is compatible with our observations.
How so?

>>10936009
It’s an impossible alternative because there is no way to “act” on the “Nothing” to get a “something” without tossing out the “nothing” and having a “something” initially in the first place.

>>10936013
>How so?

“Nothing” is not known to have existed ever anywhere, and it’s existence may even be unverifiable. If there has always been a “something”, this would not contradict our known scientific knowledge, whether the universe’s age extends infinitely into the past prior to the Planck epoch or it is finite into the past.

>>10936014
That still doesn't answer why there is something. Why wasn't there nothing all along?

>>10936018
>If there has always been a “something”, this would not contradict our known scientific knowledge, whether the universe’s age extends infinitely into the past prior to the Planck epoch or it is finite into the past.
How would there be no contradiction if there has always been a "something" but the universe's age only extends finitely into the past?

>>10936020
>That still doesn't answer why there is something. Why wasn't there nothing all along?

Because
A. “Something” is what is basal, and “nothing” can not exist or can only result after “something”.

B. “Something” and “nothing” are both equally viable alternatives, and “something” won the metaphorical dice roll. Don’t ask why because we don’t know. Don’t assume everything is ultimately intelligible.

>>10936025
>the metaphorical dice roll
>>>/x/

>>10936022
>How would there be no contradiction if there has always been a "something" but the universe's age only extends finitely into the past?

Always: at all times; on all occasions.
for all future time; forever.
at all times

Something “always” existing means it has existed for all time. “All time” for us is only 13.8 billion years. We can say “before time and space” but then we’re talking about a state that existed, quite literally, nowhere and never.

>>10936027
If you don’t like that scenario, there’s always “Something is the default state of reality.” And “Nothing” isn’t a possibility at all

>>10935734
So that you could ask stupid questions and be unsatisfied with the answers

>>10935734
Because nothing is something. Think about it

If there was nothing, you'd be asking "why isn't there something"

>>10936588
ding ding ding

>>10935734
There is no nothing
There is no something
There is no "is"

thing
just thing

no none allowed

>>10936588
Nothing literally means no-thing, retard

The universe exists because of some physical phenomenon that has yet to be observed or explained correctly.

>>10936588
>>10936630
Saying that nothing is something when it is the absence of something is a category error. You’re dummies, sorry

>>10936777
>>10936792
Zero

We can have 5 rooms, two have nothing in them. The rest have some amount of things. Categorizing the amount of things in the rooms, we have 3 positive and 2 nothings. If there was no universe then there would be one nothing. The min amount of nothings we can have is 1 nothing because if we have no rooms with nothing in them then we would still have one nothing. Therefore nothing is something.

>>10935734
Don't expect anything deep truth about the universe from language. Language is just a framework onto itself in which the relation between itself and the underlying reality is not understood.

1. Everything we know pertains to physical phenomena (i.e. relative to matter).
2. If an event took place before matter existed, it would necessarily be non-physical.
3. We don't know if non-physical phenomena are governed by the same rules as physical ones.
4. Therefore, we don't even have a basis for speculation on what could have created matter. It's completely unknowable.

>>10935945
Imagine that reality and Nature have always existed forever, that whichever the most encompassing structure of reality may be, that it truly stretches out to an absolute infinity and has always been and ever will be, extending the block universe concept of time to a ln 'eternal worldcrystal' containing all possible physical worlds in it.
We have not yet determined the fundamental axioms of mathematics and logic, nor the most general laws of Nature (with the greatest descriptive power). For all we know, a divergence from "eternal reality-crystal in infinite sea of light" may be logically impossible.
The theory of "Nature is eternal" makes the fewest assumptions of all origin theories, and doesn't even allow certain logical paradoxes that give rise to the others such as the necessity of a prime mover and on how can something come from nothing. The simplest explanation is that there isn't a 'nothing' at all in Nature because it is impossible for there to be a discontinuity in reality itself. Seriously, 'nothingness' as a concept makes no sense unless 'something' or 'everything' are already defined.

I scratch my butthole and sniff my fingers.
Can't fucking help myself with the sniffing.

Nothing is still something

>>10935734
Why is something the way it is and not different?

>>10938239
>Photons aren’t physical

>>10935970
You dense motherfucker.
Suppose you're blindfolded and lined up against a wall to be executed by firing squad. When the signal is given, shots are fired but you find yourself still alive. Rightfully so, you ask yourself "Why am I still alive?" Would you accept
>HURR DURR YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ASK THE QUESTION IF YOU WEREN'T ALIVE!!!
Of course not you stupid idiot. The fact that you wouldn't be able to ask if not-A doesn't explain why A is the case.

>>10936025
>“Something” is what is basal
what the fuck do you mean by "basal"

>>10935734

Its because of how the Universe packs its data. Its a "packing problem". The Universe is a 5D cellular automaton but cannot logically average the corners of its neighborhoods. Its like packing spherical beeds, the packing is always irregular, and this irregularity is what we think of as "something"

>>10935734
Prove either case.

Note: This is non-trivial.

Kant BTFO 'I think, therefore I am' but he couldn't BTFO 'I think, therefore something is'

>>10939429

Physics was unified around 6 months ago at www.optimum.center.

Fyi, people often talk about having "haters" but the team there regularly receives death threats from this site, in particular.

It is unified physics, and understanding what is there will prove the proof .

>10939420
>10939429

>>10939438
>>10939442

Exactly. this "Gary" is not even the author of Optimum Theory, but the fact this meme is even a thing proves the character assassinations that are being carried out on this team.

Notice that nothing in that meme even addresses the theory at www.optimum.center. rather, it is pure "deep state" character assassination

>>10939438
That proves neither case. If you disagree, you'll have done so intelligently and I won't need to explain why.

>10939452
>Exactly. this "Gary" is not even the author of Optimum Theory,

>the team
I'll add this to the image.

>>10939442
>>10939452

The game being played by the manifest evil who hate the human race, who murder and steal and rape, their game now is to destroy the people who produced the real and unimprovable unified equation of everything found at www.optimum.center, however that site has been paid for the next 100 years. Every member of the team could be "Clintoned" and that site will remain for 100 years to elevate the entire human species despite the protest of... well, the devil. Literally the only ones against that site are the manifestly evil spawns lf Satan - take that as a metaphor, the Truth remains.

>>10939465

Cool CGI, Satan.

>>10938288
So this made me think, after we die, is it nothingness? Because if nothingness can not exist, then the absence of all conscience identity and stimuli would be what? Does the self not become "nothing"?

>>10939465
Gary looks like someone in his family had sexual relations with a black nigger

>>10939706
That would probably be his wife. >>/sci/thread/S10922795#p10923979

>>10939706
>nigger
Why the racism?