/sci/ - Science & Math

>it must be true because my human brain, a coincidence of chemistry, is incapable of comprehending otherwise

>>11660108
Thanks for your contribution

>a coincidence of chemistry
Lol brilliant

>>11660101
Never ending nor beginning a cycle does not make.

>>11660108
>coincidence of chemistry
coherency of chemicals, the form, order and structure of them to be specific
>is incapable of comprehending otherwise
>something from nothing is possible regardless of whether a human can comprehend it.

>>11660131
>Never ending nor beginning a cycle does not make
Right, but it's the logical conclusion.

If it's not cyclical, it would require a first cause. Correct?

>coherency of chemicals, the form, order and structure of them to be specific
Nothing happens by chance. Whether or not something is coincidental is purely a matter of perception.

>>11660147
>If it's not cyclical, it would require a first cause. Correct?
If the universe has a begging and always follows causation, then yes, there would be a first cause. Now you explain what the problem with that is.

>>11660101
how does a cycle start with nothing before it??

>>11660101
Where does the energy come from to reset everything?
If you take all the hydrogen in the universe and fuse it into helium, how do you separate it again to start over?

>>11660167
>If the universe has a [beginning] and always follows causation, then yes, there would be a first cause
Wrong. It would completely violate causality.

But it's not just about causality. It's about something arising from absolutely nothing.

>>11660176
This is the most difficult thing to wrap my head around.

Relatively and the fact that time is largely a matter of perception helps me come to terms with it.

>If you take all the hydrogen in the universe and fuse it into helium, how do you separate it again to start over?
As far as our perception is concerned, this iteration of the universe is expanding to a point where all matter will (probably) decay and become pure energy (photons). At this point, quantum fluctuations will cause matter to form again and give rise to another universe (see: torus).

>>11660179
Not to take OP's side in this argument, but you can throw it into a black whole and it will be emitted as photons. You're only worsening the problem with that though; if information is conserved in black holes. Because blackholes have the highest entropy in the universe, and lowering entropy is the real problem in a cyclic universe.

>>11660188
What if it didn't arise from nothing? There was a beginning, and now we are here. Its hard to imagine something like that, but there are no physical laws that says it can't be the case.

>>11660218
>What if it didn't arise from nothing?
How could something come from the absence of something? Doesn't make sense.

>>11660229
What I'm saying is that all we have is the universe and it has a beginning. There was no before, or absentee before it, just its beginning. There is no reason this could not be the case as far as we know. We don't have to use the same logic we use for chickens and eggs when we are talking about the universe as a whole.

>>11660238
>What I'm saying is that all we have is the universe and it has a beginning
A beginning requires a first cause. A first cause would require some kind of God. But that still raises the question: what caused God?

>>11660259
>A first cause would require some kind of God.
No, it doesn't.

Now what?

>>11660101
Cyclicality is an illusion emergent from linerality, faggot

>>11660274
How wouldn't it? Your argument amounts to "nuh uh".

>>11660287
Cyclicality would have to be a matter of perception, but that's all we have to go by.

>>11660289
Well yours is "yu uh" and I'm sure you realized that already. And now you want me to make an argument even though I'm just disagreeing with your baseless claim? Sure, right after you.

>>11660304
>And now you want me to make an argument even though I'm just disagreeing with your baseless claim?
But my claim is not baseless. It's based on the most fundamental reality: that something cannot arise from nothing.

>>11660310
Again you are back to:
>something cannot arise from nothing.

I stated multiple times it is not what I'm arguing for. Try to keep up.
And you can make the same argument against you, "nothing can exist without a beginning." and it would be just as baseless.

>>11660147
>Right, but it's the logical conclusion.
>conclusion
if there is no end, there is no conclusion.

>If it's not cyclical, it would require a first cause. Correct?
not if it never began

>>11660167
"From what"

>>11660353
"From" is an absurd question if there is no before it.

>>11660328
>I stated multiple times it is not what I'm arguing for
Lol then what exactly are you arguing?

>>11660353
>if there is no end, there is no conclusion
Correct. Why would there be?

>not if it never began
Right. I don't think it did.

>>11660362
A universe with a beginning. Not a pseudo beginning where you can ask what caused it. A universe with a true beginning, a first cause. Try to actually understand the distinction before you keep arguing. Its pointless to argue if you don't bother to understand my side.

>>11660378
But what beginning? What caused it? You're talking about a creator, correct?

>>11660176
>>11660205
>>11660382

>>11660382
No. Just a universe, you can put a creator in there, but then the beginning would not really be the beginning, now would it?
Everything started, so there is no sense in asking what came before it or what caused it, because there was no before.

And "No before" is not the same as "nothing before"

>>11660399
Interesting

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting my ideas are original

>>11660403
>Everything started, so there is no sense in asking what came before it or what caused it, because there was no before
If there was no "before", then there was no "start"

>>11660101
Like a wise man once said:
"Everything has an end.
Except for the sausage.
It has two of them."

>>11660416
I wasn't suggesting you were, I didn't even think you implied it. Just helping you to answer the question you are two discussing

>>11660101
>Everything must be cyclical.
How would that work with a strictly increasing entropy (in the direction of time, obviously)?

>>11660422
Really? That's the argument you're going with? I don't think that is even logical in a conventional sense.
You going to at least back it up with anything this time or?

>>11660426
Oh, thanks, pal

So, where do you stand on this issue?
a) universe is cyclical and eternal
b) universe was created

I think those are the only 2 options. Right?

>>11660438
>You going to at least back it up with anything this time or?
It's simple logic, anon.

If nothing existed, then there couldn't be something "before" something.

>>11660447
Imagine being a fluctuation in a Conway's Game of Life thinking about itself.
It makes no sense for it to ponder about a before and after.
It exists - independent of it actively getting calculated - on an entirely different plane.

>>11660447
This is the same "what caused it" argument restated then. Can you really not move passed it?
Just actually try for at least 5 minutes to wrap your head around it before you say "What caused it" again.

>>11660101
>sOmEtHiNg Is DuMb BeCaUsE i SaY iT Is!
I would fight you, but, based on the maturity of your comment, I can't because I don't fight children.

We already know there are structures with both beginnings and ends, and beginnings but no ends, and no beginning or end.
But there are no structures that have no beginning but do have an end. That does not exist.

>>11660457
>It makes no sense for it to ponder about a before and after
"Before" and "after" is a matter of perception. To say either exists is nonsensical.

>>11660441
Those things are answered in the graphic posted. When you say "created" you are creating an incorrect mental picture. Are humans ceated? Are seeds created? In a sense they are but it isn't done in cognitive engineered way. The universe was created in the same way a human is. It doesn't require plans, tools and workers you simply initiate the process and it "creates" itself in a sense, it "unfolds" is a better description

>>11660474
I think we're mostly on the same page

>>11660498
Try this and see where it leads you
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>11660526
Will do. Thanks.

Here's some other interesting stuff that might tie in.

Threeness (cyclicality)
>Basic structure of the atom
>Subatomic scale often occurs in 3s (quarks etc)
>3 dimensions (if you count earth *time* as 0)
>Chemical composition of water
>Pi
>We think in terms of 3 (thesis, antitheses, conclusion)
>Art: trilogy, triptych, trinity

That's just off the top of my head

>>11660366
Then it isn't a cycle.

>>11660357
>if there is no before it.
I agree. Since logically something cannot come from nothing, the universe most assuredly had no start and therefore no first cause.

>>11660441

I believe labeling it as both cyclical and eternal is misleading. Eternal knows no cycle. "It is" is not "It is again".

>>11660101

This is actually a serious view of some (admittedly fringe idea) cosmologists on the life and death of the universe. That literally the beginning is the end and vice versa.

>>11661435
Sure, Max Tegmark and Roger Penrose are 2 of them. Penrose wrote a whole book on it called Cycles of Time.

>>11661342
Something that's eternal can be cyclical in nature.

>>11660101
You have a fully Native European mindset. Congratulations OP, your mind is noticeably un-infected by Jewish toxins.

This reminds me of the people who believe "0.999... (an infinite amount of 9s) equals 1.

Regarding that: their inability to comprehend that ".999..." isn't the same as "1" is directly tied to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilities. Over the course of many generations of indoctrination into an alien worldview, their parents and their parents etc gradually "learned" to be unable to comprehend it and this "learned disability" was inherited, and encouraged/fueled by various external factors from the echoing modern culture.

So basically, they're mentally damaged.

This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.

This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically (((Christianity))) for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. (((Christianity))) introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending at a point B, whereas in the Native European worldview everything is an infinite circle.

That's why many people today can't understand that .999 repeating forever will never reach 1 - they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to their Judaically-induced mental disease.

>>11662916
0.9... doesn't need to "reach" 1, it is 1

>>11662927
Nope. Less than 1 isn't 1. And it never will be. It will forever get closer, but never reach 1.

>>11660101

https://files.catbox.moe/bredcm.webm

https://files.catbox.moe/tthc1f.mp4

>>11662916
this. spinoza has a book on this named Ethics.

>>11662934
Then what's 1-0.9...?

>>11662916

Nice bait retard.

Still, 0.999... does equal 1. There is no "believing" to this fact. You do not need to believe in mathematics, you just need to have a proof for it. There is, in fact, a formal proof for this relation.

>>11662977
As always this is left unanswered.

x = 0.9999....
10x = 9.999999.....
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.9999....= 9
9x = 9
x = 1 = 0.9999......

Q.E.D.

I am not wrong

>>11663382
>There is, in fact, a formal proof for this relation.
For which you need to "believe" certain axioms.
There is nothing in mathematics that is self-evident, that literally follows from nothing.
Now, you may argue that tautologies like [math]A \vee \neg A[/math] are always true, but, if I'm not mistaken, even that is strictly speaking considered an axiom.