/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11860429
Because God felt like it. Though I wonder if God himself asks this question.

>>11860429
The law of opposites

Hallucinatory hypothetical embedded in the nothing, really there's nothing, this is just a part of it.

>>11860429
God wills it

>>11860441
>>>/x/

>>11860429
for some reason, Nothing is unstable

It's a fine question, one that deserves an answer. When you see a ball laying on the ground you don't just assume that it's there because it's there, you think there's a cause for it being there. In the same way, when you see a large crater you don't simply dismiss it as well it is what it is, you understand that something brought it into being. You ask why and you discover variety of good actual reasons why it's there. In the same way, you ask why there is a sun that we orbit, and can get interesting and enlightening explanations of how it came to be. But OP says you can ask all of those things, except why big bang occured. That's the line where you need to STOP questioning to not be a NPC. Why stop questioning there? Because fuck you that's why.

>>11860433
>>11860442
not science or math

there's no such thing as nothing

>>11860429
because otherwise your dumb fucking brain wouldn't exist and be capable of asking this dumb question

Because matter and antimatter were not generated by the big bang in the same proportion for some reason (if it were 1:1, there would still be gamma photons, which is technically not nothing, just nothing tangible).

we don't know

>>11860429
I don't know but if everything that exists is good, then that would make something prefereable

If there isn't something then there can't be nothing

>>11860429
What are some of the attributes of nothing? Just curious if OP is not a fag.

>>11860429
Because we're living in a universe-sized paradox

>>11861099
Like the experience you didn't have before you were born

>>11860429
Because the many are all just one tricking itself otherwise. Read Parmenides.

Because nothing doesn't exist

>>11860429
Oooooooo I am the ghost of Parmenides! Oooooooo Read my dialogue! Ooooo Then read the Dhammapada!

>>11860429
Because if there was nothing you couldn't ask this stupid fucking question.

>>11863583
Pwned

>>11861039
>>11863583
This is just describing the effect of something. It does not answer the question.

Because everything is derived from nothing.
You derive every numbers from 0

Because god did it. My god specifically, not the god that the other replies said.

>>11864181
No was actually my god not your god get it right. Oh and don't ask where my god came from ok.

Because hell is real. And we're in it.

Well, you see. It's a matter of probability.

It takes only one thing to exist to cease the nothingness.

>>11864255
/thread

>>11860533
Prove it, NPC.

>>11860433
Proof?

>>11860429
Unexplained inbalance of matter and anti-matter

but there is nothing

there is an infinite amount of nothing

>>11860429
Well OP, let's create our own reality. My first conditions would be: None.
What can we conclude?
- All is something
- Something is nothing
- Reality in itself is reality

With these conclusions I don't think we're heading towards 'nothingness'. Instead, we get some fractal that describes infinity as an abstract concept.

I imagine it would be something like that. No rules lead to infinity, infinity leads to chaos, chaos leads to space and time and all the pretty stuff that exists.

>>11860429
There isn't.

>>11863583

Strange, that he IS there to ask that question, no?

Maybe going off the point a little, but humans can never experience true nothingness. Even if you were thrust out into space right now, you'd experience the agony of suffocation for those few moments before death. If you're in a spacesuit you'd hear and feel your own breath. Even in a room deprived of all sound, sight, and all senses, you'd soon hear you're own heartbeat, and you'd eventually start to hallucinate. And even a Godless death is not nothingness. You're brain stops functioning after death, there for you can't experience death (as such).

>>11860429
because we must secure the existence of our pipo and a future for white kiddos

>>11860441
Honestly, I think this one is right on the money. Everyone else is stuck in their own reality boxes too much to be able to consider a conclusion like this.

>>11860429
There's actually nothing - you're being tricked.

>>11864175

This. The universe is nothing. An exactly equal amount of negative and positive energymatter. We apply human logic to this, thinking its something. Its not. It is exactly nothing.

Here's a more interesting question: do you think we, or any other possible intelligent entities in our universe, will ever have anything close to an answer to this question?

Assume civilization somehow survives: will we be any closer to it in 5 thousand years from now? 5 million years from now?

My random guess is "unlikely but possible".

>>11865624
And by this I mean at the ultimate metaphysical level. Something close to a complete understanding of all of reality, or at least a general idea of it. Not just why matter and anti-matter didn't mutually annihilate etc.

I'm sure there will be some things that will just never be known with any certainty, but maybe this one will be solved by some extremely intelligent and resourceful beings in an incredibly long time from now.

>>11865624

Some already have a good enough idea. Our models are getting advanced, basically complete. You might not notice them if you are waiting for permission. But science needs no permission. Beg for permission from Acamedia or the elite and they will squeeze you for every drop, and they will still not grant it to you.

>>11865634
Yeah, sorry, no. We're still just scratching the surface of ordinary physics, pretty much. In 100 years from now people will look back and laugh at many of our currently universally accepted physics ideas, or at see that they were logical but just turned out to be wrong. (Like an "aether".)

Academia's problems aside, we're still mostly grasping around in the dark.

>>11865624
Just like mathematics, this question needs axioms to derive statements from. I think this is fundamentally unanswerable.

This is the reason I'm a deist.

>>11865632
>And by this I mean at the ultimate metaphysical level. Something close to a complete understanding of all of reality, or at least a general idea of it.

I understood. Our model is essentually complete. We have the unified equation, and it does explain the distribution of energymatter and is almost mind-bogglingly logical and elegant... why that equation? Why U = E / S? Maybe you are right that we will never truly know, but my intuition is that it is perfect logic, perfect grace, perfect elegance. It exists because it must exist. It is the only equation capable of creating everything or nothing at all. The perfect turing machine.

>>11865638
>We're

Who is "we"? You and your hierarchy? Or at least the information that your hierarchy allows you to know?

There are others.

>>11865644
>and is almost mind-bogglingly logical and elegant..

Not almost. It is mind boggling. I could think about its implications for years, and I have.

>>11860429
Give this a listen, OP.

https://m.soundcloud.com/gregorybsadler/parmenides-fragments-thought-being-and-monism-sadlers-lectures

>>11865640
For me, this is the reason that I think rejecting deism out of hand is silly and untenable, but I still consider myself an agnostic atheist. I assign a probability to a deistic intelligent creator of some kind, but it's a very low one.

It's very foolish to say we could ever disprove an intelligent creator (such as a god / simulation-runner / who knows), but we also currently have zero evidence of one, and plenty of theories of how our universe could have possibly developed through natural processes (including perhaps natural selection).

Of course, there's always the infinite regress and you can never rule out an intelligent creator at any of the arbitrary hypothetical "upper levels" / meta-levels / whatever, but it opens the door to the possibility that at the very root there really could be nothing but pure, unintelligent, unintentional nature, and that only a few branches contain intelligent things and only a few of those go on to create new beings and realities, and we may currently be at the end of one of those branches rather than somewhere higher. (Or maybe we're on the only branch there is, and there's nothing or one root thing above.)

So, deism can never be ruled out, but pure non-deistic natural emergence can never be ruled out, either, unless we find strong proof of the existence of a deity (which we probably never will even if there are any which reside in our causal chain).

>>11865648
I'm getting some schizophrenia vibes, here. What's going on, anon? Tell us your grand theory instead of just vaguely alluding to some kind of hidden truth known only to the initiated.

>>11865638

Just so you know I'm not bluffing about the unified equation: https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

That's the friendly sanitized version that can be shown to anyone and get a, "huh, cool!". But that model goes deep. I am not a mormon, but they have a phrase "milk before meat", and that is applicable here to. He have explored that model in great depth and the implications are not just mind boggling, they would force a complete restructuring of everything we thought we knew.

>>11865664
>I'm getting some schizophrenia vibes, here. What's going on, anon? Tell us your grand theory instead of just vaguely alluding to some kind of hidden truth known only to the initiated.

Here is the family friendly version: https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

We also have an advanced study version which most people are not ready for, but Stephen Wolfram called it "cool" and he was a fellow at Openheimer (director of the Manhattan Project) and Von Neumann's institute so we've got that going for us.

>>11865672
>Openheimer

My apologies, Oppenheimer

>>11865666
>academia doesn't want you to know this!!!!
>the elites don't allow you to learn this
>we've already solved reality, it's done
>link to nonsense rambling YouTube video(s) with < 1000 views

Every single time.

Please, get your life together. This is gibberish, and you don't know it, likely because you suffer from some sort of psychotic condition (or are just super dumb and gullible? or both?), but you should know it. It's gibberish pseudoscience.

Metaphysics and philosophy are interesting, even if one has very little physics knowledge, but this is not at all how you go about it.

This is what's known as crankery. If you/someone is "certain" of something game-changing and shocking that "no one else knows" and that "the elites don't want you to know", be it a science thing or anything else, there's almost a 100% chance it's pure meritless bullshit. (If you want, I can likely even prove it by predicting more than 80% of your other beliefs. I'll know how likely I can or not depending on how you reply to this post.)

>>11865681
Also, an addendum: if the only thing you have to provide is a video or a podcast, you have nothing. Paper or it didn't happen.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a peer-reviewed paper. Doesn't even have to be a published paper. It just has to be a formal write-up containing words which can be analyzed concretely. (Like the Bitcoin whitepaper, for example. Not published or peer-reviewed or anything, but it lays out the details formally and is easy to comprehend, appreciate, and critique.)

>>11865681
>>>11865666 (You) #
>>academia doesn't want you to know this!!!!
>>the elites don't allow you to learn this
>>we've already solved reality, it's done
>>link to nonsense rambling YouTube video(s) with < 1000 views
>Every single time.
>Please, get your life together. This is gibberish, and you don't know it, likely because you suffer from some sort of psychotic condition (or are just super dumb and gullible? or both?), but you should know it. It's gibberish pseudoscience.
>Metaphysics and philosophy are interesting, even if one has very little physics knowledge, but this is not at all how you go about it.
>This is what's known as crankery. If you/someone is "certain" of something game-changing and shocking that "no one else knows" and that "the elites don't want you to know", be it a science thing or anything else, there's almost a 100% chance it's pure meritless bullshit. (If you want, I can likely even prove it by predicting more than 80% of your other beliefs. I'll know how likely I can or not depending on how you reply to this post.)

The model has close to a million views. It is being distributed under different names, in a decentralized manner. We don't give a single fuck if the elites care for it or not.

There is nothing even remotely metaphysical or philosophical about the model of everything. Its fundamental principles represent the most quantifiable and complete model of fundamental physics, not only in human history, but arguably that can even be generated by finite beings. It is what it claims to be: the unified equation. But, this is science and it could be wrong in part or total. It is theory after all.

The "elites don't want you to know this". The elites don't even know this. Hindmind has transcended hierarchy. It's the network effect of human intelligence in the internet age. Its how an African immigrant with minimal education beat NASA (Musk), how some kind in a garage kickedstarted the VR revolution (Luckey).

>>11865681

And to continue, I would be interested in hearing the 80% of my other beliefs according to you. I will be honest, and they are all uploaded so it's not like I can hide them anyway.

>>11860429
Conscious observers can only exist in the presence of something.

Really the problem here is in the word "why."
Things just happen there is no "why." All of science and physics just describe what happens and never why.

It's literally miraculous. Make of that what you will

>>11865686
>Also, an addendum: if the only thing you have to provide is a video or a podcast, you have nothing. Paper or it didn't happen.
>Doesn't necessarily have to be a peer-reviewed paper. Doesn't even have to be a published paper. It just has to be a formal write-up containing words which can be analyzed concretely. (Like the Bitcoin whitepaper, for example. Not published or peer-reviewed or anything, but it lays out the details formally and is easy to comprehend, appreciate, and critique.)

Pure kek if the history books record that the theory of everything was peer reviewed by the dark web. How 2020.

This has all already been done. You're a little late to the party.

>>11865696
>The model has close to a million views.
Link?

>It is being distributed under different names,
What's the name?

>We don't give a single fuck if the elites care for it or not.
I'm not an elite. I'm a random 4chan poster just like you are. I'm interested in whatever hypothesis or model this may be; I just want to see words and equations in a document, so that they can be analyzed concretely.

>There is nothing even remotely metaphysical or philosophical about the model of everything.
I think any self-proclaimed model of *everything* unavoidably dips into the realm of metaphysics. But let's ignore the physics vs. metaphysics debate for the sake of argument and say this is just regular physics.

There is no conspiracy from "the elites" to "suppress" physics knowledge. You could say many universities' physics departments aren't very welcoming to radical new ideas, which is true, but that's completely different.

No "elite" can prevent you or anyone from writing a paper and sharing it through any number of means. Google Docs, a blog, a PDF on your website; whatever. Nothing is stopping them from creating a write-up. The "elites" can't block the words from being on the internet.

And I keep putting "elites" in scarequotes because I think the premise is very likely ridiculous. Name like three of these supposed elites who are suppressing physics knowledge. Or even one.

>>11865705
The funny thing is I'm with you in the sense that I think making things more decentralized and distributed instead of centered around academia is a very good thing. I think the idea of "peer review by the dark web" (or, preferably, internet communities in general) is a pretty good idea. I'm all for the hivemind.

But you haven't given me a name, or a paper, or any "dark web community" who's reviewed this. How am I to blame for this? You just keep making vague, cryptic references with no substance, like a movie villain.

Reminds me of QAnon. Are you a QAnon follower, anon? Be honest.

>>11865710
>I think any self-proclaimed model of *everything* unavoidably dips into the realm of metaphysics. But let's ignore the physics vs. metaphysics debate for the sake of argument and say this is just regular physics.
>There is no conspiracy from "the elites" to "suppress" physics knowledge. You could say many universities' physics departments aren't very welcoming to radical new ideas, which is true, but that's completely different.
>No "elite" can prevent you or anyone from writing a paper and sharing it through any number of means. Google Docs, a blog, a PDF on your website; whatever. Nothing is stopping them from creating a write-up. The "elites" can't block the words from being on the internet.
>And I keep putting "elites" in scarequotes because I think the premise is very likely ridiculous. Name like three of these supposed elites who are suppressing physics knowledge. Or even one.
>>>11865705 (You) #
>The funny thing is I'm with you in the sense that I think making things more decentralized and distributed instead of centered around academia is a very good thing. I think the idea of "peer review by the dark web" (or, preferably, internet communities in general) is a pretty good idea. I'm all for the hivemind.
>But you haven't given me a name, or a paper, or any "dark web community" who's reviewed this. How am I to blame for this? You just keep making vague, cryptic references with no substance, like a movie villain.
>Reminds me of QAnon. Are you a QAnon follower, anon? Be honest.

The most high profile fellow from the Institute for Advanced Study not only called our model cool, it lit a fucking fire under his ass. Him and Weinstein. IAS is above your Harvard's, Stanfords, etc... if you don't know about it, that's only because YOU are not elite enough. WE ARE the elite.

We have ALREADY been peer reviewed by dark web.

I gave you a kid gloves video. If you cannot understand why is there then there is no way you are ready for the advanced version.

>>11865719
>I gave you a kid gloves video. If you cannot understand why is there then there is no way you are ready for the advanced version.

... if you cannot understand what is there...

>>11865719
>I gave you a kid gloves video.
I understood what he was trying to say. That's not the problem. The problem is a video isn't the same as a paper. I skimmed through it because it seemed very word salad-y and, again, fuzzy and not concrete. Papers are concrete and can be critiqued.

It's the same with Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory. There's no reason he can't put out a paper. His argument is that he doesn't have the math exactly quite right and that the important part is more the elegance of the theory, but even if so, he can still put some kind of write-up.

Wolfram's automata theories are also interesting and verge into similar realms, but avoid the egregious problems here by 1) making it clear he is not certain in this theory and just finds it an elegant and simple model, and 2) wrote up the idea with lots of words and visuals and formulas. Even if his theory has little or no relation to actual reality (which I think is probably the case, but who knows), at least he's making an effort and isn't completely delusional.

>We have ALREADY been peer reviewed by dark web.
What part of the "dark web"? What did they review, if there's no paper? What's the name of the model?

>if you don't know about it, that's only because YOU are not elite enough. WE ARE the elite.
You sure are. You, the elites, are suppressing knowledge by not letting us mere /sci/ mortals see any details. You're hiding this information from us, because you think you're smarter and better than us. You allege this bullshit conspiracy theory and then go and do the thing you're claiming to criticize.

You're projecting your hatred towards non-existent "elites" because you so desperately desire to be one yourself, but were probably born poor, sad, and mentally ill in a shitty country to shitty parents, so this is the only way you can feel that feeling of elitism.

>>11865719
>The most high profile fellow from the Institute for Advanced Study
So high-profile he has no name?

>>11865710

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me my 80% of other beliefs. QAnon? Lmfao. I'll talk advanced science with you, but if I told you how socioeconomic really works... well that's something we don't talk about, not even here or on Pol. We do science for charity. We make billions for sport, and in that domain we don't share shit.

>>11865742
>We make billions for sport
Yeah, I'm sure you do.

And here's what I was going to post. I believe you likely believe 80% or more of the following:

>Pizzagate
>9/11 inside/Mossad job
>ZOG
>Clintons killed Seth Rich
>Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax
>Government puts fluoride or other substances in water to manipulate the population
>Politicians conduct Satanic child sacrifice rituals
>Osama bin Laden still alive / killed long before he was claimed to be
>Climate change's a hoax
>HIV/AIDS isn't real or was created by the government

I suspect I'm likely right or close because you and every other /pol/ schizo has the same kind of brain that's a very powerful magnet to absurd self-confirming bullshit.

>>11865741
>You, the elites, are suppressing knowledge by not letting us mere /sci/ mortals see any details.

Sci already saw, when they were ready. But yeah, you are right. I am suppressing knowedge, sort of. You aren't ready for the rest if you don't understand what's in that video. If you think a video where you can see the forces with your own eyes, and have it explained by a certified math teacher is Schizo then your brain would melt if you saw the rest.

Weinstein & Wolfram's latest... *sigh* stunts were direct reactions to our model. Both are great people. Not trying to be a hater here. But they didn't unify physics. We did. And you're right. Weinstein in particular is completely full of shit. Wolfram is not full of shit - and he is the fellow from IAS that I was referring to, but he is being incredibly sneaky in his wordage for publicity for his products, and has not explicitly claimed to have unified physics like Weinstein has. Weinstein... is utterly full of shit, as smart as he legitimately is, he is 100% shilling, and essentially lying, for publicity.

Our paper is like, half a page, haha. That was intentional of course. Its a middle finger essentially. And yet it fully explains our equation. The equation is simply that elegant. Our advanced study video is 2.5 hours and is more polished and highly produced than it has any reason to be, but you won't understand a word of it if you cannot understand that public school level video first.

>>11865756
>Yeah, I'm sure you do.

Yes, we in fact, do. Anon.

>>11865767
schizo

>>11865756
>>>11865742 (You) #
>>We make billions for sport
>Yeah, I'm sure you do.
>And here's what I was going to post. I believe you likely believe 80% or more of the following:
>>Pizzagate
>>9/11 inside/Mossad job
>>ZOG
>>Clintons killed Seth Rich
>>Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax
>>Government puts fluoride or other substances in water to manipulate the population
>>Politicians conduct Satanic child sacrifice rituals
>>Osama bin Laden still alive / killed long before he was claimed to be
>>Climate change's a hoax
>>HIV/AIDS isn't real or was created by the government
>I suspect I'm likely right or close because you and every other /pol/ schizo has the same kind of brain that's a very powerful magnet to absurd self-confirming bullshit.

Lmfao. You are an awful judge of character.

Take care, Anon.

>>11865638
+1

>>11865772
Everyone knows you're a schizo. You can stop pretending to be sane now.

>>11865553
If by "something" you mean matter, energy and stuff like that, you could be right.

But if "something" can be just a mind, then how are you existing if there's really nothing?

>>11860429
here anon
this is all the philosophy you need

>>11860429
Because it's possible

There has never been a time when there was nothing, because if there were ever nothing, there could never be something.