/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15052221
gem

>>15052227
I got good at proofs in college

>>15052221
This place where you live isn’t that great, it it? There are many things wrong with it, so what makes you think that the creator is benevolent?
I have a feeling that when scientists get a little too nosy about the origin of the universe and might be near discovering something that they are struck down before they can do it. This is just a theory of mine.

>>15052540
It’s not like the ayys are running some sort of sketchy mafia

>>15052221
>The fact that only nothing can come from nothing, yet there is something.
That is not a fact and nothing is something.

> Yet also we know and are able to observe that the universe physically had a hard beginning.
This is not true either they just call the furthest back they can model the beginning and leave room for explanations about what caused it.

>>15052815
>That is not a fact
Yes it is.
>nothing is something
No it’s not.
>This is not true either
Yes it is. Do I need to explain to you why a singularity is unphysical?

>>15052221
> only nothing can come from nothing

Citation needed

>>15052877
“Nothingness” is a stable fixed point—it is nothing, does nothing, begets nothing; something implies not-nothing

How can it be a state and nothing at the same time?

You're saying that ~around this time~, ~nothing~ ~lived~!

No.

There was no beginning; only pre-life in 1D.

Why do things have to start, isn't complete balance possible?

>>15052221
>How do science and reason not prove that there is a creator or at least a simulator?
They do and there is, and His name is Allah.

>>15052866
Fields and points all come from nothing they have no dimension and no properties other than something arbitrarily labeled and ordered to reference.

You brought it up, if it weren't something to discuss you would not have thought about it and referenced it in the first place.

Something that isn't physical is still something and your model devolving into some unphysical unmeasurable reference point isn't a hard beginning, its just a vague idea that can easily change over time.

>>15052922
>Fields and points all come from nothing
By definition that’s not nothing then. We define nothing as something which begets nothing. Don’t you think that what you are calling “nothing” bears closer resemblance to some ground of potentiality?
>Something that isn't physical is still something and your model devolving into some unphysical unmeasurable reference point isn't a hard beginning, its just a vague idea that can easily change over time.
Are you saying essentially that the universe didn’t have a beginning because there was “always” some ground quantum state from which particles and universes pop into existence?
>its just a vague idea
It’s something that cosmologists come up against every day they go into the office.

>>15052892
>Why do things have to start, isn't complete balance possible?
Nothing “has to” anything, it’s just scientific fact that things did have a start.

>>15052221
>How do science and reason not prove that there is a creator or at least a simulator?
Not enough evidence.

>>15052942
>We define nothing as something which begets nothing.
No, nothing is the smallest possible amount of anything and everything, you can't put something somewhere without nothing holding its place because matter can't just phase through itself, you need a void to move and grow into.

>Don’t you think that what you are calling “nothing” bears closer resemblance to some ground of potentiality?
No, potential energy is more like the points and fields I mentioned rather than the nothing that they come from.

>Are you saying essentially that the universe didn’t have a beginning
Beginning is a numerical concept, the beginning number has a value equal to nothing why wouldn't the beginning of the universe?

>>15052221
>How do science and reason not prove that there is a creator or at least a simulator?
maybe they will be able to one day. If we don't get blown up by an asteroid or blow ourselves up then we have many millions of years to work things out and in just the last 200 years we've made incredible progress
>The fact that only nothing can come from nothing
we don't know exactly how the universe works yet. Maybe something can come from nothing. There's nothing to say that's impossible. There's the conservation principles, but maybe they don't apply in an early universe state. Maybe there's been a quantum field there forever, even before the big bang. Even if there's nothing physical there's still something that allows physical objects to be instantiated with certain properties. If there wasn't then something would come into existence with a random configuration of matter that may not make any sense. A quantum field appears to have certain properties that allow for other things to happen, so those properties are defined somewhere externally to the universe if it was created in a certain functional state. Or maybe it is chance, i don't know, but that seems kind of weird

>>15052954
Derp derp derp derp
Derpidy derp derp derp
Hurr
Herpa
Derpa
Merrrrrrf Merrrrrrf

Entertaining it is being a retard.

>>15052954
It's a scientific FACT that things started
>Go on Aether, ask him how it started
..."We don't know"
>Aether, ask him how is it a fact then
Derp derp derp derp ....
Merrrrrrf Merrrrrrf

In the beginning, was pre-beginning leading up to itself

That's science.

Squeeze my sweaty balls dry

>>15052974
>Maybe something can come from nothing. There's nothing to say that's impossible
Logic.
>Maybe there's been a quantum field there forever, even before the big bang. Even if there's nothing physical there's still something that allows physical objects to be instantiated with certain properties
Notice how you’re positing the existence of something. Because you know that logically nothing comes from nothing.

>>15053801
Nothing

There's nothing here everyone

Omg look at the nothing

Nnnnnnnnnn shit bro nothing

Shh be quiet you'll distract the nothing

What is complete subtraction of all something we know? What is complete subtraction of all something? Is it leading to nothing or a half something half subtracting anomaly?

T. There is no nothing fools, nothing is a conjecture that something when fully subtracted creates a state.

>>15053801
>Notice how you’re positing the existence of something
yes actually. Maybe something can come from nothing in some kind of situation, that's one point. When things comes into existence they could have certain properties that are defined somewhere, that's another point. These are two completely separate comments. They are both maybes. I didn't say one depends on the other in any way

>>15052221
You're drawing hasty conclusions. Is there any reason why the universe needs to be "created" by anything?
A creator or a simulation both lead to circular reasoning. God must have come from nothing so it violates your logic. If God is allowed to come from nothing then why isn't the universe itself? If we're in a simulation then where did the universe in which we are being simulated come from? You could argue that we're being simulated in an acausal universe but you probably can't prove it and it's no more likely than the beginning of our universe also being acausal as the very creation of our universe violates causality no matter what.

>>15054292
>If God is allowed to come from nothing then why isn't the universe itself?
The universe is always in flux, always changing, mutable, and empirically had a beginning.

>>15052221
>How do science and reason not prove
You really need to read up on basic scientific principles. Science is about trying to disprove a thesis, not prove it.

>>15056024
Mm no I wouldn’t agree with you there. Science is in the business of building cases for proposed explanations and models, in a positive way. To say science only cares about how the universe is *not*, is wrong

>le religion vs science thread

two-digit IQ confirmed

>>15056036
Best kind of thread there is

>>15056031
And where, pray tell, did you get that idea?

>>15052221
>The fact that only nothing can come from nothing
Humans are not able to grasp the concepts like eternity. They believe the simulation in her brain they call conscience is little more than a tool to survive. They cannot grasp that the world around them is total different then they aware. They have very limited senses, cannot feel magnetism neither see the most frequencies in the EM or hear them in the acoustic spectrum. He math is shit, her science corrupt, the lie to themself is their normal state. There are often in error but rarely in doubt.
They are locked on a beauty in the nowhere of an galaxy sidearm, mainly busy to betray and kill each other. Would you, as the creator tell them or better wait until they develop to a less primitive state?

>>15056534
Probably my science degree from a t20

>>15052221
>Yet also we know and are able to observe that the universe physically had a hard beginning.
No we don't, it's a huge speculation made up to support a faulty, incomplete model which hasn't been proven.
The universe has always existed, there has never been anything else.

>>15056837
>The universe has always existed, there has never been anything else
Scientifically, there had to have been.
>huge speculation made up to support a faulty, incomplete model which hasn't been proven
Cope

>>15056813
PLease go back to that nameless establishment, and ask for your money back.

>>15057509
> t. community college

>>15058246
We don't have those around here.

>>15052221
>The fact that only nothing can come from nothing
First off you have to prove nothing exists to make this claim, and that the universe started off as nothing. Second off you have to prove something cannot come from nothing in any and all circumstances. You've proved neither.

>>15052884
>“Nothingness” is a stable fixed point
According to whom?

>>15053801
Define what nothing is. Empty vacuum? If no particle exists at the very least that's space time which is something.

We have no concept of what "nothing" is. To make claims about what nothing can or can't do is a pointless exercise.