/sci/ - Science & Math

The universe didn't come from anything, there has never been anything else

>>15181165
Why do you believe this?

>>15181168
Because there is insufficient evidence to think otherwise

>>15180997
>Can A Universe Really Come From Nothing?
No. Impossible.

>>15181189
But then why does this renowned physicist think that this is the case?

What is Krauss up to these days?

>>15181199
Physicists haven't fairly considered the possibilities of intrinsic redshift:
https://nathanrapport.wordpress.com/2022/02/09/the-pioneer-anomaly-and-hubbles-constant/

>>15180997
Hot Take - There is no universe

>>15181179
>Because there is insufficient evidence to think otherwise
Yes there is. There are logically deductively valid arguments such as contingency arguments and cosmological arguments that are beyond 'evidence'. What you are really saying though is there is no evidence from sense data to think otherwise. In other words, you are appealing to empiricism to the idea that empirical means are the only means for sufficient epistemic justification. I know the exact type of NPC midwit you are, and so I almost guarantee this is what you are driving at. Would you like to know the logical flaw in this metaphysical claim about epistemic justification, beyond the flaws of empiricism that quine pointed out?

>>15182026
>There are logically deductively valid arguments such as contingency arguments and cosmological arguments that are beyond 'evidence
And all of them require the assumption, that the big bang happened, to be true, which you can't prove, since you can't rewind time

>>15181199
>But then why does this renowned physicist think that this is the case?
Because they have metaphysical presuppositions. In this case the presupposition would be naturalism. So you get these people like krausse and sean carroll who will appeal to things like INTERPRETATIONS of the formalism of QM to make unfounded metaphysical assertions about the universe starting from 'nothing' based on some spontaneous wave function collapse which somehow happened and some how created the laws of spacetime physics along with this collapse. They don't say how the first spacetime values were defined though if there were no space in the first place in which those first values were to be defined. The laws of physics would have already had to pre-exist this objective spontaneous collapse also, in order for the collapse to follow to ruleset. And so where did the laws of physics come from?

>>15182026
>you are appealing to empiricism to the idea that empirical means are the only means for sufficient epistemic justification
Yes, that's how scientific analysis works, you absolute retard, you can't claim that things which don't exist exist

>>15182034
>And all of them require the assumption, that the big bang happened
The evidence points that way but even putting that aside, Can you prove a past infinite universe empirically? No. It's not as if you could reach some point in the past and say 'here it is, we found it, here is the infinite past'. There would always be an infinite more time to trace back. To assert an infinite past is a meaningless claim scientifically speaking. The only theory for which evidence could be gathered IS a past finite universe. And this is already the case.

>>15182050
>since all the stars and galaxies are receding from us at known rates
Not reading your post, lol, the universe is not expanding

>>15182044
>Yes, that's how scientific analysis works, you absolute retard, you can't claim that things which don't exist exist
I didn't say anything about scientific analysis dumb fuck. When you appeal to evidence, what are you asking for in terms of evidence?

>>15182054
>Not reading your post, lol, the universe is not expanding
How are you going to empirically observe and confirm a past infinite universe? Any evidence of a past eternal universe? What does that even mean? How are you getting causality in a past eternal universe without initial conditions? How can additional events be added to an actually infinite past?

>>15182044
>Yes, that's how scientific analysis works, you absolute retard, you can't claim that things which don't exist exist
By the way, the idea that empirical observation is the only means of epistemic justification can not itself be empirically verified.

>>15182063
>what are you asking for in terms of evidence?
Something better than
>hmm if I pour water onto sugar, the sugar disappears
>must be God lmao
>>15182071
>How are you going to empirically observe and confirm a past infinite universe
Simple, you pick a direction and start flying, if the universe were indeed of a limited age there should be a limit to how far you can travel before you encounter whatever nothingness that existed before the universe began, but the existence of such a thing is completely illogical, so that's already strike one against the big bang hypothesis
>inb4 the universe is a hyper-cumbucket-3-n-quasi-octodimensional-semihypotorus
Imaginary schizo shit is not evidence

>>15182082
>Something better than
Like? Are you asking for empirical evidence, ie evidence from sense data? There by definition wouldn't BE such evidence because sense data IS a physical data stream and we are talking about the event in which physicality it self was booted up. You can't observe the booting up of the system or what preceded the booting up of the time and space WHILIE IMMERSED IN THE REALITY.
>Simple, you pick a direction and start flying, if the universe were indeed of a limited age there should be a limit to how far you can travel before you encounter whatever nothingness that existed before the universe began, but the existence of such a thing is completely illogical, so that's already strike one against the big bang hypothesis
I don't think you could do that in a life time or in a thousand life times goober. And that still wouldn't prove an infinite past. And you are just appealing to you own common sense about an 'infinite' universe and you are just begging the question. That is, you are just restating your premise that an infinite universe exists as your conclusion without evidence. Your own childish thought experiments are not evidence goofball.

>>15182082
By the way, NOTHING infinite can EVER be demonstrated or empirically shown to be the case. This goes for infinite divisibility of space, matter, time, infinite past. ALL evidence is to the counter. The trend has consistently moved towards finitism and discreteness. See pic.

>>15182082
By the way, if you want to say the universe ISN'T expanding, then you have a finite universe and this is contrary to your assertion that it is infinite. So what ARE you even saying? If you go far enough you bump into the wall of the universe or something? The answer is that the universe is virtual by the way. The expansion is just a numerical expansion of data.

>>15182096
>I don't think you could do that in a life time or in a thousand life times
Never claimed you could and equally you can't prove that the big bang happened
>>15182107
Except all the systems you claim to be discrete or indivisible have never been proved to not be infinite and continuous
>>15182134
>if you want to say the universe ISN'T expanding, then you have a finite universe and this is contrary to your assertion that it is infinite
No? You just have an universe that is infinite in size, why would this require an expansion model?

>>15182037
>They don't say how the first spacetime values were defined though
Yes they do, they said virtual particles are constantly coming in and out of existence creating their own virtual fields and at some point in the past, the virtual particles reached such a point of stability that particle pair production happened at an unprecedented rate until a large amount of anti particles flew away much faster than the particles we know today.

>>15182050
No mention to the faggot who told there was antimatter like in the never ending story? I can't find his name.

>>15182076
It can if you verify to yourself that you can only observe the events you observe and not observe events you have not observed.
Are there any events that you have observed by not observing them or conversely have you not observed any events that you did observe?

>>15182148
>Never claimed you could and equally you can't prove that the big bang happened
All observed evidence points to that. And I am not interested in your quirky personal unverifiable opinions. You on the other hand have no evidence for a universe with an infinite past and such evidence is not even possible. as I stated here
>>15182050
>t's not as if you could reach some point in the past and say 'here it is, we found it, here is the infinite past'. There would always be an infinite more time to trace back. To assert an infinite past is a meaningless claim scientifically speaking.
Claims of 'infinite' anything are scientifically and observationally meaningless.
Yes they have. See the ultra violet catastrophe, for one. The classical continuous model broke down. There's no such thing as continuous in the physical world. You are confusing abstract math models which include things like continuous functions which are used to make predictions to none arbitrary precision with actual ontic continuousness.
>You just have an universe that is infinite
What is 'infinite in size' mean? How are you quantifying this or verifying this? How are you observing 'infinite in size'. 'infinite' is a meaningless claim in terms of what can be empirically verified.

>>15182082
>there should be a limit to how far you can travel before you encounter whatever nothingness
No, at the scale you exist, you can't distinguish nothingness from everythingness, so if you kept flying forever with nothing to stop you, you still ran straight into a brickwall of nothing in the process since it was the only thing there to not stop you from flying forever.

>>15182134
Any modern systems of modeling the universe (big bang, quantum foam, string theory, ZFC, other set theory, chaos, game theory, whatever) are all built on a system of numeration that, at its origin level, is built on the contradictory logic -0=0.

This core contradiction results in a deductive explosion via the law of explosion that yields infinite truths within the numeration process that allow infinite patterns, infinite forms, and infinite potential physics models via infinite symbolic numerical representations (the simplest of which being binary, 0 and 1), so when you are using numbers you are basically just playing memory games with shapes, not necessarily accurately modeling reality.

Physicists most reasonable physical explanation at a beginning of the universe is just a reflection of mathematically setting an absolute finite origin that is its own negation, a contradiction unto itself, resulting in a limit to the absolute smallest division physicists could ever physically justify. This limit means physicist can just tell an illogical beginning myth most reasonably categorized as some random explosion or inflation, due to using numeration to arbitrarily differentiate 0 from 1 (big bang), preceded by an undefined state, -0=0 (singularity), because their physical model is just the result of a logical deductive explosion derived from contradictory origin point logic and an arbitrary separation of 100% from 0% via the illogical process of numeration.

>>15182237
>It can if you verify to yourself that you can only observe the events you observe and not observe events you have not observed
What? What does 'verify' to your self have to do with anything? This sounds subjective. I thought we were talking about the scientific method. The point is that the statement 'only that which can be verified via the sense data, is valid with regard to sufficient epistemic justification' , ITSELF can not be verified to be a true statement via observation of the sense data. And further, the events leading up to the booting up of the universe by definition would NOT be observable or derivable via the physical sense data stream, being that physicality didn't by definition even exist then. This by the way is why naturalism is a failed metaphysical position. It can never explain WHERE the laws of physics came from or even postulate about it because the laws had to PRE-EXIST the booting up. And so that is why you have to DEDUCTIVELY infer about cosmogeny. You must use logic as opposed to observation and empiricism.

>>15182240
>All observed evidence points to that
You are just misrepresenting observations to fit to your cause, because you're not doing empirical observation but skewing the narrative towards what you want to believe is true

>>15182240
>no evidence for a universe with an infinite past and such evidence is not even possible
Stephen Hawking's last formal paper was all about mathematically reducing universal eternal inflation to a timeless state on a spatial surface at the beginning of the Universe - a hologram of eternal inflation which would mean that the local universe can be experienced as a holographic regression to an infinite past and infinite future while still being some finite evolution from a global Hartle-Hawking state multiverse.

>>15182243
>so if you kept flying forever
How do you keep 'flying forever'. What does that even mean? That isn't even testable. This sounds like something a 5 year old would say. Also, the very issue at hand is if there IS even such a thing as a physical 'foreverness' within the spacetime. So just appealing to the idea that you can 'fly forever' without demonstrating how to verify the validity of this concept is just begging the question. There is no 'forever' in the physical world. The observed evidence indicates that it began and that it will end.

>>15182266
>You are just misrepresenting observations to fit to your cause, because you're not doing empirical observation but skewing the narrative towards what you want to believe is true
The classical continuous model of electromagnetism broke down at small length scales with the ultra violet catastrophe. That's not my opinion. That's text book physics. I don't care about your quirky self made up physics.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/The_Live_Textbook_of_Physical_Chemistry_(Peverati)/16%3A_The_Motivation_for_Quantum_Mechanics/16.03%3A_The_Ultraviolet_Catastrophe
The continuous model IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL THEORY. It has utility at large scales to make predictions to none arbitrary precision, but in point of fact it is not a fundamental model.

A lot of brilliant people today feel like the appropriate way to express their brilliance is by choking off their manliness, if they had any to begin with, and I applaud Krauss, who is at least brilliant, for not being like that. I wonder if he really got fucked like they said he did in the news or if they made a fake story about getting fired so he could go work on secret research.

>>15182266
forgot pic here
>>15182281
see pic. This is basic textbook stuff
The classical model of electromagnetism is not a fundamental theory.

>>15182281
>The classical continuous model of electromagnetism broke down at small length scales with the ultra violet catastrophe.
No, the UV catastrophe relies on an idealized system which does not exist, again, you're just playing make-believe in your head.

>>15182286
I am actually going by the textbook stated observed data. You are going by your own quirky make believe physics. And by the way, I am all for alternative INTERPRETATIONS of observed data. I have one myself in terms of a VR/simulation hypothesis. But you are denying the observed data itself.

>>15182292
What observed data, a perfect blackbody does not exist you retard lmao, this is just mathematically calculated, furthermore the observation that our mathematical systems break down at a certain point and provide no accurate predictions whatsoever further proves that the universe is not divided into "discrete pixels", otherwise you should be able to predict this discreteness down to infinity

>>15182286
>No, the UV catastrophe relies on an idealized system
It's not idealized goofball. The classical model is INCONSISTENT WITH OBSERVED DATA. It makes WRONG PREDICTIONS. See here
>>15182240
>but begins to diverge from empirical observations as these frequencies reach the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum
This is because it is not a fundamental theory.

>>15182260
>What? What does 'verify' to your self have to do with anything?
That is what empiricism means.

>I thought we were talking about the scientific method.
The scientific method has several steps, its a feedback loop between deductive and inductive reasoning and starts with subjectivity and creating a theory from your perspective and available sensory data.

>ITSELF can not be verified to be a true statement via observation of the sense data.
Except I just laid out an experiment you can try for yourself to collect empirical data with your own senses and you told me your own senses don't count as empirical data when that is exactly what empirical sensory data is.
So back to the experiment, can you observe that which you can not observe or conversely not have observed that which you observed?

>the events leading up to the booting up of the universe by definition would NOT be observable or derivable via the physical sense data stream
I agree that you can't observe the past, but it can be partially derived from the present but prone to loss and corruption.

> being that physicality didn't by definition even exist then.
Constituent parts may have existed, but the accuracy to which they can be confirmed is questionable, I agree.

> It can never explain WHERE the laws of physics came from
That is all it does, its just a vague philosophy that calls the universe nature to come up with a framework that defines the laws of physics as coming from nature and being observable, its just a semantics framework to allow natural inquiry, I don't exactly understand your problem with whatever you think naturalism is.

>You must use logic as opposed to observation and empiricism.
But those things don't oppose each other, they inform each other in the scientific method and natural inquiry, you first induce some kind of theory and try to find metrics that you can observe and sense and transfer that sensation to a instrument with consistent measurement like a thermometer.

>>15182299
>What observed data
See here retard
>>15182240
>but begins to diverge from empirical observations as these frequencies reach the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum
Try actually studying a subject before you want to debate it.

>>15182303
>a mathematical prediction relying on an idealized system which doesn't exist is observed data

>>15182271
>How do you keep 'flying forever'
It was your thought experiment as if you wouldn't die before you reached even the tiniest fraction of the observable universe, I was just humoring your stupid thought experiment and explaining how going with nothing stopping you forever is still interacting with nothing to never finish your trip.

>So just appealing to the idea that you can 'fly forever'
Because flying is pretty stupid given what we know about the scale of you vs the scale of the universe and you said fly until you reach nothing, but no matter what, you would have to face nothing, either you reach nothing or nothing stops you from going on forever.

>There is no 'forever' in the physical world.
An this is something other than appealing to the idea there is no forever without demonstrating how to verify the validity of the concept?

>The observed evidence indicates that it began and that it will end.
No, the evidence of the mainstream narrative indicates that you can not look past a certain point of singularity to deduce any prior information and that we don't know what happens when something gets so massive that it creates a black hole which doesn't allow light to escape and allow us to observe the happenings inside.

>>15182302
>That is what empiricism means
The observations must be repeatable and verifiable, ie OBJECTIVE
>The scientific method has several steps, its a feedback loop between deductive and inductive reasoning and starts with subjectivity and creating a theory from your perspective and available sensory data
And it must be objective.
>Except I just laid out an experiment you can try for yourself to collect empirical data with your own senses and you told me your own senses don't count as empirical data when that is exactly what empirical sensory data i
No you didn't. And no I didn't. I am not denying the utility of the scientific method by the way but you are just using circular reasoning to try and justify the scientific method based on the scientific method and also appealing to the idea that sense data is the only means of epistemic justification when empiricism itself can't be justified using sense data.
>Constituent parts may have existed
The physical world can't have existed prior to it's own beginning. That is illogical. This is the sort of silly things that naturalists have to appeal to though, so that should tell you something. It's a cope. The universe began. It can not have initiated itself, as this would mean it would have to existed before it's own beginning. This is illogical. This is why it demands an explanation/cause OUTSIDE of physicality, ie something none physical/super natural from the perspective of those immersed in the VR. It ends up being a none-physical mind by the way, made ultimately from the same thing our none physical mind is made from, consciousness.
>That is all it does, its just a vague philosophy that calls the universe nature to come up with a framework that defines the laws of physics as coming from nature and being observable
The laws of physic logically need to be existent Prior to the booting up. They can be modified once the reality starts, such as the speed of light has been updated, but some ruleset must be established

>>15181189
You can say that the universe existed "for all time," but time is finite. It's impossible that the universe existed infinitely into the past. There had to be a beginning, but since the beginning is the beginning of time, "nothing" never "existed."

>>15182299
>no accurate predictions whatsoever further proves that the universe is not divided into "discrete pixels",
>"discrete pixels"
You mean planck units? What is inaccurate about them?

>>15182318
>It was your thought experiment as if you wouldn't die before you reached even the tiniest fraction of the observable universe
The point was exactly that idiot. Infinite anything with regard to the physical world is a meaningless assertion. It can never be verified, including an infinite past. And all observed evidence is that the past is finite anyways. Your assertions about infinite stuff are metaphysical assertions which is fine, I like metaphysics as well. But you are to dumb to realise that they are metaphysics and not physics. You are a standard issue plebbitor/NPC. You probably think chjristopher hitchens, daniel dennett, richard dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, bill nye the science guy, and these types are the height of intellectualism.

>>15182327
>The observations must be repeatable and verifiable, ie OBJECTIVE
To be quantifiable, yes, but it starts with subjective observation.

>And it must be objective.
To be testable and a metric, yes.

>No you didn't.
Yes I did, I will post it a third time again with triple greentexting so you can actually try it yourself.
>>>Can you observe events which you can not observe or conversely not have observed events which you observed?
Do you not think an event is objective?

>The physical world can't have existed prior to it's own beginning
The constituent components of physical things may have existed, sometimes called potential, Krauss refers to these things as virtual particles rather than physical particles.

>The universe began. It can not have initiated itself
Aren't you just asserting this or do you have evidence?

> this would mean it would have to existed before it's own beginning. This is illogical.
It could mean that something to project it onto itself must have existed before the hologram itself such as in the Hartle-Hawking state.

>This is why it demands an explanation/cause OUTSIDE of physicality, ie something none physical/super natural from the perspective of those immersed in the VR
Yes and OP's book explains it as virtual particles without the need for consciousness, but those still ultimately come from nothing which is both inside and outside of physical value measurement because nothing is the value of valuelessness.

>The laws of physic logically need to be existent Prior to the booting up
Yes and that is resolved with the Hartle-Hawking state and virtual particle pair production synthesis outlined in Krauss's book.

>>15182310
>a mathematical prediction relying on an idealized system which doesn't exist is observed data
see here retard
>>15182240
>but begins to diverge from empirical observations as these frequencies reach the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
When it says 'empirical observations' that means observed data.

>>15182349
>The point was exactly that idiot
No you originally >>15182082 trying to infer some kind of spatial limit (not some mortal limit) and how far can be flow, but you are the one that can't prove this limit exists and either way you have to contend with nothing either you find nothing or nothing stops you in the original scenario.

>Infinite anything with regard to the physical world is a meaningless assertion
You are the one trying to shift from nothing to infinity in a stupid thought experiment to try to reach nothing that you know is impossible and meaningless since we can already see many orders of magnitude further than you could ever fly in a lifetime before we get to observing nothing else.

give me an example of something that ever came from nothing

>>15180997
>the universe has a finite beginning
this whole belief is as retarded as it could be and is probably caused by many limitations in the model. the universe is probably static. muh extrapolate our data collected in 50 years billion of years back in time lmao. it's stupid.
>muh something come from nothing
now, this is total pseudoscientific bovine feces. this guy probably secretly thinks that god created the universe and makes up jargons to secretly push the propaganda for the church.

>>15182374
itself, that is the origin point, followed by everything else, and nothing else brings us right back to nothing again

>>15182329
this is all wrong

>>15182379
try to focus and answer the question

>>15182374
>>15182385
I did and more, but if you want it catered more specifically to your empirical judgements:
Silence comes from nothing making noise.
Blindness comes from nothing being seen.
Numbness comes from nothing providing the sensation of touch.
Odorless is the smell that comes from nothing.
Blandness is the taste that comes from nothing.
You can interact directly with nothing using literally every single classic sense in your bodhi.

>>15182352
>To be quantifiable, yes, but it starts with subjective observation.
Yeah, a subjective verification which can't say anything about the sense data stream is the only valid method of epistemic justification, which was my original point. To assert it can is just circular.
>The constituent components of physical things may have existed
No, constituents of the universe can not exist before their own beginning. This is nonsense.
>sometimes called potential, Krauss refers to these things as virtual particles rather than physical particles
This is just a retreat to obfuscation. And virtual particles can't even be observed. They are a fudge factor, as is much of modern physics for the reason that they are trying to squeeze the observed data into a materialist metaphysical pre-supposition.
>Aren't you just asserting this or do you have evidence?
No, I made it up. You got me. I also made every single cosmology text book teach it without any evidence.
>Yes and OP's book explains it as virtual particles
These are a fudge factor and they still appeal to physicality and the ruleset governing physicality and to appeal to these unobserved fudge factors is just kicking the can down the road and redefining what 'nothing' is.

>>15182388
none of your semantics answered the question. Give me an example of a material object that ever came from nothing. Just a single real world example, it should be that hard if you want to base the validity of your entire argument on a premise that has never been observed to be true int he history of observation I will go out on a limb and say your theory is on pretty thin ice

>>15182388
Next explain to me how something coming from nothing doesnt break the first law of thermodynamics.

>>15182382
even a cycle has to start somewhere, if time exists

>>15182396
I just told you how it is perceived with every single sense.

If it is one physical object, it also had to have come from nothing by definition because 1 = 0^0 so any one thing is also nothing to the power nothing things.

>>15182401
a true lawrence krauss believer will tell you the laws of thermodynamics aka probability tautologies were born from nothing as well. to which I must say horse shit.

>>15182401
Prove that everything is a closed system so that those rules apply universally rather than just locally.

>>15182404
where does a circle begin? time is just a measure of change, it doesnt imply linearity

>>15182409
ahhh, now you are starting to think, very good question. I could go into quite a lengthy conversation about this but no one is smart enough to understand it so it would be pointless.

Actually I take that back, there are people smart enough to understand it, but to get them up to speed so they could understand it would require more time than I am willing to give rn most likely depends on how long this thread goes.

>>15182410
A circle is a continuous arch that begins at 0*pi and ends at 2*pi.

>>15182412
I accept your concession.

>>15182410
>where does a circle begin?
When I draw it. The circle didn't exist infinitely into the past. Time doesn't work that way.
>it doesnt imply linearity
Yes, it does. There is a point of minimum entropy. Time is more like a parabola than a circle. It may extend indefinitely into the future (although with a finite amount of matter, it will eventually peter out and "end,") but it will have an origin.

>>15182415
lmao. brainlet

>>15182409
btw I dont believe it is a closed system .... actually it is complicated, it is and it isnt at the same time.... and I think the second law of thermodynamics is wrong and I explain it in detail in an article I wrote years ago.


Think of a swimming pool. It is a closed system as far plumbing etc. However you can add water to it from outside. What is "outside" our closed system? Well that is the question of questions isnt it?

>>15182419
That is how the draw functions do it.

>>15180997
OP. The physical world is virtual. It was booted up with an influx of information which also booted up the time (cycles) and space (pixels) of the reality. Some of the players immersed in the reality want the virtual reality to be self existent in and of itself. At some point it became apparent that the reality began. This is an uncomfortable fact if you have a presupposition that the universe is all that there is, being that the universe could not have initiated itself, as this would mean it would have had to exist before it's beginning. And this also implies that some entity pushed the enter button(metaphor, their is no hard ware). And this entity is worthy of being called god. A certain personality type of the consciousnesses immersed in the VR don't like the idea of a creator, so they come up with all kinds of goofy cope theories, like past 'infinite' universes and universes from 'nothings' that are really 'somethings' like krausse has done. These are psychological defence mechanisms from players immersed in a consciousness based VR.

>>15182421
I still accept your concession.

>What is "outside" our closed system? Well that is the question of questions isnt it?
Its nothing, which is why I keep trying to explain how everything comes from nothing and it is mathematically provable that nothing is something (the smallest possible amount of everything) and empirically observable by every sense.

>>15182425
this proves you have the attitude of a typical brainlet who only know what others provide to you instead of trying to understand the underlying. it is possible for a brainlet to improve, but not with a brainlet attitude.

But where did the nothing come from that the universe came from?

>>15182430
>know what others provide to you instead of trying to understand the underlying.
No, I have actually studied drawing, math, and computer programming, so I know exactly how it is actually done in practice by actually doing it myself and I have written my own draw functions, its not just something someone else said, its actually how you draw circles on calculators and computer programs. Meanwhile you are inferring that it is impossible for you to draw a circle because you don't even know where to begin and it would take you forever because infinite points.

>>15182432
It came from the lack of everything.

>>15182433
it is actually impossible to draw a circle you retard. the things that you draw are not true circles, they are approximations circles.
a circle is a mathematical/human construct and doesn't exist in this universe in any form.

>>15182446
>the things that you draw are not true circles, they are approximations circles.
They are true circles to a low precision, but the raw mathematical construct exists in the software code, the draw function can only output it to whatever precision your hardware can support, but whatever hardware you use, you will start at 0*pi and go to 2*pi to however many significant you can approximate on your hardware in the time limit you have to draw the circle.

>>15182429
look bud if you want to play games and act like you have all the answers while making posts that are literal moron tier go for it. Im not your personal tutor and I am not here to be your spirit guide. I do have the answers you arent smart enough to figure out and I may even take the time to give them to you if I feel like it but Im damn sure not going to waste time with you if you want to act like a child. but hey do you bruh

>>15182452
can your software code retrieve all real number in a unit interval?
the software code is also just an approximation. you think it is something that it can never posisbly be

>>15182455
>I do have the answers you arent smart enough to figure out and I may even take the time to give them to you if I feel like it but Im damn sure not going to waste time with you if you want to act like a child. but hey do you bru
Speaking of literal moron tier drivel to try to mask your very clear lack of answers.

>>15182458
>can your software code retrieve all real number in a unit interval?
It doesn't need to in order to draw a circle perceptible for the human scale just like it doesn't need to refresh at infinity hertz to draw a movie which is why I know how to draw a circle and you are just muddled and befuddled on where to begin.

>the software code is also just an approximation
No, code is idealized, its not approximated until implemented on hardware.

>>15182462
unlike you my time is worth money son and I post here to entertain myself while I am making more money in a day trading currencies than you will in a decade. Ty for making the decision easy for me. I didnt come here today looking for a sperging to give him the secrets of the Universe I just wanted to shitpost for keks

>>15182471
Ok, good job pretending to be stupid all along, but I still accept your concession.

>>15182473
I bet you loved epsidoe 3 of last of us. bet you fapped to it

>>15182479
I see you take the advice to always bet on yourself. Its pretty good advice.

>>15182409
the funny thing is you arent even smart enough to understand what this implies or why it is a good question. I didnt assume it is closed system, that is just what is taught in the standard models but you ddidnt even know this or how profound it is to say "what if the second law of thermodynamics is wrong" you are just trying to play gotchas with zero knowledge of the topic you are discussing and trying to be contrarian with no thought put into any of the diaherrea spewing out of your face

>>15182406
and these are the people who make fun of the "sky daddy" believers and their "superstitions."

This is is literally "it's magic" tier. Horseshoe theory is real

>>15182486
>"what if the second law of thermodynamics is wrong"
I didn't say that though.
It is not wrong, it is just not scalable to everything, it can only be localized to a a finite closed system.

>trying to be contrarian with no thought put into any
Sure thing day trading diarrhea shitpost face, I am the one not putting enough thought into what I am posting just to be contrarian, give me more of your diarrhea wisdom, silly namefag.

>>15182494
Yes because saying nothing is magic is exactly the same as saying daddy magic loves me so he made me.

>>15182382
The guy calling you mentally ill and in need of a professional was spot on. I'm laughing that you included that in the cap by accident.

>>15182627
I imagine you laugh at your own stupidity often, most stupid people like you do

>>15182657
Case in point.

>>15182663
case in point

>>15182685
pointin n'case

>>15180997
>Can A Universe Really Come From Nothing?
Don't see why not. After all, nothing means NOTHING, no rules, no logic, no mathematics, no laws, no anything. So what's there to prevent something forming out of nothing?

>>15182433
>pi
>math
>its actually how you draw circles on calculators and computer programs.

It's impossible because you're relying on an expression and not a quantity.

>>15181199
He uses a special definition of "nothing" that actually describes the existence of something.

>>15182421
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2572-second-law-of-thermodynamics-broken/

>>15182843
Nothing is something which is why you have so many words for it and math has a value for it.

>>15182855
Nope. An absence of a thing is not a thing in itself.

>>15182865
It is the smallest possible amount of that thing and everything else.

>>15182865
it is if you are claiming another thing came from it, come on guy use your brain

>>15182852
interesting read ty

>>15182034
lol you dumb degenerate faggot dont even know that it has been proven, that the big bang wasnt the reason for the beginning of the universe ;-)

>>15182415
Where does a circle being and end is a philosophical question that flew right over your head you autist fuck

>another episode of /sci/ psueds can't into metaphysics

>>15183203
No it is a practical question that is answered by pointing to the computer code that executes a circle drawing function.

>>15183963
>I know to how to use draws functions
>i aM vErY sMArT
He didnt ask you how to draw one with a computer idiot

>>15181165
False.
>>15181168
>>15181179
>>15182026
>There are logically deductively valid arguments such as contingency arguments and cosmological arguments
True, but the argument from NDEs is vastly more compelling, because unlike your mentioned arguments
>that are beyond 'evidence'.
the NDE argument is actually based evidence and observations by people in the many millions.

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.

And NDErs say that creation is vastly more ancient than the mere ultrabrief blip of 14 billion years.

>>15180997

who cares get real fag
step down to earth
here nobody cares abt it
live life tough grass

>>15184796
Why is grass tough?

>>15180997
Mathematical existence might imply physical existence.

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

>>15180997
The universe might actually contain a form of nothingness of Zero Ontology is true. The universe contains no information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU

>>15184271
He asked for the rules of drawing a circle and those general rules are easily codified by computation and explained through the resulting computer code.

>>15186449
>He asked for the rules of drawing a circle
Where did he ask that? Grow up idiot and stop trying making shit up to avoid admitting you are a dumb fuck

I don't believe that there was nothing before the big bang.

Relativity is the foremost leading scientific theory, if we are going to keep with that then we need to accept that there must have been something before the big bang. Cause and effect.

Space had to exist before the big bang, there must of been something in order for the big bang to happen. Without a cause there can be no effect.

>>15186460
>Where did he ask that?
When he asked where to begin making one, you begin with some radius at 0*pi and work your way in a continuous arch to 2*pi.
I wish I made it up myself, but these are how the rules of geometry are implemented in practice as discovered by millions of researchers spread over hundreds of years.

I am not the idiot who can't figure out where to begin drawing a circle, kid, I am the grown up who actually knows how to code computers to draw circular objects in practice.

>>15181165
fucktard the post

>>15186477
Fridge temperature IQ

>>15186485
Whatever anon.

>>15186487
>Space had to exist before the big bang, there must of been something in order for the big bang to happen.
You are the one who just tried to say that Space can exist without cause because everything has to have a cause to exist, though.

>>15184375
yes yes and the Earth is flat, now take your pills dear, there's a good boy.

>>15186490
Everything has to have a cause in order for there to be an effect. You don't get something out of nothing, there has to be something to produce something.

There must of been a cause of the bing bang for it to produce an effect. Something must of taken place in order for the big bang to happen. There must have been something that existed before the big bang, you don't get something out of nothing.

>>15186496
>there has to be something to produce something.
>Space had to exist
You are the one who immediately gave Space a pass and just said it has to exist which is why anon said you had a fridge temp IQ.

>There must of been a cause of the bing bang for it to produce an effect.
Nothing is something and it has very unique properties compared to everything else because it is the smallest possible amount of everything. If everything needs a cause nothing can be the exception because nothing is a null effect.

Mathematically you always get something out of nothing any time nothing is limited only by itself 0^0=1, 0! =1 because the limits of cause supersede the cause itself.

>>15186481
I dont think I have ever seen a more cringe and top level retard post than this on this board

>>15186503
Anon, nothing in the known universe comes into existence without something that produces it.

How did the big bang get produced without there being something that produced it?

There must of been space before it, without space how can something exist? You need space to put something in, if there is no space, you can't put something in it.

Nothing is not something, you have to have something, whatever it is, in order for something to happen. This is the fundamentals of physics, cause and effect. One reaction creates another, you can not create a cause without an effect.

>>15186515
>Anon, nothing in the known universe comes into existence without something that produces it.
Exactly, nothing is the only logical thing that can exist without an cause rather than Space as you implied unless by space you mean the empty 3d coordinates which is actually just drawing all the zero points of nothing that makes up the 0 axis of all the dimensions.

>How did the big bang get produced without there being something that produced it?
Nothing is something, you just said its the only thing in the known universe that comes into existence without something else.

>There must of been space before it,
Then space doesn't need a cause and you have violated your original axiom that only nothing needs no cause.

>Nothing is not something, you have to have something
Nothing is something, its the smallest amount of something possible, its not just a zero amount of something, but also a zero amount of everything else too.

>This is the fundamentals of physics, cause and effect.
Except when applied to Space which apparently needs no cause according because it must exist for some reason.

>One reaction creates another, you can not create a cause without an effect.
Except Space, you apparently know that space is some kind of effect without a cause because it must be for the big bang to happen for some reason even though you also claim that nothing is the only thing that doesn't need a cause.

>>15186523
Space itself is produced, the expansion proves this. We don't know what produces it, but there has to be something that does.

If you are going to say that the big bang came out of nothing then you are also saying that the big bang produced space itself. And space continues to expand, meaning that whatever the cause that created space is still happening and producing more of it.

Space itself is a product of cause and effect.

>>15186532
>Space... expansion
Expansion into what?

>We don't know what produces it
Nothing produces it because expansion happens everywhere and the smallest possible amount everything is equally distributed everywhere which is why the last thing in a group of items in your hand and everyone else's will always be nothing.

>Space itself is a product of cause and effect.
Yes and you said everything must be caused by something and nothing can be caused nothing, so nothing can cause not only itself, but every other value that follows because there is nothing to limit itself from explosive expansion.

>>15186539
>Expansion into what?
Well exactly anon, there must be something in order for it to expand. It must be expanding into something. How can something expand if there is nothing outside of it to expand into?

>>15186550
So now you have space and something else outside of it that don't need to be caused instead of just nothing?
Meanwhile nothing is something and emptiness or a void in space is the only thing you can actually expand into because if there were already something else substantive already there, you wouldn't actually be able to take up the same space, it would push back

According to physics, something can only expand if there is nothing surrounding it such that there is not something else preventing it from expanding.

>>15186561
>According to physics, something can only expand if there is nothing surrounding it
But it still needs space outside of it to expand into. So if space is expanding, there must be more space outside of it in order for it to expand.

If you have an air tight cube filled with water, the water cannot expand past the edges. There is nowhere for the water to go.

How can that water expand without there being something to expand into?

Think of the universe as the cube and the water as space.

>>15186569
>So if space is expanding, there must be more space outside
Its not actually an expansion of space if the space already exists outside of space, though.

>If you have an air tight cube filled with water, the water cannot expand past the edges.
In reality, nobody has been able to make a container strong and tight enough to prevent the water from sublimating into an expanding gas that can cause the container to leak or explode, though.

>How can that water expand without there being something to expand into?
Because the excess internal pressure of the solid water turning to gas always causes the container to explode from the inside.

>>15186580
And if nothing exists outside of the container, then there is nothing preventing it from exploding indefinitely.

>>15186584
So if space were outside of space some equilibrium should be reached rather than some indefinite expansion due to different states inside and out of the container.

>>15186580
>nobody has been able to make a container strong and tight enough to prevent the water from sublimating into an expanding gas that can cause the container to leak or explode, though.

Ignore the fact that the cube can leak and break.

I'm talking about physical boundaries. If there is nothing outside of the cube, the water within it cannot expand.

Just imagine the cube is all there is, there is nothing outside of it and it can't break or leak. This is how the universe is perceived, we assume that there is nothing outside of it and that the universe is all there is.

So if there is nothing outside of it, and the edges can't break or leak, how does it expand?

There must be something outside in order for it to expand.

There are only three main possibilities.

1) It came from non-existence. In this case two possible sub options appear:
(a) It will vanish back into non-existence. In which case the concept of infinity is fallacious.
(b) It will persist forever. In which case the concept of infinity with a zero point is real.

2) It came from a cyclic Universe, in which case two possible sub options appear
(a) A cyclic Universe that began from non-existence but will cycle now for forever. i.e. infinity with a zero point.
(b) A cyclic Universe that has always existed, i.e. infinity with no zero point.

3) It was created by an entity or force of unknown origin ( some people might call it "God" ). However this involves a higher order Universe ( one which contains, or is, the entity ) and therefore our Universe can be considered a subset of what is essentially an unknowable form of existence.

Note that the difference between 1(b) and 2(a) is insignificant other than 1(b) being the start of a cyclic Universe and 2(a) being one cycle of undetermined order.

Note there is actually yet another possibility, similar to 1(a) but which entails a succession of finite Universes but separated by intervals of non-existence. It pops into existence, pops out of existence. Again and again. The problem with this however is that an intervening period of non-existence is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps someone could do a lot of utterly mind bending drugs and consider this further.

>>15186597
>Ignore the fact that the cube can leak and break.
Sure if we ignore reality, you are completely correct.

>the water within it cannot expand.
Water expands because it changes phase, if there were some artificial boundary all that phase change energy would still have to be redirected internally and the whole container would implode rather than implode, but that isn't happening, space is constantly exploding rather than imploding because the pressure of everything inside the universe is greater than the pressure of nothing outside of the universe.

>Just imagine the cube is all there is, there is nothing outside of it
>nothing outside of it
No that is my argument and what I am trying to tell you, nothing is the outer boundary of the universe because it was the original state of value and with nothing to prevent an expansion, expansion happened indefinitely.

>So if there is nothing outside of it, and the edges can't break or leak
If purely nothing is on the outside, then there are no edges since edge specifically defines a boundary between inside and outside and all expansion happens only internally where something and nothing coexist because nothing is the smallest amount of something.

You still can't justify your original claim that since everything needs a cause, Space must exist without a cause.

>>15186598
>It was created by an entity or force of unknown origin ( some people might call it "God" ). However this involves a higher order Universe ( one which contains, or is, the entity ) and therefore our Universe can be considered a subset of what is essentially an unknowable form of existence.

I like to think that it truly is a simulation. It is the only thing that seems plausible to me.

>>15186598
>It was created by an entity or force of unknown origin ( some people might call it "God" ).
>"God"
Sounds more like you are describing a multiverse.

>>15186614
That is just kicking the can, though, since something had to have created the thing that created the simulation.

>>15186613
>all expansion happens only internally
How can expansion only occur internally? That isn't how expansion works. If something expands, the edges grow.

>Space must exist without a cause.
I never said that space exists without a cause, I said many times that there is no cause without effect.

I said that there must of been space before the big bang. You need space for something to occupy it, you can't have something if there is no space to put it in.

>>15186618
Well there is one possibility, the 'real' human race is far older than what we know and we are a simulation created by them. The same way scientists now do computer universe simulations based on the big bang.

We are part of a universe simulation created by humans millenia into the future.

Yes, I am mentally ill.

science cucks goes on mitwit mental tyrades when every fucking philosopher, theologist, gnostics, ufo faggot, schizo, tribal shaman, indian brahman, new age schizo, has reached the same conclusion.

It doesn't matter what name you put, there seems to be a meta reality where this universe originates from.
We can only speculate what type of simulation or dream it may be.
But there's enough evidence if we put attention to the fine tuned fags, that this universe being so perfectly tuned for human life, can't appear randomly from nothing.

Some multiverse machine that creates universes from nothing, which works using unknown mechanims would require a level of complexity that breaks the occam razzor.
As such atheists love to make mental gymnastics and appealing to the same pseudoscientific ideas they criticize on religions.

But you can't escape the fatal flaw that there must be some infinite source of anything that made with universe.

>>15186621
>How can expansion only occur internally?
Have you never use photoshop? Its exactly how expansion works everything is expanded within the file.

>the edges grow.
With nothing outside, there is no edge, the complexity of internal reference just grows, you have more points to refer to.

>I never said that space exists without a cause
Wrong, big bang usually refers to spacetime, yet you have redefined space as something outside of the big bang without giving any probable cause as to why it would exist while continuing to assert that only nothing can exist without cause.

>You need space for something to occupy it
According to physics, empty space is just a bunch of zero dimensional points, if you keep adding zero dimensional points at every possible edge, you haven't actually added anything except a bunch of zeros and virtual reference points that appears to make the complexity of your field expand.

>>15186626
Yes that is what I said, you haven't actually explained the origin point, you have just kicked the can to some other point of unnecessary higher complexity beyond which you can't explain.

>>15186635
>With nothing outside, there is no edge
But if there are no edges then that implies that space in infinite. If space is infinite why is it expanding?

>>15186629
>But you can't escape the fatal flaw that there must be some infinite source of anything that made with universe.
Nothing, The Unit (as in 1 universe), and Infinity all have the same mathematical property in common.
x=x*x*x*x*...

>>15186641
>higher complexity beyond which you can't explain.
No one can explain it anon.

>>15186642
Because nothing is also infinite, but individual units of space have a greater value or density than individual units of nothing hence space expands into and drifts around in nothing like with all pressure differentials.

>>15186645
Not by going up in complexity as you go back in magnitude only by going down in complexity as you go back until you ultimately reach nothing as the origin point rather than infinity.

>>15186646
If space is infinite it wouldn't expand seen as there is an infinite amount of it.

>>15186650
That is like saying since pi goes on infinitely, it can only contain one infinitely repeated character.

>>15186660
Numbers aren't the same as you can keep adding to them.

If space is infinite and it just goes on forever with no end why would it expand?

There is no reason for expansion if it is infinite. Expand is to grow, if it is infinite it has no need to grow.

>>15186671
Infinity is derived from numbers if you throw out numbers you are throwing out infinity.

>If space is infinite and it just goes on forever with no end why would it expand?
With nothing as the ultimate limit, there isn't any limit stopping everything from expanding forever there isn't anything to end the expansion process any arbitrary amount of space can be divided into two equal amounts of space without end and still double the complexity of space based on nothing but a whim.

>>15186621
>How can expansion only occur internally?
The same way your mind can expand without actually making your brain bigger.

>>15182026
>me use le big words ur dumn
Such a smart boy you are!

>>15180997
physics can't answer this question, it's a question in the field of philosophy. There's no widely accepted solution yet.

Something can come from nothing. There is no deterministic, causal, or symmetric restriction on anything.

>>15187003
>There is no deterministic, causal, or symmetric restriction on anything.
Your mom's asshole is the undeniable proof of this and were this not a worksafe board i would present the pictures as evidence.

>>15180997
Nothing is something that doesn't interact with you

>>15187170
>>15182388
You can interact directly with it.

>>15186434
I like this guy. I have watched a couple of his vids you have posted over the years and he is always on point. ty anon

>>15187221
No you can't. Anyway, by concept of fields, nothing is needed for something to exist, the universe is the result of it's imbalance. So even in the Big Bang scenary both should have existed before the expansion.

>>15187393
Also, the "nothing" we are used to deal, isn't really nothing...a true nothing would be like a black hole everywhere, there is a background of "something" that prevents the whole destruction of the universe, we don't know what really is. Still matter holds together we'll enough to don't be instantly dissolved.

>>15187428
>nothing
>everywhere
wat?

also, a black hole is something

>>15187454
Yes a BH is something, but I din't find any other good example to show how the things would be if we face a true nothing

>>15187454
>>nothing
>>everywhere
>wat?
Every point in space is 0D, so everywhere in a space field, there is a quanta of nothing called a field point.

>>15180997
no it cannot.
lawrence is a fraud.

>>15180997
No. There has always been mass and there always will be.

>>15187478
>Every point in space is 0D, so everywhere in a space field, there is a quanta of nothing called a field point.
>quantity of nothing
Lol

>>15182494
The ones who theorize actually don't try to bring up the magic sky daddy out of fear that it will be too analogous to their own poppycock.

>>15182502
>Yes because saying nothing is magic is exactly the same as saying daddy magic loves me so he made me.
It's actually worse because you don't substitute any explanation whatsoever. You simply describe a mass moving and call it a day. No wonder so many mundane masses are steered towards an absence they perceive loves them rather than some semantic gibberish over literally nothing. How do you even argue semantics over nothing there that has meaning in the first place? It's truly irreconcilable, even moreso than any God these first sinners can dream up.

>>15187454
>also, a black hole is something
prove it, rofl.

>>15187428
>Also, the "nothing" we are used to deal, isn't really nothing...a true nothing would be like a black hole everywhere,
It's just the absence you all are drawn to, for whatever reason.

>>15182843
>>15182855

>He uses a special definition of "nothing" that actually describes the existence of something.
>Nothing is something which is why you have so many words for it and math has a value for it.

Subjects are indeed not objects. Now go apply your maths to something subjective and tell us how it works out for you.

>>15186433
it is mathmatically proven that math cannot do so.

>>15187559
>And this explains anything

>>15187559
>There has always been
Neat theory, I am sure you have mountains of supporting evidence, but that would still mean mass came from nothing since nothing preceded mass given it always was/is (ie eternal), so there is nothing before and after it by definition.

>>15187565
0 is the quantity of nothing, kek

> you don't substitute any explanation
They substituted it with nothing and nothing seems to be the only thing that can logically exist without cause and be the true origin point rather than something else.

>Subjects are indeed not objects.
The subject of discussion can definitely be an object, just think about chairs or something.

>Now go apply your maths to something subjective
Math is applied to vision and perspective all the time to create 3D and VR among other consistent illusions of perspective.

>>15187583
>0 is the quantity of nothing, kek
I can tell this is going to go well since you've already started with a contradiction. "0" represents "no quantity". It's not of number, no matter how many coping expressions you use to still make it not a number.

>They substituted it with nothing
So they took, and left it in privation. That's not a reason.

>nothing seems to be the only thing
You seem to enjoy contradicting yourself a lot. Nothing is "no thing".

>logically exist
That requires reasoning, which doesn't happen when you have "no reason whatsoever. So no, not logical. How do you test "nothing" without "being there" negating it beiing "nothing" in the first place?

>The subject of discussion can definitely be an object
But it doesn't have to be.

>just think about chairs or something.
How do you think about "nothing" without negating the concept?

>Math is applied to vision and perspective all the time to create 3D and VR among other consistent illusions of perspective.
And does poorly when trying to construct one of the most simple triangles. And you think this accurately describes reality when math proves it literally cannot do so? You think trees extrude themselves on the "z axis"? You think nature follows Cartesian coordinates? That would be ridiculous.

>>15187597
>"0" represents "no quantity". It's not of number
Nothing is no quantity of anything, if 0 is not a number, what number comes before 1?

>Nothing is "no thing".
Yes and if no thing comes after 1, you can assume it equals 1.000000..... because 0 is the value of no thing.

>That requires reasoning, which doesn't happen when you have "no reason"
The reason is you have a sensory ability to recognize when something transitions to nothing and how you can go from holding something to holding nothing yourself.

>But it doesn't have to be.
It can be while you said it couldn't.

>How do you think about "nothing" without negating the concept?
Nothing is the smallest possible amount of anything and everything.

>And does poorly when trying to construct one of the most simple triangles.
Are you saying that the picture you posted doesn't look like a triangle or that math wasn't used to make the picture?

>And you think this accurately describes reality when math proves it literally cannot do so?
It can accurately describe it to any level of precision that you can perceive/calculate and model it to whatever precision your memory space allows.

>You think trees extrude themselves on the "z axis"?
There are hundreds of mathematical models in games and simulations that have realistic trees extruding themselves on the z axis.

>You think nature follows Cartesian coordinates?
You think math is limited to Cartesian coordinates? I don't understand the intention and relevance of most of your arguments.

>>15187615
>Nothing is no quantity

So now that we've successfully determined that your "model" is not provable/ indescribable with math (the language of quantity)..what now? Now what does "0" actually matter in this context?

>what number comes before 1?
There are no numbers before the principle of all the numbers you fool. Are you thinking of newspeak math or actual original math that had no number for "0"?

>Yes and if no thing comes after 1, you can assume
No, because it's "no thing". I cannot assume. Retard.

>it equals 1.000000..... because 0 is the value of no thing.
You sound very confused. 0 is "no value". Technically it's more accurate to say "undefined".

>It can be while you said it couldn't.
If we're discussing a "subject" as in "Subject matter", no. A "subject matter" literally doesn't exist. It's the discussion about something that exists or doesn't.

>Nothing is the smallest possible amount
You said at the beginning it was "no quantity". How can there be "amount" when it means "no amount"? It's contradictory.

>of anything and everything.
Well it refers to what is "of nothing" which is why the word has "no" and "thing" in it. I'm sure if they wanted to actually refer to something then a different, more accurate word would have been used to describe...whatever thing it is you think "nothing" represents.

>Are you saying that the picture you posted doesn't look like a triangle or that math wasn't used to make the picture?
I'm telling you math can't describe the entire picture.

>any level of precision
"No"
-t. Incommensurability

>in games and simulations
That's great, that's what math is wonderful for. But we're here in reality bud.

>You think math is limited to Cartesian coordinates?
Do you think any base system is going to calculate that hypotenuse?

>I don't understand the intention
>and relevance of most of your arguments.
Right. This is a discussion over nothing. Do you want to talk about something specific yet?

>>15187646
>the language of quantity
Yes and as the language of perceivable quantity, it has a symbol for no quantity, 0.

>I cannot assume
Then you cannot assume that 1.0 = 1.00 using the typical axioms of arithmetic specifically the additive identity?

> 0 is "no value".
0 is mathematical symbol for the absence of value, yes.

>undefined
No, it is axiomatically defined in arithmetic/math, it is 0, the additive identity or the empty set, 0, in set theory.

>Subject matter
Matter can't be a subject according to your rules since matter is object and objects can't be subjects.

>How can there be "amount" when it means "no amount"?
The additive identity, any amount added to no amount is still the same amount.

>"no" and "thing"
Yes 0 thing, if you have 0 things you have nothing.

>I'm telling you math can't describe the entire picture.
The picture is entirely composed of math embedded in circuitry and projected onto a medium.

>>15182107
the states are theoretically infinite because planks constant is defined as the amount of configurations and vibrations possible as the distance between vibrating points becomes zero (ultraviolet catastrophe), so it becomes an n/0 problem, which approaches infinity

>>15187646
>Incommensurability
Only because you lack the memory space.

>reality
Yes and you are using math to describe it.

>Do you think any base system is going to calculate that hypotenuse?
Yes every base system you can calculate it to whatever precision your arbitrary memory space allows.

>This is a discussion over nothing. Do you want to talk about something specific yet?
So what have we been discussing if not specifically a discussion over nothing are you saying you haven't actually been having this discussion you have been having?

>>15182240
ultraviolet catastrophe still implies there are infinite configurations.>>15187679
the wave function used in quantum mechanics is based on an infinite series.

>>15187676
>Then you cannot assume that 1.0 = 1.00 using the typical axioms of arithmetic specifically the additive identity?
I can't assume because you said "no thing comes after 1". Anything you add to it is just calling it a different name by this point.

>0 is mathematical symbol for the absence of value, yes.
0 is not a number.

>No, it is axiomatically defined in arithmetic/math
It cannot be. Because it's not a quantity and therefore doesn't fall in the purview of arithmetic/math. Again, I'm sure there's newspeak math which smeared the original meaning into something more suitable for secularized metaphysicians to use.

>Matter can't be a subject according to your rules since matter is object and objects can't be subjects.
An object can be a subject and a subjective thing can be a subject. You're just talking "about it" as a subject matter, real or not. Ultimatum is what matters.

>The additive identity, any amount added to no amount is still the same amount.
That sure is a lot of words to say you've gotten nowhere in this discussion. It's fluffing the subject matter, which ultimately is about something that you can't define objectively.

>Yes 0 thing, if you have 0 things you have nothing.
More words to get you and I nowhere save another 400+ reply thread.

>The picture is entirely composed of math embedded in circuitry and projected onto a medium.
>medium
Lol.

>>15187684
>Only because you lack the memory space.
Google the term please.

>Yes and you are using math to describe it.
Descriptions are not explanations.

>Yes every base system you can calculate it to whatever precision your arbitrary memory space allows.
There is no base system that is going to quantify it without contradicting the axioms that make it useful.

>So what have we been discussing if not specifically a discussion over nothing
Nothing is not something specific to discuss over.

>you haven't actually been having this discussion you have been having?
I've been discussing yes.

>>15182026
Why do you think your silly monkey brain intuition can just magically deduce the initial conditions of the universe.

>>15180997
If we imply that the universe came from something, then that something also has an origin, which means its in a bigger universe; which in turn means that it also has an origin, and is thereby in an even bigger universe. This scales infinitely.

>>15187799
The universe is full of something, is just that most of that something don't interact with us. The dark energy is probably a manifestation of true nothing in the universe's boundarie.

The universe didn’t decide, the universe is the decision

>>15187697
>Anything you add to it is just calling it a different name by this point.
Exactly, 0 is just another name for the value of no thing, so 1 is just another name for 1.0 and 1.00 and so on.

>0 is not a number.
0 is the origin number.

>Because it's not a quantity
0 is the quantity of noting.

> therefore doesn't fall in the purview of arithmetic/math.
0 is defined directly via the additive identity.

>An object can be a subject
Agreed you were wrong in your original claim just like you have been wrong about the number 0.

>More words
Yes I have more words that can prove my case where you just find ways to say nu-uh over and over.

>Lol.
Its true, you can't even come up with words to say otherwise.

>Google the term please.
I have.

>Descriptions are not explanations.
Yes, they might be incomplete explanation, but they still explain by describing.

>Nothing is not something specific to discuss over.
Then why was it just the subject of your sentence if it can't me a subject matter of discussion?

>I've been discussing yes.
Yes you have been discussing nothing because we can, you were wrong, it is a valid subject which is how we can discuss it and you can start so many sentence with nothing.

>>15188441
>0 is just another name for the value of no thing,
Which is usefull why?

>0 is the origin number.
It's not of number, it represents "no origin".

>0 is the quantity of noting.
But there's no quantity in nothing and 0 isn't a number.

>0 is defined directly via the additive identity.
Newspeak math? Or original?

>Agreed you were wrong in your original claim
I elaborated it more. I was never wrong, you misunderstood by taking the example too far.

>Yes I have more words that can prove my case where you just find ways to say nu-uh over and over.
Yes. Because this is an argument about nothing, Jerry. We can be as wrong or right as fantasy allows.

>Its true,
How is a medium "nothing"? I though space was a vacuum and the aether didn't exist?

>you can't even come up with words to say otherwise
Why should I come up with more words for nothing? You're way better at it than I'll ever be.

>they still explain by describing.
You "explain" by describing. Description are not explanations.

>Then why was it just the subject of your sentence if it can't me a subject matter of discussion?
I said "not something specific to discuss over".

>Yes you have been discussing nothing because we can
the subject nothing, not the object.

>you were wrong,
How can I be wrong when we're not even talking about something to be wrong about? How can you get "nothing" wrong? Using double negatives?

>it is a valid subject
Heckin' cute too?

>which is how we can discuss it and you can start so many sentence with nothing.
Cool story bro. Carry on with your 400+ reply thread about nothing.

>>15188474
>Which is useful why?
So you have a way to describe holding up 0 fingers or having 0 apples.

>It's not of number, it represents "no origin".
It is the number defined by the additive identity, it is what you add to any other number to maintain the value of that number, if you added nothing to nothing you would have 0 value.

>elaborated
No, you changed your position from saying something is not possible to saying it is not necessary.
>I was never wrong,
You were wrong about what was possible and you admitted that you actually meant it wasn't necessary.

>fantasy
Ok but I am talking about the specific fantasy called math or arithmetic which has specific rules and laws and according to the laws of math aka axioms, 0 is the number defined by the additive identity.

>How is a medium "nothing"?
I don't understand, the medium is some kind of screen or mind, it is true that the image of the triangle you posted is just mathematical information being transmitted and projected by various electronic devices.

>Why should I come up with more words for nothing?
In your logic, there are no words for nothing: nil, nada, and null simply can't exist as words.

> Description are not explanations.
Those two words are literal synonyms.

>not something specific to discuss over
Except it has specific words that you have repeatedly used to discuss nothing and all its equivalents.

>subject nothing, not the object.
Another thing you were previously wrong about when you said subjects are not objects.

>we're not even talking about something to be wrong about
Then why are you constantly trying to correct me if I can't be wrong about the fact that 0 is a number?

>How can you get "nothing" wrong?
By getting everything right instead of getting everything wrong like you.

>Heckin' cute too?
It depends on on how heckin cute you are since the abyss stares back.

>400+ reply
Only if you want to clearly be wrong 400 times, claiming it is impossible to make your reply.

>>15188619
>So you have a way to describe holding up 0 fingers or having 0 apples.
Why would I want to describe privation? I'm a big boy now.

>No, you changed your position
Nope.

>You were wrong about what was possible and you admitted that you actually meant it wasn't necessary
No. "Elaborated".

>Ok but I am talking about the specific fantasy called math or arithmetic which has specific rules and laws and according to the laws of math aka axioms, 0 is the number defined by the additive identity.

So newspeak math? In anycase you're now just negating what you've said entirely into the realm of fantasy. Welcome to the shadow realm, Yugi.

>I don't understand
Yeah me neither. "Medium" implies density...something that isn't discrete.

>the medium is some kind of screen or mind
????

>it is true that the image of the triangle you posted is just mathematical information
Geometrical. Can't be described by math, remember.

>being transmitted and projected by various electronic devices.
I mean..."no u"? You're made of the same shit lol.

>In your logic, there are no words for nothing:
No. There are many words for nothing and all of them have no specific meaning. You all make up different shit because it's not objective. It's fantasy, you make it up as you go along. No coherency.

>simply can't exist as words.
Simply can't exist, defined with privation.

>Those two words are literal synonyms.
Cool story bro. Lets just stop using all synonymous words. Descriptions are not explanations.

>Except it has specific words that you have repeatedly used to discuss nothing and all its equivalents
>" nothing: nil, nada, and null"
Got any more words for it?

>Then why are you constantly trying to correct me
Because you keep talking.

>By getting everything
What about nothing?

>the abyss stares back.
Do you believe in nothing because of Christian Bale?

>it is impossible to make your reply.
I will be right it's over.

>>15188663
>Why would I want to describe privation?
It depends on why you just brought it up.

>Nope.
Yep something you previously claimed was not possible was changed to not necessary.

>Elaborated
Nope changing states is not an elaboration shifting to unnecessary from impossible is a shift in perspective rather than an elaboration.

>fantasy
Fantasy is all that matters to the imagination ie the mind, but imagination is not a realm of its own, it is a function of reality.

>"Medium" implies density
The computer chips and screens used to represent and project the picture you posted are dense.
>something that isn't discrete.
How is something that is measurably dense not also discretely dense?

>Geometrical. Can't be described by math
Geometry is a field of mathematics.

>Simply can't exist, defined with privation.
So you know more words that you claim are impossible to exist?

>Descriptions are not explanations
Only if you completely disregard what words actually mean ala.
>Lets just stop using all synonymous words

>Got any more words for it?
Yes, but you already brought up privation, so I am sure you got more words for it too, even while claiming it would be impossible to know such a thing.

>Because you keep talking.
No, I keep typing and you keep trying to correct me even though you say I can't be incorrect.

>What about nothing?
Nothing is wrong when everything is right.

> Christian Bale?
Its a Nietzsche quote.

>I will be right it's over.
You can never be right in a reply you claim is impossible to make because if you were right, you wouldn't have even been able to make the reply because it would have been impossible, but its not, it is very possible for you to be wrong in your reply about not being able to reply 400 times in a row, though.

>>15180997
Klaus explains in the book there are no such thing as nothing. In a perfect vaccuum and before the Big Bang, before particles, time, and space, there would still be potential particles popping in and out of existence. In lamens terms it has been explained as if + and - can become 0, then 0 can become + and -, as in matter and anti-matter.

>>15187799
nah you are just a brainlet, this was solved 1000's of years ago with first cause, prime mover etc

>>15188681
You don't need +/-, you can get from 0 to 100% with a few functions upon only nothing, 0^0 and 0! being the simplest.

>>15188694
Ok and the first cause is nothing.

>>15188714
nothing doesnt exist half wit, what does it take to get you to understand this?

>>15188719
You would have to somehow be able to convince me that I am not holding nothing when I am clearly holding nothing right now.

>>15188720
you are so simple minded it is astounding

>>15188722
Your mind is so needlessly complex that you have convinced yourself you aren't even you because nothing isn't nothing, so it can't be something.

>>15188725
I already mentioned thermodynamics in this thread more than once. You are fixated way down the line kiddo. You can never have the absence of energy. Talking about not holding a dildo as you having nothing is like talking to a retarded child so I wont respond to you again

>>15188728
You can be wrong more than once and you have proven it repeatedly.

>fixated
Your little magic word doesn't change the fact that you have failed to convince me I am not holding nothing right now.

>Talking about not holding a dildo as you having nothing
You might be holding a dildo, but not only am I not holding one, I am not holding anything else either, because I am holding nothing right now.

>I wont respond to you again
If you didn't want to make yourself look retarded, you should not have responded with retarded comments in the first place and you should have put more effort into trying to convince someone holding nothing that they are not holding nothing.

>>15180997

>Can A Universe Really Come From Nothing

No

perpetual motion machines don't exist
there is no free energy

>but what about the other people saying yes

tell them to build a perpetual motion machine

>>15188799
>perpetual motion machines don't exist
Prove that the universe is not a perpetual motion machine freely distributing energy in the form of light, momentum, and force.

>>15188811
You aren't smart enough to understand abstract concepts so focus your energy on something else

>>15188824
NTA but it looks like you got BTFO and you're mad.

>>15188811
>Prove that the universe is not a perpetual motion machine

Expansion

>>15188826
Yes, good job, expansion is the particular type of motion the universe is perpetually exhibiting.

>expansion
>type of motion

>>15188837
So expansion doesn't mean all the galaxies are moving away from each other redshift is not induced through movement?

>>15188835
that's like saying time moving forward is a perpetual motion machine

>>15188839

not him
red shift is just light

it's there whether the object that produced it is moving or not
space time expanding is not motion
the light is moving on it's own

the expansion of space will eventually prevent the concept of an observer
so even red shift will stop

so no perpetual motion machines don't exist

>>15188839
>So expansion doesn't mean all the galaxies are moving
No.

>>15188852
>that's like saying time moving forward is a perpetual motion machine
No, its like saying that perpetual progression over time is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.

>red shift is just light
Light by definition expands outward equidistantly from a light source and if the light source is also in motion, you will get redshit or blue shift depending on the relative direction of motion.

>it's there whether the object that produced it is moving or not
No, it is a type of Doppler shift that occurs on objects in motion.

>space time expanding is not motion
Yes it is, expansion is a change in movement, movement is motion.

>the light is moving on it's own
So light is just like a perpetual motion machines.

>the expansion of space will eventually prevent the concept of an observer
So you are saying space is slowly moving away from observers?

>so no perpetual motion machines don't exist
You have failed to prove that the expansion of the universe is not perpetual, just that you won't be able to observe the perpetual motion at some point in the future because you are not perpetual, only the motion in the universal machine is perpetual.

>>15188863
If you live in a static unmoving universe, why did you bring up expansion?

>>15188868
>perpetual progression over time is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
No, it isn't. A perpetual motion machine doesn't progress towards anything.

>>15188873
Motion is a progression, usually people try to make suspended friction-less wheels that spin continuously, but a universe that expands continuously also fits the definition.

>>15188872
Things getting further away from each other due to space itself expanding doesn't imply motion in any proper sense, especially not in the sense implied by perpetual motion machines. You sound literally retarded. I think we've reached the point in human development where it's necessary to physically cull "people" on your intellectual level.

>>15188875
"Educating" sub-120-IQs like you was a real fucking mistake.

>>15188876
>Things getting further away from each other
That is called recessive motion, you are receding if you are getting further away from something.

>>15188879
But you are the one that doesn't understand that expansion is a type of movement and movement is a word synonymous with motion due to your sub 85 verbal IQ.

>>15188892
>>15188888
>definite proof that wordthinking is a severe mental illness
Imagine being a GPT made out of meat.

>>15188896
But you clearly can't think with words, numbers, or anything abstract, your problem seems to be that you haven't yet been upgraded to the latest version.

>>15188902
Call me back when you're capable of genuine thought instead of mechanistic label processing, literal subhuman. It's not my problem that nonsentients have no sense of the meaning of the labels they string together.

>>15188906
You are the one that doesn't seem to understand that expansion and movement both mean motion though, you are the one obsessed with the words themselves rather than the ideas they represent, so you don't see how movement can be motion since they are two entirely difference strings in your ALU and you don't have enough hidden layers in your neural net to make accurate contextualizations.

>>15188868

>all your questions

no observer = no motion

that's how science works, you need an observer

so yes according to expansion perpetual motion machines don't exist

>>15188910
>you need an observer
I am an observer and so are all the people observing the constant perpetual expansive motion of the universe via redshift, you are the only one who doesn't seem to understand how to actually observe motion.

>>15188909
>expansion and movement both mean motion though
Again, thanks for demonstrating how nonsentients are only capable of mechanistic, botlike processing of label disregarding meaning. The "motion" caused by expansion has nothing to do with the motion referred to by the concept of perpetual motion machines.

>>15188912
>I am an observer and so are all the people observing the constant perpetual expansive motion of the universe via redshift, you are the only one who doesn't seem to understand how to actually observe motion.

ok so when the observers are gone how do you know the expansion won't stop ?

>>15188913
Motion is motion something perpetually moving is something with perpetual motion, the universe is in perpetual motion, the universe is a perpetual motion machine. Cope and Seethe all you want, but the universe will still move along without your permission for all of time.

>>15188917
>label-processing drone ignores meaning for the nth time
LOL

>>15188915
So your entire opinion is based on something you can't ever possibly observe rather than the actual observations about the universe?

>>15180997
Yes, that's what his book describes

>>15188923
no it's based on the fact that you can't create a perpetual motion machine

>>15188918
>I can't even process words and that makes you stupid because I don't understand your words.

>>15188931
I can't, but the universe did, so its not impossible to make one, I just have many more limits in my abilities than the universe as a whole.

>>15188934
Nigger, it doesn't matter how many times you appeal to the dictionary. Perpetual motion machines are attempts to do infinite work without an external source of energy. An expanding universe doesn't do that. Case closed. You are a meat GPT and it is moral, rational and pragmatic to sterilize you forcibly.

>>15188935

if the laws of the universe allow for it

then you should be able to do it locally

>>15188937
>attempts to do infinite work without an external source of energy
>An expanding universe doesn't do that
So then what external source of energy is responsible for causing the universe to constantly expand?

>>15188942
No work involved. Simply stop posting.

>>15188938
Expansion does occur locally even if I am not the one causing it maybe the universe has reached the highest upper limit of perpetuity and nobody else can make it go at any different rate than what the universe has already figured out.

>>15188945
Expansive displacement is work, the universe is doing it constantly without any apparent external sources of energy.

>>15188948
>Expansive displacement is work
What force is being applied to the objects being displaced, nigger?

>>15188949
The exact amount force require to generate the exact amount of expansion and outward momentum.

>>15188946
Expansion results in heat death

so I don't see how that proves your point of perpetual machines existing

>>15180997
The idea has been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community.

>>15188953
>The exact amount force require to generate the exact amount of expansion
The expnasion of space itself doesn't require or imply any force to be exerted on objects.

>>15188954
Prove it, even if so, if the universe is in motion all the way to the point time dies, it was still in motion for all time, it was still perpetual and there would be no one around to say otherwise.

>>15188958
It implies an expansive force.

>>15188961
It doesn't imply that in any way and it doesn't even make sense because there is no way you can direct those imaginary forces that would be consistent with the outcome of space itself expanding.

>>15188959
>Prove it

why ? heat death is the consensus for the end of the universe
due to expansion combined with the laws of thermodynamics

you have to prove it's not real not me

there are no perpetual motion machines

>>15188963
It implies it by the law of identity, expansion is expansive.

>no way you can direct those imaginary forces
Those forces are directed outward that is the definition of expansive movement.

>>15180997
>Can A Universe Really Come From Nothing?
Anything before the time the CMB was emmited is conjecture and will remain so practically permanently since its unmeasurable (empirically unknowable).

>>15188966
>Those forces are directed outward
Outward from what, mongoloid? There is no fixed point.

>>15188965
>heat death is the consensus for the end of the universe
Nope, there are several contenders such as big crunch, big rip, and big freeze.

>>15188969
Outward, equidistantly from every possible point in space whether fixed or not that is prone to expansion which seems to be all of them.

>>15188973

heat death and big freeze are the same thing
big rip is just a theorized evolution of the prior

and only big crunch satisfies perpetual motion universe
but is unlikely than both of the above due to expansion accelerating and the theory itself requiring "exotic" dark matter to occur

perpetual motion machines don't exist

goodbye

>>15188975
>Outward
Outward from what, you inbred? It is precisely because there is no fixed point for them to be expanding outward from, that astrophysicists talk about space itself expanding, as opposed to some normal motion characterized by forces. Your hypothetical forces would have to have an extra spatial dimension to account for what is characterized as the expansion of space. Anyway, this is boring. American public school inbreds should be ignored.

>>15188980
Except that you just said one of the consensus potential ends of the universe 100% confirms it while the others confirm that as long as there is time there will be expansion which is as perpetual as anything can be something that happens for all time.

>>15188982
>Outward from what, you inbred?
Outward relative to the initial reference point that it expanded from.

>It is precisely because there is no fixed point for them to be expanding outward from
Expansion happens to relative points too, not just fixed points.

>Your hypothetical forces would have to have an extra spatial dimension to account for what is characterized as the expansion of space
The number system has extra imaginary spatial dimensions that are also expansive relative to the real dimension to account for that.

>>15188991
Your post exemplifies the legitimate mental illness that occurs when sub-120-IQ "people" are taught some scientific jargon and encouraged to view intellectualism as a status symbol.

>>15188896
You know your argument is a lost cause when the best supporting evidence you can come up with is that the other person knows too many words.

>>15188999
I accept your concession.

>>15189007
>>15189010
I accept your delusional mental illness.

>>15182037
A lot of physicists don't know a lot about philosophy so they end up saying "everything came from nothing" when they mean a different thing.
Sean caroll is actually one of the better ones because he teaches philosophy. he and a lot of physicists don't believe the universe came from nothing. they believe that there is a set of "eternal" (as in either infinite time or no time) rules from which everything came.
This isn't even controversial as even theologians believe that there are rules above god that god can't break. theologians believe those to be only base logic (e.g. three laws of logic) while physicists believe more to be fundamental.

>>15189011
The only mental thing you seem triggered by is someone else knowing what words mean and using their connotations to unequivocally prove you wrong over and over.

>>15189020
Take your meds.

>>15189027
Take some physics classes.

>>15189032
Nigger, I've explained to you why your babble makes no sense: you can take any point in the universe and it will look like things are moving away from it, as if your hypothetical forces are directed away from that point, but that can't be the case because the same is true of every other point. How much more can I dumb it down? lol.

>>15189035
>Nigger, I've explained to you why your babble makes no sense
No, you explained that I used too many different words and the use of words is a mental illness all while exclusively using bunch of words to express yourself.

Why can't all points move away from each other, why do you think expansion is impossible while also declaring it is the singular consensus that expansion will cause the end of time?

>How much more can I dumb it down?
I don't want you to be any more dumb than you are already displaying, I am trying to help you understand why you are wrong and smarten you up, not dumb you down, dummy.

I am dropping massive turds in the toilet bowl out of my asshole right now

When you can't drop knowledge, at least there are some things you still can drop.

Aristotle (pbuh) already solved this. the universe came from a pre existing eternal substratum. It's a logical impossibility for nothing to become something so unless you believe god can create a four angled triangle, god can't create the universe from nothing.
Both muslims and christians struggled a lot to disprove this and reconcile the self contradiction of "began from nothing" but none succeeded.
science confirms Aristotle but they consider energy to be the substratum. te big bang singularity is energy and everything comes from energy in accordance to laws of physics

>>15189085
>It's a logical impossibility for nothing to become something
Nothing is already something, it doesn't have to become what it already is.

>>15189112
>Nothing is already something
Contradictio in terminis.

>>15189042
Really no sense talking to nigger filth like you. If you can't understand why it can't be that forces are directed away from all points simultaneously, your IQ is a certified 80 and this discussion is done.

>>15180997
The universe in its entirety is conscious and can't fathom why it exists, all it knows is that it is immortal and cannot die.

>>15180997
no it cannot come from nothing, and no scientist alleges such nonsense.
if you want stuff to magically pop out from nothing, read the bible, koran or torah
and since the question was loaded from the beginning, i will answer in terms you understand: whatever you think a god came from is the exact same state where the universe came from, and hence the universe didn’t need a creator, the same as a god doesn’t need one.

>>15189156
Take your physics classes.
That is exactly what universal expansion means.
You are only lashing out in frustration because you can't explain your own position because it is wrong.

>>15189224
>no scientist alleges such nonsense.
Scientists recognize 0 as the origin number and t=0 as the beginning of the universe.
Scientists rely on mathematical definitions which necessitate that something is necessarily yielded from a function of nothing upon nothing ala 0^0=1 and 0!=1.

>hence the universe didn’t need a creator
Which means it was created by nothing, so not only can something come from nothing, but according to you, the entire universe must have come from nothing.

>>15189250
>That is exactly what universal expansion means.
So which direction is the force acting on P, you utter inbred? It seems to be either one depending in which of the other points you're looking from.

>>15189266
But you are the uneducated mongoloid who seems to think only 2 directions makes up all 360 continuous degrees of direction outward from a point.

>>15189298
Your mother should have been sterilized and your father should have been castrated.

>>15189322
You should have made an argument, but unfortunately for you things are not as we think they should be, they are as they are and you can't change reality with your impotent rage.

>>15189012
>they believe that there is a set of "eternal" (as in either infinite time or no time) rules from which everything came.
So ... the realm of forms?

>>15189224
imagine coming into a thread swinging your dick around like you are some galaxy brain and saying something this fucking stupid like a 12 year old

>>15184375
that book is actually a really persuasive argument, which is why fedoras are so avoidant of it

>>15189381
I don't know if I have that vivid of an imagination, but its seems to be easy as if its more like recalling than imagining.

>>15189085
This is the only answer in this thread.

>>15189138
Then if 0 can't be -0, why does math work, why can it be used to make computers and why do those computers recognize binary units of logic that can effortlessly switch between states of nothing and something willy nilly?

Why is the ALU hard programmed to recognized the value of nothing as something that is its own opposite number and why does it achieve such precise calculation results with those assumptions?

>>15189705
>nothing is something because.... IEEE standards?
We are hitting new levels of retarded

>>15189745
Computing was just one of several effective consistent system I referenced that all demonstrate inherent paradox, but the question was why is it such an effective assumption how does it work if it is impossible?

>>15188679
>It depends
I'm not a dependent.

>you previously claimed was not possible was changed to not necessary.
No anon, now you're being disingenuous

>changing states is not an elaboration
Anon, just drop it and reread what I said if you don't get it.

> but imagination is not a realm of its own, it is a function of reality.
I don't think we know that.

>The computer chips and screens used to represent and project the picture you posted are dense.
So not nothing.

>How is something that is measurably dense not also discretely dense?
Measuring can't explain how something exists.

>Geometry is a field of mathematics.
So quantify that hypotenuse then using math.

>So you know more words that you claim are impossible to exist?
If everything was fake and gay, "nothing" would still be defined using privation.

>Yes, but you already brought up privation, so I am sure you got more words for it too,
Descriptions aren't explanations.

>even while claiming it would be impossible to know such a thing.
But it's possible to invent many new words for an impossible thing.

>Only if you completely disregard what words actually mean
That's not how a description or an explanation works.

>Lets just stop using all synonymous words
There is nothing synonymous about descriptions and explanations.

>I keep typing and you keep trying to correct me even though you say I can't be incorrect.
Yes!

>Nothing is wrong when everything is right.
So how can there be "nothing" when everything is right?

>Its a Nietzsche quote
So because of western existentialists?

>You can never be right in a reply you claim is impossible to make because if you were right, you wouldn't have even been able to make the reply because it would have been impossible,
>but its not, it is very possible for you to be wrong in your reply about not being able to reply 400 times in a row, though.
So.."Not even wrong?" I'm still trying to figure out what we're talking about since I have nothing to go on.

>>15189770
a signed zero is neither a zero nor nothing. it simply doesn't follow, it's not analogous. it's a representation, a convention of floats.
in the binary number system a 32 digit 1000...0 is just 2E32 in decimal. even computers only consider them to just be that until they are passed through some float operation.
from a pure mathematics perspective a 32 digit 011...1 + 00...01 != -0. that's just absurd.
in this context nothing means just nothing. I am not talking about vacuum, space, quantum foam, etc. it's just nothing The content of an empty set is an example of nothing. why are you insisting on being pedantic?

>>15189898
Your replies are dependent on referencing posts, you are highly dependent.

Your ad hominem and deflection is disingenuous

Built on nothing

how?

The hypotenuse is the geometric quantity of points from the set of point in the longest line segment of a unit triangle.

Being defined still indicates it is something and apparently something you think you can talk about forever without being dependent on the accurate perspective correcting your misconceptions.

Explanations are descriptions of a choice or process.

It has proven possible to demonstrate a lot of "impossible things" to be possible.

A descriptions/explanation generally works by arranging words into sentences that express the idea/process.

They are part of each others definitions a description is an explanation of the appearance of someone or some thing.

Then why attempt to correct it if you can't?

If everything is right, nothing is wrong.

It definitely sets up the case, but its not the only evidence.

You are going on about nothing while claiming discussing nothing is impossible and trying to see how many times you can contradict yourself.

>>15189935
Signed zero is a practical implantation of the mathematical assumption that nothing is equally positive and negative, so adds and subtracts to everyone number with the same effect.

>The content of an empty set is an example of nothing.
Yes good and something else that is an example of nothing is the sound of deafness, are there any other things that are examples of no things?.

Why do you insist that paradox is impossible when it is clearly possible to implement it in an ALU?

>>15190172
>Your replies are dependent on referencing posts
I'm referencing posts about nothing, no ones going to be dependent on this shit.

>Your ad hominem and deflection is disingenuous
I will deflect a misunderstanding so long as it isn't mine and has been laid out and known to the misunderstood. To insult a fool is to praise wisdom.

>Built on nothing
>how?
That's the question I've been asking.

>The hypotenuse is the geometric quantity
You keep using the word "quantity", and yet I see no actual quantity. I see the geometry, but no math. If you're confused, I was talking about >>15187597 this triangle.

>Being defined
It's not defined. Mathematically anyway.

>still indicates it is something
How real is a shadow?

>and apparently something you think you can talk about forever without being dependent on the accurate perspective correcting your misconceptions.
It's called religion.

>Explanations are descriptions of a choice or process.
>A descriptions/explanation generally works by arranging words into sentences that express the idea/process.
Descriptions account for an observation (which can be illusory!). Explanations account for how/why, it elaborates the descriptions and why those descriptions were chosen and how it formed to be described in such a way. One is evidence and retelling and the other is reason and analysis. You can rearrange all the description in the world to make a word salad sentence, but you cannot rearrange an explanation and have it come out with meaning.

>It has proven possible to demonstrate a lot of "impossible things" to be possible.
So prove nothing.

>You are going on about nothing while claiming discussing nothing is impossible and trying to see how many times you can contradict yourself.
I am indeed staying on topic with OP's post, try to read it sometime. Want to help me go for a world record? We can tally each others contradictions and wait for some faggot to describe us as "samefag" and use his description as proof.

Nothing exists without being born. Matter is always created from something else (not by someone).
I am an atheist.

>>15180997
>Can A Universe Really Come From Nothing?
no, against the laws of physics.
now can matter come from Energy? Perhaps so.

>>15190742
And where does the energy come from?

>>15190209
Signed zero isn't mathematically valid. it's higher representation. even floats themselves aren't mathematical, they are just higher representations. the only part of computers which is mathematically valid is base2 numbers and their operations, anything other than that is just representation.
the IEEE decided that binary number passed through an assortment of specific arrangements of logic gates producing certain answers are represented as decimals which include signed inf, signed 0 and NaN.
>Why do you insist that paradox is impossible
saying nothing is something is like saying 1 is 0. in the context of cosmogeny, nothing is just nothing. saying nothing is something turn all arguments about the beginning of the universe into tautologies

>>15181179
The correct scientific response is "I don't know"

Something from nothing violates every test or experminet based on replicable observation.

There is not a single instance of anything coming from nothing ever in any experiment in the history of modern science.
As a matter of fact, current thermodynamic law states that energy is neither created or destroyed.

Your conclusion is erroneous.

~SEAS Grad

>>15180997
>Physics Chads, please enlighten me.
There is no physic in blatant idiotic and total unphysical allegations. This whole fuckup is nothing more than a test that supporters are dumb and willing enough to swallow and ruminate whatever their master will feed them.

>>15190498
You gave birth to a pen?

>>15190905
What about the double slit experiment where extra bands seem to appear out of nothing when you are observing the reaction?

>>15190845
>Signed zero isn't mathematically valid.
Yes it is, 0=-0.

>anything other than that is just representation.
All numbers are representations of some value.

>saying nothing is something is like saying 1 is 0.
No, its like saying 1 is 0^0 or 0!.

>>15180997
don't they teach you this in 3rd grade? If it cannot be observed it's not science, doesn't means it's not real or whatever that means, but at least it's not science

>>15191426
see
>>15182388
Every meter (multimeter, thermometer, meter stick, etc) starts at a zero point where it is directly measuring something assuming it starts at nothing.

>>15191380
what's 5 divided by zero

>>15191742
The exact same as 5 divided by negative zero since 0=-0.

>>15180997
>Can A Universe Really Come From Nothing?
Why not? because it would against some scientific rule we have? then we simply have too rewrite it so that spontaneous creation can fit in the system

>>15191376
negative IQ post

>>15191426
>If it cannot be observed it's not science.

Science is backed up by mathematics, philosophy, and logic. No one here has to defend its conclusions... and no one is interested in your a priori explainations (because they stink)...

You might argue there is no "scientific basis" of logic since it itself, as it is a priori knowledge, however everyone who argues that is a certified moron.