/sci/ - Science & Math

If there is nothing, there is no rule nothing can't come from nothing.

Try a bit harder on your bait, loser.

>>15909906
Ahh anon, its refreshing to finally meet someone sharing this view.

>>15909897
What even is nothing? Do you even know what you're talking about? I find the big bang very minuscule to the scale of the universe and the galaxies we neighbor, there is something we aren't looking far into enough.

>>15909897
Why not?

>>15909906
what even is a rule? Where is it written?

>>15909897
It didn't come from nothing. Whatever was the state of the universe before the big bang wasn't "nothing".

>>15909921
I can give an argument that rules seem to transcend our universe, or any other universe. The argument is simple. If our universe ends, another universe comes into existence, and then the rules of chess are laid out in that universe, chess will be the same game in that universe as it is in ours. This holds for all of mathematics as well.

>>15909923
So it was everything, and that eon is now nothing

>>15909932
that doesn’t answer my question

>>15909941
It tells you a rule is non physical. How are you suppose to say more than that?

>>15909932
Sweet another reification fallacy theory.

>>15909897
Ways it might be possible for something to come from nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/
https://reducing-suffering.org/why-does-physics-exist/

>>15909923
For there to be an origin there inherently has to be a point where something emerged from nothing. Arguing that nothing isn't actually nothing, doesn't answer that cause that means that nothing was either actually something or it violated the fundamental understanding of every observable phenomenom of the universe and suddenly an external mystical force doesn't sound so implausible.

>>15909960
Okay, rules don't exist. Their consequences and structures generated are merely consistent from universe to universe.

This is settled by the Agrippa trilemma.

Tracing causality backwards always results in
1. Infinite regress
2. Brute facts
3. Circularity

Choose one.

>>15909987
Causality isn’t real

>>15909897
Is it possible to even prove the beginning of existence? Why does this topic matter when we don't have the technology nor foresight to figure out how the universe fucking begin? Universe is too fucking big and gay

>>15909977
Anon, i apreciate your spirit. But you habe to take a break from these things.

>>15909996
What do you mean by "Causality is not real?"

>>15910020
causality is an illusion. We think that every cause has an effect and that every effect has a cause, but the only proof we have is correlational patterns. Correlation is not causation. But everything we see is correlation. You can’t make the leap to causation. The simplest answer is that causality isn’t real and that all correlations are coincidences. No dilemmas or trilemmas there

>>15910028
Would you say in that case that what we call causality is merely abstracted set off paterns unfolding?

>>15910036
Yes, it’s like choosing a random real number (restricting ourselves to the definable, countable reals of course) and getting a rational number. We just happen to live in an orderly universe. Natural selection of universes

>>15910028
>>15910055
So you just chose brute facts ("It just is, okay?")

>>15909897
It did tho.

>>15910062
yep

>>15910055
I would disagree on that exact view on it but i do agree on our first premiss.

>>15910074
Edit:
Nwm i agree.

>>15910055
>We just happen to live in an orderly universe
What do you think caused this?

>>15909897
no one believes there ever was nothing, save a handful of kraussian retards.

>>15910104
Nothing never was, but there was a "beginning" in which there was the first ever something in time.

>>15909897
Who said there was nothing? it's just another something

>>15909897
Nothing does not exist. It is always something.

>>15910101
>caused
we exist because we can, and we can exist because we do. Nothing more needs to be said.

>>15909897
It didn’t, it emanated from “above”
but this has nothing to do with physics as we know it

>>15910156
>because we can
What caused us to have this ability?

Why not?

>>15910147
not necessarily

>>15910101
Even his idea of living in an orderly universe is an illusion, just like his claim that causality is an illusion which i don't disagree with. We see order because we have to, a stable enviroment is a predictable enviroment that allows us to make educated guesses about possible outcomes with little to zero thinking most of the times.

>>15910147
Proof of that? Could it be that this presupposition of yours - there must be a beginning - is the result of your damaged and limited cognitive functions?

>>15910206
The fact that the alternative involves everything just existing eternally , yet never coming into being (for there not to be a beginning), not even suddenly appearing in a way that is difficult to comprehend which itself is logically inept. The observation of progressive change suggesting a historical development from earlier forms also indicates towards origin.

>>15910206
>>15910216
What he said. Something always existing into an infinite past defies all logic.

>everything just existing eternally
>yet never coming into being
If everything exists eternally then it is obvious that the second sentence makes no sense. If it exists it is already being.

>The observation of progressive change suggesting a historical development from earlier forms also indicates towards origin.
Deductive reasoning is flawed for reasons you already know, hopefully. It doesn't indicate towards anything specific unless you want it to.

There are plenty more flaws in that one sentence you just posted. You take for granted that you conceptualization of nothing, something, is complete. Then you consider as granted that those two should be connected in a linear way, from A to B. These flaws tells us more about how our specie thinks rather than the nature of things.

>>15910219
And Logic is Absolute? Alas, i have regained my faith.

>>15909962

that image makes a nice summary of the most popular theories. Do you happen to know where I can find a higher res version of that image/spreadsheet?

>>15910237
Existence having an uncaused beginning is more logical than an infinite past.

>>15909975
>For there to be an origin there inherently has to be a point where something emerged from nothing
The first point in time is not "when" the universe was "created" or it's origin. Time is a part of the universe, there is no time in which the universe was created.

Saying this is like looking at an MRI and concluding that, because the top of the skull is the origin of a human, something must emerge from nothing in order to create a human.

>>15910280
>the set of 0, 1, 2, 3...did not start from 0
>0 is part of the set
>the set is a self-creating existence
>it needs no logic and reason to exist yet scientists describe it with logic and reason
Atheist way of calling the universe God.

>>15909912
>I find the big bang very minuscule to the scale of the universe
the big bang was literally the whole universe

>>15910326
Does this circle start from it's leftmost part? Retard.

>>15910432
Sure, but what made the circle? It just popped in? It always existed, yet we can clearly observe a constant progression forward and the universe loops unto itself? Ok, then I guess that circle itself is the mystical force that constantly lets us begin again. Praise be to Lord loop-a-lot

>>15910432
>le retard doesn't even add context whether the circle faded entirely into existence or made itsellf from a point or is like a mosaic of points that appear as a circle
>because le retard has no abstract thinking besides mathematical circus tricks

>>15909897
>Do a bunch of observation
>Realize the universe is expanding
>This means it was small at some point
>We think it was VERY small at the beginning
>People have a fit because we haven't figured everything out yet
It's as simple as that. I'm in favor of the idea that our universe started because a 6 dimensional particle decayed into 3 dimensional matter.

>>15909897
Happens every time you boot up a virtual word. The "thing" appears to come nothing to those immersed in the VR because it DOES come from nothing, that is, nothing "inside" the virtual spacetime because the processing takes place "outside" or "non-local" to the spacetime which is an output OF the non-local processing. The "thing" is an influx of information, ie a boot up.

>>15909987
>Agrippa trilemma
So that's how they called Munchhausen trilemma in the ancient Greece.

>>15910452
>It always existed, yet we can clearly observe a constant progression forward and the universe loops unto itself?
Except it's not a progression dumbfuck, that's the entire point. The whole circle is there, you can only see one sliver of it. Moving your view rightwards does not make the circle larger and then smaller, and then nonexistent. It is not created when it comes into view, and it is not destroyed when it goes out of view.

>>15910468
tongue my anus you knuckle dragging shit eating ape

>>15910351
How do you know if it was a “big bang”, it seems to be a lot older but you faggots can’t look that deep into universe because of how far it is. The big bang is such a meme and neil nigger tyson is saying there could be multiple big bangs? Fucking horseshit sci pop junk, I can’t believe I take you people seriously.

all is forever

>>15910566
Hence the latter portion "loops unto itself". I wasn't stating that the universe starts when it's observed I was noting that the concept of time, however it is measured moves forward and as such for it to loop it must end and begin again if our observation of its expansion is true. Even if this somehow has more basis than other proposals (which is unknown), it doesn't exclude a potential origin by way of a first universe, i.e the initiation of this loop, it just implies it will never end. More concisely for time to move monodirectionally and yet be eternal and always existing it must loop in a way such that there is absolutely no distinguishable beginning and end, whatever physically elusive and uncomprehensible mysterious mechanism which allows this to occur would then be a mystical force that causes the universe to exist. So again, praise be to lord loop-a-lot.

Or are we at a misunderstanding of what universe means; to be clear I'm referring to the physical extent of matter.

>>15910641
>scientist hiding behind technical definition while pretending math = reality
Verification not required.

>>15910661
Time may not be a physical object but merely a concept, whose measurement may be arbitrary. But it exists. Things change the longer one waits, even if only a little bit.

>>15909897
Nothing is something. It's an impossible problem. You can't name /think something that doesn't exist.

>>15910678
Please elaborate. The way I understand it now: there is comparison between sensory impressions and memory. The discrepancy appears as movement. The cause of that discrepancy is unknown to me. How do we know whether or not that movement is independent from our observation?

>Is that something that's not logical!?
>No no no, it MUST be logical it can't not be logical!
>Aaaaaaahhh, help me Niggerman I am going insane!

I am not calling anyone out, just shitposting. It's just funny how much we depend on logic, double for people actually trying to make sense of the universe, i.e. scientists.

If a scientist or even just some average human being were to come upon something truly illogical (not "we haven't figured it out yet", not "it probably only seems illogical but there must be logic behind it", I mean TRULY illogical that you just know on a instinctual level) I wonder if the reaction would be insanity (help me niggerman!) or simply not even being able to percieve the truly illogical thing because it's completely beyond us by definition.

Now that I've typed this out I realize that post-nut clarity really is a thing.

>>15910698
If Time exists, then it's discret (everything in our universe is discret). If it's discret, then it's material.

>>15910705
Sure except that, if you are the same poster, now passive aggressively being a shitbag instead of engaging in discussion, you were proposing a very specific illogical interpretation; not just ANY illogical interpretation. As such it is then considered how other things, which as long as humans have observed has shown to be the case, would function under this interpretation, and when found that it's seems extremely overly specific and odd dismissed. If you just wanted to say "YOU JUST CAN'T COMPREHEND BRO" then fair enough, you (or that anon) should've just done that. Instead we got torus-fag.

>>15910698
I'm not sure I fully see the relation or understand the intended meaning, just cause time exists doesn't neccesarily mean it has to be the causation of difference, though for difference to occur time must exist as the only way there can be a difference is for there to be multiple memories across a span (which is then deined as time). To confirm it's not unique: because everything else senses it moving forward in a similar manner or at the very least observes it regarding things that can't sense it (i.e inanimate objects) and none can go against it (i.e by halting it, even if they aren't affected by progression of events they are effected by those that are), one could suggest that things that change at different rates experience time faster or slower, as a result of sensation, but it doesn't change that they can still be measured at a constant rate relative to themselves and their surroundings and that this change inherently relies on a difference occuring and thus the "movement" forward.

>>15909897
>Something can't come from nothing
Interesting read for you.

>>15910641
>time, however it is measured moves forward
No, we are moving forwards in time. Time itself does not move.
>More concisely for time to move monodirectionally and yet be eternal and always existing it must loop
Time is not monodirectional. Again, we move forwards in time

It seems you are suggesting here that you'd once again end up at the big bang if you went far enough forwards in time. It's possible. You'd eventually reach a point where you would start moving towards the big bang rather than away from it. It's also possible that you'd just continue on in time forever. Or that you'd reach the end of time, or the end of the usefulness of time. We don't know.

>whatever physically elusive and uncomprehensible mysterious mechanism would then be a mystical force that causes the universe to exist.
That doesn't follow. There is no mechanism, and it's not a mystical force.
If you kept walking west, you'd eventually come back to where you were standing originally. There's no mechanism that causes that, it's simply due to the nature of earth as a sphere.

It also wouldn't "cause the universe to exist". Time is a part of the universe, it cannot make itself exist.

>>15910857
I see, this or some form of unobserved longterm oscillation could explain the expansion indicating nothing towards origin.

The fixation on time in that post stems from the initial premise being of an eternal universe, so no beginning, and until I see time travel I'm of the belief that time (or us along such or whatever) moves forward. And through such an origin to the universe, as even if all of time looped around converged to a single point, it only being observed to move forward indicates that this loop must of initiated at some point. This also aligns with all physical objects seeming to have an origin (i.e something coming from nothing). Such that if you are to suggest the big bang is us coming from the outward flow of the centre of the torus above, all the physical stuff that existed in that recompression still came from something. This concept, causation, along with my above thoughts with time is what I was referring in my first post to which I've come full circle to (>>15909975
) since this post is mostly restating things including the initial post.

I suppose since theres no way to verify either hypothesis, I will say that when considering the plausability of something in absence of any method of verifying it I consider how much it conflicts with present knowledge of things. This is different from things that can actually be observed obviously.

>>15910955
oh and to add by considering/predicting the consequence of if the hypothetical in question were the case and comparing that to what is observed to be.

>>15909897
Not only can nothing eventually result in something else, nothing itself is something in the first place, so its nonsense to say that nothing can't come from itself since nothing is itself, by definition.

>>15909912
>What even is nothing?
The smallest possible amount of anything and everything aka the additive identity and multiplicative annihilator.

>>15909975
>it violated the fundamental understanding of every observable phenomenom of the universe
it established every observable phenomenon of the universe

>suddenly an external mystical force doesn't sound so implausible
It sounds unnecessary since you now have a more coherent and consistent in universe explanation for origin and cause without having to rely on external mysticism.

>>15910009
>Is it possible to even prove the beginning of existence?
Logically, yes.

>Why does this topic matter when we don't have the technology nor foresight to figure out how the universe fucking begin?
Prediction from chaotic circumstance depends significantly on figuring out the initial conditions.

>Universe is too fucking big and gay.
So is the absolute real number line, but we still know it begins with 0.

>>15910055
>We just happen to live in an orderly universe.
I thought you said it was all just a coincidence of illusion? Wouldn't that mean that its not actually orderly, you are just pretending because of the convenience of perceived order.

>>15910147
The what was before that given that the first element is specifically defined as the first element based on the fact that nothing precedes it?

>>15910182
He just told you that the ability was caused by the act of doing, why are you trying to make people repeat themselves ad nauseam?

>>15910216
>just existing eternally , yet never coming into being
Why would it have to come into being if it already exists?

>>15910219
>Something always existing into an infinite past defies all logic.
>all logic
Not arithmetic logic where you can continually decrement to some infinite previous value.

>>15910234
>you consider as granted that those two should be connected in a linear way, from A to B.
0 and 1 are mathematically connected in a direct linear way through the factorial function where 0!=1.

>>15910257
Did you make sure to open in a new window to undock it from the thumbnail so you get the highest resolution version available on this site?

>>15910258
No, its the same thing like trying to go backwards on a circle to get out, you will just be going backwards forever never finding some hole that separates inside from outside.

>>15910280
>there is no time in which the universe was created.
How would you describe t=0, then, if not the point where time and the universe were created?

>>15910468
>from a point
A point is already a circle, just at the smallest resolution possible, 0 dimensions.

>>15910480
>because a 6 dimensional particle decayed into 3 dimensional matter.
Matter is already 6 dimensional (spatially), 3 dimensions of imaginary space and 3 dimensions of real space for 6 dimensions of complex space.

>>15910641
>it must loop in a way such that there is absolutely no distinguishable beginning and end
How would you be able to distinguish between going up and down vs the process of beginning and ending?

>>15910697
Nonexistence.

>>15909897
A better question is where are all the aliens ?

this question remains unanswered and seems to be unanswerable

>>15910713
Nah. I am someone completely unrelated to the entire discussion. Saw the thread, read through it, remembered all the other similar threads I've read where it's always the exact same arguments going around and thought I'd shitpost a bit too.

But I am somewhat geniune in my question regarding logic. We simply can't help ourselves but completely depend upon it. I do wonder if we live in a completely logical universe / if our existence is completely logical though, and what would happen if someday we find out that it's not. We worshipped gods and fairies when we had less understanding of the universe, then as our understaning grew we grew more pessimistic about such views (on average), but if we at some point in the future happen to discover that the entire universe makes no fucking sense whatsoever and all this time we merely deluded ourselves into thinking that there was any logic in the first place, I wonder if we'd simply go insane or back to worshipping gods and fairies to save our collective sanity.

Fucking naked apes and their gay "smartest organisms on this planet" thing am I right?

Also the Torus-fag is hilarious, not gonna lie.

>>15911110
You can't even properly communicate with other animals, what makes you think you would even recognize an alien if you saw one?

>>15911110
anywhere we can't see them?

>>15911122
>I do wonder if we live in a completely logical universe / if our existence is completely logical
Nope there wouldn't be uncertainty and incompleteness if there was some perfectly coherent and complete system of logic.

>>15911128
>Nope there wouldn't be uncertainty and incompleteness if there was some perfectly coherent and complete system of logic.

Problem is, what you've just said is also logical, which just illustrates my point, how utterly dependant on logic we are.

>>15911193
>what you've just said is also logical
But its not complete which is why the universe can't be completely logical, it is seemingly largely logical at best.

>>15910257
It’s from Alexey Turchin’s website.

http://immortality-roadmap.com/universeorigin7.pdf
http://lesswrong.com/lw/nw7/the_map_of_ideas_how_the_universe_appeared_from/

>>15911201
I don't think "completeness" has much to do with it though. Our theories about gravity, math etc. are all incomplete but are still logical. Even you trying to assume whether universe is logical (largely, partially whatever) is itself based on logic. True "illogic" or non-logic is completely incomprehensible to us as humans I am afraid.

Then again, these are just my musings. You are not obligated to think anything of it.

>>15911385
>I don't think "completeness" has much to do with it though.
If that were the case, your claims that the universe is completely logical wouldn't almost entirely depend on completeness.

>are all incomplete
Thus your model of universe is not completely anything since your theories are all disjointed and incomplete.

>but are still logical.
Not entirely, only within the small bounds that the modeling can indicate.

> True "illogic" or non-logic is completely incomprehensible to us as humans I am afraid.
No, its as simple as admitting you don't know, you are just too conceited to accept that fact and you have to pretend that knowing you don't know something actually means you know something.

>>15909897
It literally did. Only it took it an infinite ammount of time to grow the anisotropy by infinitesimal deltas.
How do I know? Because "nothing" is the only "something" to which question "now where did THAT come from" is not applicable.

>>15911400
>your claims that the universe is completely logical
I explicitly said that I wonder if our universe even is completely logical and now you are claiming I said that it is completely logical which is almost the exact opposite of what I actually said. Bro? You okay?

>Thus your model of universe is not completely anything since your theories are all disjointed and incomplete
I fail to see how a model being complete or incomplete has anything to do with its logic but okay.

>Not entirely, only within the small bounds that the modeling can indicate.
Modeling that itself depends on logic so it's kinda recursive.

>No, its as simple as admitting you don't know
I think that's what's implied by me saying "I wonder"

>you are just too conceited to accept that fact and you have to pretend that knowing you don't know something actually means you know something
I have no idea how you even came to this conclusion. I can only assume it's because you spend way too much time interacting with actual schizos and trolls on this board. Take a break break bro. Chill out for a moment. Like I said, it's just my own retarded musings, don't take it so seriously as if you have to prove something to someone. Nobody will care and in a day or two this thread will be forgotten by everyone that participated in it.

Time to fap to some animu porn.

>>15910147
Were you there?

Zero (literally nothing) is used every single day to math. So yes, you can do something with nothing.

>>15909987
Circularity, the inclusive kind
Then you end up with infinite expansion and retro causality

>>15909897
Natural numbers:
0, 1, 2, 3 ad infinitum