/sci/ - Science & Math

there should be a law that you can't use the word infinite unless you know what it actually means

>>4077280
and what does it "actually" mean?

There are an infinite number of natural numbers so one of them must be a god, derp.

To deny that god doesn't exist in another universe is to deny the multiple universe theory.

Your movie /sci/

>>4077290

In that situation, it is impossible for a number to be concrete, concrete or omnipotent. There is nothing stopping another universe from containing an omnipotent "God"

>>4077280
and there should also be a law that uneducated atheists cant use the word "nothing" unless they know what it means (atheists canl often be seen claiming particles can appear out of nothing for example, showing how little they actually know about quantum physics)

furthermore it should be illegal for butthurt atheists to claim infinite universe "theory" (lol no evidence) is worth anything more than the theory of a god

Do we know for certain there are alternate universes?

>>4077315
a) There is an uncountable number of universes, with each one running on a different set of rules
i) There is a universe where the equivelant of 1 plus the equivelant of 2 is not the equivelant of 3.
ii) i) violates logic, so it cannot be true.
iii) If i) is not true, then there is not an infinite number of universes for every set of rules.

Your move.

>>4077328
inb4 the old spiel of you fleeing the thread again after a couple of replies, because you've argued yourself into an indefensible corner

>>4077336

Not for certain, but there is a large amount of evidence supporting the theory, including marks on our Cosmic Background Radiation suggesting minor collisions with other universes, and a strong gravitational worth existing outside our universe.

>>4077346

Dunno why I wrote worth, I meant force.

>>4077339
Doesn't make any sense. If Universe A has different rules, including different logic, then it doesn't matter if it violates the rules of Universe B.

>>4077358
Notice the word equivelant in there.

>>4077346
nether of which observations have been confirmed.

>>4077339
infinite =/= uncountable

>>4077346
>suggesting minor collisions with other universes

lolno

>strong gravitational worth existing outside our universe

not evidence for a multiverse

>>4077366
Alright, then please specify what the differences are in this context.

>>4077339

It's unlikely that there an infinite amount of alternate universes, however it is most likely that at least one universe exists with vastly different laws of nature from ours, which heavily increases the possibility of an omnipotent being (although it would not be certain, since there is likely a sub-infinite amount of alternate universes)

>>4077368

>a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes.

Don't worry babe, I'll be back to say I told you so when it's irrefutably verified. For now, you're welcome to ignore evidence and plug your ears all you want.

>>4077371
>derp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set

>>4077360
I did notice it. My point was that it doesn't matter whether you can construct a logical objection based on *this* universe's logic, because it wouldn't necessarily have to apply to another.

>>4077380

Oh and, what would you suggest the gravitational force is the result of?

>>4077380
you cant verify a multiverse with "circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background"

thats my point. "the researchers think that its because we bumped into other universes" is not evidence of a multiverse. its just a label out of ignorance, just like dark energy.

God just told me that multiverses do exist.

Your turn.

>>4077402
God told me your a faggot.
Your turn.

>>4077398

More like a label out of rational thought, which is unfortunately something you are lacking in this thread <3

>>4077406
>hurr durr if i use the word rationalz i already win the argument my atheist religion never failz

>>4077404
Well, of course he's right. Wanna cyber?

Your turn.

>>4077409

I never said I am an atheist. In fact I've been arguing FOR the existence of an omnipotent being. Are you a troll, or just retarded?

>>4077420
only atheists think they automatically win arguments by using words "rational" or "magical sky wizardz"

>>4077398
Anyway, the theory will be confirmed soon enough.

>If the parallel universe theory is true there will be a similar void in the opposite hemisphere of the Celestial sphere, (which New Scientist reported to be the Southern hemisphere-the results of the New Mexico array study reported as Northern hemisphere).

There is quite simply nothing else that would cause that other than a collision with an alternate universe, so once that cold spot is found it will be your very own irrefutable empirical evidence of an alternate universe.

>>4077420
You're conversing with a tripfag named atheismIsGay. Obviously they are both.

>>4077384
Please stop exhibiting traits of autism.

>>4077277

No. Because God is the most pathetic projection of class relations (of the Boss, the King, the Ruler) into the interior of one's ideas whereupon one creates an exterior model of "reality" containing that projection.

There might be a being with "x power" over their reality or even other realities but the idea of the omnipotent God is an artifact of linguistic and grammatical perversions of a branch of Indo-European languages. Not anything based on FUCKING SCIENCE.

>>4077447
Please stop exhibiting traits of stupidity.

http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Imaginary-Dimension(2112219).html

>>4077373
You conceded to what I was trying to prove.

>>4077449
You know very well what I meant by saying uncountable. Learn what context is.

The answer is ambiguous because the expression isn't well defined. At some point the calculator has to decide to multiply either left to right or in the opposite direction. There is no mathematical reason to choose left to right because multiplication is commutative, but most calculators are designed that way.

>>4077437
why are you so adamant about believing the only possible thing that can be outside a universe is another universe? theres really no reason to believe this unless they collect more evidence (such as the patterns they do know of increasing at a similar rate to our universes expansion)

>>4077452

Not sure who you think I am, but I never mentioned infinity in this thread; i conceded to nothing.

>>4077459
by posting in this thread you concede to his premise, otherwise why would you be trying to disprove what he said?

>>4077373

It doesn't "heavily increase the possibility of an omnipotent being" since the idea is literally NONSENSICAL.

You might as well say "it heavily increases the possibility of a Hexagonal 4 sided cube".

>>4077457

Because it fits with a vast number of things, such as Quantum Theory and Eternal Inflation. There's more sound hypothetical reasoning to believe it's an alternate universe than anything else.

>>4077459
OP:
"If an infinite number of alternate universes exists"

I:
"a) There is an uncountable number of universes, with each one running on a different set of rules
i) There is a universe where the equivelant of 1 plus the equivelant of 2 is not the equivelant of 3.
ii) i) violates logic, so it cannot be true.
iii) If i) is not true, then there is not an infinite number of universes for every set of rules."

You:
"It's unlikely that there an infinite amount of alternate universes, (...) [it] is likely a sub-infinite amount of alternate universes"

>>4077464

You aren't understanding this whole "different laws of nature" thing. Literally nothing from our universe might apply, including math, geometric shapes, etc. A being that could exist in all space in the universe (omnipresent) and has the ability to manipulate anything in its universe (omnipotent) would be more than plausible with altered rules.

>>4077469
>>4077471

>>4077469

To be honest, it makes no sense to claim
"There is a universe where the equivelant of 1 plus the equivelant of 2 is not the equivelant of 3." since such results are the results of applications of axiomatic rules derived from linguistic and grammatical constructions, not physical reality outside of those constructions.

Not to mention that there can be an infinite amount of universes with such slight deviations as to be scarcely different from our universe except in scale and size as opposed to some magical LSD warping of common physical laws.

>>4077471

It would be more plausible only in the sense that we are opening the ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF PROPOSITIONAL STATEMENTS to realization. The possibility of God would have to compete with an infinite amount of other propositional statements AGAINST ITS EXISTENCE.

>>4077479

Which is why humans should be grateful for SCIENCE which actually allows us to gain some useful knowledge about reality rather than the solipsistic trap of features of our language.

>>4077479

Which is why it's only POSSIBLE, not certain. Also, arguments against an omnipotent being generally only work with our universal laws.

And keep in mind I'm arguing the existence of an omnipotent being, not a christian/any other religious God; just a being that may resemble God.

If God is omnipresent, then he exists in all universes or he doesn't exist at all. Saying he's omnipresent in some limited section of universes is moronic.

>>4077481

>Also, arguments against an omnipotent being generally only work with our universal laws.

What are you taking about? You are discussing this alternate universe, of which we have no idea of its propositions, and claiming that the number of propositions FOR the existence of this being is more than the propositions AGAINST the existence of this being. Which is absurd since we are dealing with a wholly propositional world, both statements have an infinite amount of propositions backing them up. The "possibility" of either is indeterminable until we actually get some SCIENTIFIC knowledge of this "universe".

>>4077484

That's actually a very good point. In that case, the being could not be omnipresent, but could easily exist throughout an entire universe, and to any other beings living in that universe that doesn't know the existence of alternate universes, it would appear omnipresent.

>>4077487

I misunderstood you, and you are in fact exactly right. Although, everything you said still allows for the possibility.

Regarding scientific evidence, we will most likely have that within a few years. The Planck satellite is currently being used to search for the secondary cold spot noted in >>4077437
However, actually understanding the universe and its laws will likely prove impossible, unless transmission between two universes proves possible.

>>4077490

Which brings us full-circle to the main problem of talking about God. The term is undefined, people simply apply whatever definition suits their argument. Whenever someone says, "I believe in God", your first question ought to be, "Which God?" Make them define what exactly they mean by God, and the concept is easily refuted. Let them wiggle around and say shit like "Well, maybe God ISN'T omnipresent afterall, but its still totally the same exact concept and totally proves the Bible is true" will just lead you to endless futile head-desking.

>>4077518

Which is why I tried to make it known that I am arguing the existent of a (reasonably) omnipotent being, and that this in no way helps proving the existence of any human-designed God.

there has to be a god, i have to believe my own failures and short comings have a purpose.

..actually its like prison, nobody gets sent to prison for being innocent.

is there a prison universe?
if so god would be the parole officer.
but without knowing my crime id probably not get very far.

cheaper than therapy.

Hey /sci/,

If there was a God, can't there be a God?

Just sayin.

>>4077530
>there has to be a god, i have to believe my own failures and short comings have a purpose.


As long as you, to some extent) realize that reasoning is bullshit and completely unscientific, then go for it. It's not my job to refute other people's beliefs as long as they realize they are unscientific and in your case constructed out of fear of your own psyche.

>>4077526

A description so vague as to be useless. You'd need a lot more than that. For instance, does this "being" have a sense of self? Does it know and care about our existence? Is it possible, even in theory, for any factual evidence of this being to be found? Etc etc, I'm not actually asking you to answer, since I don't really care. Arguing with the religious is worse than pointless, its both a waste of time AND a source of annoyance.

>>4077537

my reasoning is something a little like this, once you break there is no going back,
people get through life being "broken" by not realising it.. and they sometimes do very well for themselves.

unfortunately the moment you realise you are broke it breaks the world.
at that very instant you realise that there has to be a god.. unfortunately its also the moment you realise thats what its gonna take to fix things lol.

>>4077530

Believing in something because it makes you feel good may be the most honest reason you could give. Most people arrive at their conclusions by purely non-rational, emotional reasons, and THEN use their reason and logic to construct coherent arguments in support of their beliefs. Skipping the second part will save you from a great deal of the self-doubt and buttpain the religious normally encounter when facts contradict their fantasies.

>>4077544

I never said I believed in any religion.

I suppose a lot can be cleared up by changing the definition to a highly evolved, extremely powerful extraterrestrial that the native population of the alternate universe would worship as a deity.

>Is it possible, even in theory, for any factual evidence of this being to be found?
Probably not, considering the idea of traveling between universes is extremely implausible. However, that in no way falsifies the possibility of the aforementioned being.

>>4077530

LOL. Why not have a purpose in NOT BEING A SLAVE?

How other healthier men would mock if such insolence of faux-modesty arose in their breasts!

>nobody gets sent to prison for being innocent.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Crimes" are created by the judgement of those with power in a society.

>>4077277

God INSIDE a universe? HAHAHA

I don't think one of those words means what you think it means.

>>4077490

It "allows for that possibility" but in a field of infinity, the notion of "possibilities" becomes absurdly useless.

>>4077561
>I suppose a lot can be cleared up by changing the definition to a highly evolved, extremely powerful extraterrestrial that the native population of the alternate universe would worship as a deity.

A world away from any conception of God found in religions. Yes, I would say there's a very high chance such a being exists, hell we may ourselves fill such a role if we ever get into space and meet more primitive alien cultures. I don't see why you'd even need to posit multiple realities for such a position, our own universe could very easily contain such beings right now.

>>4077561
>However, that in no way falsifies the possibility of the aforementioned being.

There is a race of giants living in my nose. Prove me wrong.

Why is my claim ridiculous, while your (equally counter-intuitive and unfalsifiable) claim is somehow meant to be taken seriously?

No.

If you calculate 2+2 an infinite number of times, the answer will always be 4 every time. Even with infinite alternate universes they still must abide by laws of physics.

Now prove infinite alternate universes exist.

>>4077595
>Even with infinite alternate universes they still must abide by laws of physics.

In no way would physical laws of another universe have to identical to our own.

>Now prove infinite alternate universes exist.
You should probably read the whole thread. There is continually mounting evidence of (non-infinite) alternate universes mounting. It is not conclusive, but it is more than enough to be taken seriously.

>>4077604
>In no way would physical laws of another universe have to identical to our own.

Mathematics is not a physical law.

>>4077611
It's the study of the quantity, space, structure, and change, all of which somehow depend on physical law.

If an infinite number of toilet paper exist, is it possible God used some of them to wipe his butt?

no but prolly what you see in the 10th dimension are real alien beings

>>4077619

No it isn't. It's the manipulation of symbols within a logical framework. Reality has nothing to do with it (beyond the obvious brains are real part). Math is about finding patterns, that some of those patterns seem to correspond accurately to reality certainly suggests there is some relationship between the two, but the ontological gap is unbridgeable.

>>4077595

it would prove god exists, it would prove an exactly created world an infinite amount of time.

so any speculation on the universe being created by luck or chance would go right out the window.

in essence science is the best proof of the existence of god, you know how it works you just dont admit somebody took the time to iron out the kinks.

inb4 evolution.

>>4077667
>it would prove god exists

No it wouldn't you retard.

See
>>4077480
>>4077479
>>4077477
>>4077572