/sci/ - Science & Math

>creationist theory

>theory

fuck off

>>4987728
Way to miss the point of this thread. Does the word "creationist", "God", etc. really upset you this much?

Regardless of what the origins of the universe are, I'm asking if there's any empirical evidence to suggest why things are made as they are.

There is no meaning, if that's what you're asking.

Simple.

Jesus made it with his love. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a Satan worshipper trying to trick you

>>4987739
>why things are made as they are.

>implying things are made

>implying there's a creator

Okay, you're a creationist.

End of thread.

well, if you are gonna look at it in an abstract sense - i personally believe it's all just happen-chance. i think it could've been an infinite amount of other ways life as we know it ended up, different laws of physics so on and so forth.

in regards to why? every question we answer leaves us with that many more unanswered questions, and humans will never truly be able to 100% understand the universe

>>4987746
You're quite dense, aren't you? Pick any word in the english language you want, "made", "created", "siphoned", "built", "configured".

>>4987741
Essentially yes, but it's too much of a leap in logic to conclude that any other theoretical configuration would carry any sort of meaning.

>>4987754

>made
>created
>built

>all imply a creator

0/10

>>4987761
>nitpicks at words on 4chan and thinks he's smart

fuck this board, no one wants to have an actual discussion.

Chaos.

Why denotes meaning.

>>4987761
>all imply a creator

Because if it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here to experience it? Things are the way the are, because they just are. "It" is just it.

The question, "what is the meaning of life/existence" is in itself meaningless.

>>4987777
Sometimes it's worthwhile to ask such questions.
It's good for the mind to question its own existence. Could be argued that's how we are sentient in the first place.

>>4987798

The problem with looking too closely is that you'll never get a clear definition and it would be wasted time when you could play off your hedonism.

Who said we were sentient?

>>4987802
>when you could play off your own hedonism
But what if wondering so much about it is how I self-indulge?

>Who said we were sentient?
What do you mean? We are not able to feel or perceive things?

>>4987802
>Who said we are sentient

Perfect example of the pseudo-intellectualism that floats around 4chan

>>4987871
Go ahead and prove that "we" are sentient. You can't even prove that you are sentient. "Sentient" is an untestable, unscientific metaphysical bullshit concept and belongs to >>>/x/

>>4987824
>>4987871

>implying subjective experiences exist
>implying QUALIA


>>>/x/
>>>/b/

Pretty sure it's the topology of the hyper-dimensional universe

>>4987899
Yes, being aware of your own existence and having sensory input sure is a "bullshit concept". Get the fuck out and never come back.

>>4987920
Can you please prove that I'm "aware" (whatever that is supposed to mean)?

>>4987920
>being aware of your own existence

[citation needed]

>>4987906
>>4987899

>>4987924
Are you not? Because it sure seems like it, you neurotic fuck.

>>4987924
You need to change trip again dude. Everyone already updated their filters.

>>4987928
Of course I'm rightfully annoyed by people forcing unscientific bullshit on this board. /sci/ is for science and math. Pseudo-science, religion and spiritualism go to >>>/x/

>>4987928
>>4987934
>>4987937

I'm tired of these pseudo-scientific morons coming here with whatever idea they just shat out in a moment of colossal ignorance, thinking that they somehow managed to think outside the box that thousands of scientists are, according to their idiotic world view, trapped in. If you haven't studied the physics behind your dumbfuckery then don't post it on /sci/, because you just pollute the board and look like an idiot.
>thought experiment
You have no idea what that word means in science. Spoiler: It doesn't mean posting inane drivel.
Why don't you fuck off to /b/? You come here to NOT discuss science. Did you ever consider that /sci/ might not be the right board for you? This is /sci/ - science and math. Shitposting goes to /b/.
You are the shitposter, you are the problem. Stop posting and the quality improves.

>>4987713
Let me give you a perspective on an atheist with undergrad in math and physics.

Science cannot answer any of these questions. We can create models that explain large parts of the observable universe, but we cannot explain why the universe follows these models and not some other models.

That said, science can say a few things about theology. For example the "everything has a cause" argument seems wrong from the perspective of a physicist, because causality is a physical notion, not a logical one. Therefore to a physicist, "what cause the universe" is a meaningless question since without the universe there is no physics and therefore no causality. On the other hand the way you phrase things ("why do things exist as they do") makes sense, and again, science has no answer. The existence of the universe is, and perhaps will always be, a mystery to atheists.

I don't put much weight behind arguments like the following, but here was my train of thought when on the matter of why stuff exists.

Why does our universe exist? Why not nothing? Well, what is "nothing"? I suppose one can conceive of "nothing" but starting with something and subtracting the distinct attributes of that something. Starting with the universe. Subtract all matter, electromagnetic fields, gravitation, weak and strong nuclear forces... what is left? "Nothing" is left in that there are no longer any physical laws dictating anything. "Nothing" isn't the absence of something, but an absence of restrictions. If there are no restrictions in this alternative "nothingness" then then why wouldn't EVERYTHING exist? Every logically possible system, every assemblage laws, should exist, and there is no reason to believe it doesn't.

If simple explanations are preferable, then the simplest possible states of the "universe" (in the largest scope of the word) would consist of either nothing or everything. Any state in between the two would require additional explanation as to why some possible systems exist and not others. We know something exists, therefore the simplest possible and thus preferred explanation for existence is that all possible systems exist.

>>4987944
No I'm speaking with regard to your painful love of paraphrasing Wikipedia, insulting people or playing semantics when they ask a legit question, or just trolling threads you don't think are science enough.

We do not need you to police sci, we do not need you to read Wikipedia for us.

>>4987944
>neurosis confirmed.

>>4987957
>implying "hurr what if god?" is a legit question on a science board

0/10

>>4987944
You don't understand why people come on 4chan.

>>4987970
And you don't understand why there are different boards on 4chan. If you come here for shitposting, do it on the random board and not here.

>>4987952
(further thoughts)
The vast majority of possible systems would be extremely complex, but our universe doesn't seem extremely complex. In the same way some forces only seem to operate on certain scales, like the expansion of the universe only affecting things on a very large scales and strong and weak nuclear forces only affecting things on very small scales, not all laws within any one system would be relevant on all scales or at all times (I suppose a less colloquial yet more accurate word for scale and time would be "dimension"). In some cases there would be a near infinite number of laws dictating reality while within this chaotic maelstrom there would be islands of reality that would only be relevantly affected by a few laws, much like our own.

So, our the Big Bang might be a part of a much larger universe with an infinite number of laws both above and below us in scale. Basically, the rabbit hole has no end, neither at the top or bottom.

>>4987995
(closing thoughts)
This line of reasoning doesn't change anything. It simply answers the question "WHY does this universe exist" and leaves us with the task of discovering HOW the mechanization of reality function in our little corner of the multiverse.

>>4987924
see: descartes, accomplished scientist, mathematician and father of modern philosophy

>>4988008
"Little" is a hell of an understatement there.
But bravo.

>>4988022
>descartes said it, so it must be right

Cool story.

>>4988026

Hi, Hun!

>>4987995
>>4988008

>multiverse

Confirmed for pseudoscientific fuckwit.

The universe includes all that exists, by definition. The very concept of multiple universes is contradictory.

>>4988026
>missing the point so hard he couldn't find it with a map
No wonder there's so much animosity towards you around here.

>>4988092
>also uses the term "fuckwit"
Am I in hell?

>>4988212
Where's le problem, Mr Samefag? Argument from authority is a fallacy and you know it.

>Why do things exist as they do? Why do atoms compose everything? Why is there life on this planet? Why is there a planet to begin with? Why would it be surrounded by space? Why does anything exist as it does?
Hardly any of those questions are scientific. Life exists on Earth because the conditions here were proper for life to form.
The planet formed as a result of gravitational pull of the matter composing it.
The rest of the questions are either philosophical or misguided.

>>4988092
Read my namesake post and calm down, dude. I already said my argument doesn't amount to much. It's just some thoughts I had on the matter.

>>4988092
>The universe includes all that exists, by definition. The very concept of multiple universes is contradictory.

"Universe", like many words, has multiple meanings. So does "multiverse". Furthermore, we use the word "universe" to refer to every physical thing we currently know about and we may use it to refer to any physical thing we have yet to discover, but if it turns out there is a LOT more to reality than what we currently see and understand then it may be useful to use the word "universe" for the metaphorical crater of the Big Bang and call the greater reality beyond something else.

>Why do things exist as they do?
dunno
>Why do atoms compose everything?
dunno
>Why is there life on this planet?
bcos evolution innit
>Why is there a planet to begin with?
gravity, accretion ets
>Why would it be surrounded by space?
Well if it was surronded by rock it would just be a larger planet m8
>Why does anything exist as it does?
dunno
>Why is the universe configured as it is, rather than something else?
Dunno
>How does the Big Bang or any creationist theory explain this?
they don't claim to

Life is pretty much absrud, nonsensical, weird, strange bla bla mate u just gotta chill innit relax go with the flow bruv

>>4988415
I agree.