/sci/ - Science & Math

yes

Pro-tip: it was God.

>>8944173
More specifically, it was the prime-mover. An eternal actuality capable of actualizing itself through divine thought and the cosmos through circular movement

>>8944165
No, it all came from something. Something that was really hot/dense and exploded bout 14 billion years ago. The ultradense stuff still existed in an infinite universe.

>>8944382
>divine thought
bullshit detected

>>8944165
I personally think you just need three things: A thing, another thing and a reason to change the state of these things. Complexity can then be achieved by a combination of these two things, and the products of these things.

>nothing is impossible

This statement is actually meaningful in this context

>>8944165
There is no complexity. Everything is the same. It's just a delusion.

>>8944165
Symmetry has a habit of breaking. Nothingness is as perfectly symmetrical as you can get, and it duly broke. Put another way, all physical laws are corollaries of Murphy's Law.

Google: emergence

>>8944165
interesting
>http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0234

>>8944165
There was never a 'nothing'.

>>8944728
why does symmetry have a habit of breaking?

>>8944678
But couldn't something hot and dense emerge out of an absolute vacuum? How did the stuff always exist if, according to Stephen Hawking, time itself didn't always exist?

>>8944971
Don't hurt your brain thinking about it

>>8944165
Perhaps it was a grand separation of virtual particles despite extreme improbability. And now the universe will equalize until eventual heat death

>>8944173
Did god arise from absolute simplicity?

>>8945087
God has always been, if God has a cause then whatever caused it would be God.

I don't think current physics can provide an answer and it might not ever?

From a physics standpoint the universe is a paradox; it hasn't existed forever (heat death paradox), it cannot have been made from nothing (conservation violation) and anything pre dating it falls under the same two flaws.

So you have two options: An initial cause or eternal cycle that violates currently known laws of physics or a God (the same thing personified).
Now that doesn't mean the acceptance of a religion but the rejection of our current physical model as absolute.

>>8945146
The universe has always been, if the universehas a cause then whatever caused it would be the universe.

>>8945157
No sane physicist claims that our current model is THE model of the universe.

>>8944382
Prime mover is just another way of saying it was the fundamental forces. Speculating on their unobservable metaphysical origins doesn't seem like a very useful pursuit.

>>8945248
Prime mover implies intent or rather an intelligence behind the first move

>>8945171
This. God and universe will always be the same thing in a debate like this. Circular reasoning in its most classic.

>>8945146
G-d was born in 1980
>inb4 ayy lmao

>>8944910
Entropy. Duh.

none of this is real. we're in a simulation lol

>>8945455
The thing I don't get about entropy is how on earth did the singularity that caused the Big Bang ever form in the first place

>>8945041
What the fuck, why?

>>8944165
why do mods fail to delete these threads?

>>8945157
>Violating conservation
Okay

>>8945504
Entropy is a probabilistic law and not an absolute one

>>8945306
Except that I've seen the universe. A pretty fundamental difference.

>>8944165
>infinite complexity
No.
>Did this really all come from nothing?
No.

>>8945673
bcoz shill threads are source of clickbait revenue

>>8945950
Then why does heat death carry weight? I'm not being antagonistic I'm curious. If entropy isn't absolute why do we treat it as the absolute fate of te universe

>>8945676
Explain how it does not.

>>8945991
Entropy is disorder. But eventually even totally disordered systems will become ordered, just by probability.

If I generate random, million-digit numbers long enough, eventually one of them will contain the unicode representation of Hamlet.

>>8945997
I thought entropy could only ever increase? Or decrease, I forget, but one direction either way. Thus heat death means nothing else will ever happen, and /sci/ seems to state that as the accepted ultimate fate

Astrophysics was a mistake.

>>8944165
It's actually the opposite, according to Schrodinger's What is Life? - Absolute simplicity comes from the infinity complexity of the universe by a series of statistical thermodynamic relations.

>>8945994
>Conservation
Okay

Fixed.

Physics is not trying to figure out the universe.
It's about building a model that can predict the future accurately. Any ideas of the far past are worth even less than esoteric fortune telling.

>>8946087
Astrophysics is glorified trivia.

>>8944165
Define complexity.

>>8944720
this.>>8944711

>>8944711
>be literally nothing
>be nothing to prevent anything
>stuff happens

>be fully coherent

my bet is that the universe fundamentally adheres to very simple rules, but through a large number of elements those rules give rise to complex structures

Order spontaneously emerged from disorder, yes.

>>8944709
Why not a thing, another thing and that's all folks? Let fluctuations do their job

>>8945266
Prime means fundamental, or most important. Prime numbers doesn't mean intelligent numbers, it means the fundamental ones.

>>8948298
No "prime" in this case means "unmoved", which is the more common phrasing but can be used interchangeably.