/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10434008]

How do you cope with death?
Some day you will wake up for the last time

[Anonymous No.10434013]

>>10434008
I wish this will come soon, I can't build muscle, I'm tired of life

[Anonymous No.10434056]

>>10434013
Whatever you do, do not kill yourself, death will come to you anyways

[Anonymous No.10434059]

we won't know what death is until we know what consciousness is.

Once we can fully consciousness, we can also fully explain death, but until then, think of how you felt before you where born (nothing)

[Anonymous No.10434061]

>>10434056
Don't listen to this faggot. Do it and livestream it.

[Anonymous No.10434071]

The Lord

[Anonymous No.10434073]

>>10434059
Maybe we were alive but without consciousness before we were born
Maybe we were another lifeform but forgot because our past conscioussness was destroyed with our past brain

I don't think it will solve anything

>>10434061
Why?

[Anonymous No.10434079]

>>10434073
>Maybe we were another lifeform but forgot because our past conscioussness was destroyed with our past brain
What the fuck are you on about?
Don't even start with all the bullshit Argument from ignorance type shit.

Can you *prove* anything you just said?

[Anonymous No.10434099]

>>10434079
What part of "maybe" don't you understand?
Most of people on earth believe we were created by a God who will send you to hell if you fap
Life doesn't make any sense and no I can't prove shit

[Anonymous No.10434114]

>>10434008
The end is a beginning. The beginning is something elses end.

[Anonymous No.10434116]

>>10434099
>and no I can't prove shit
No, but you can prove how earth was made, how the sun works, predict the momentum of a rock in space & pretty much explain the entire universe. Anything we can't explain now, I bet we can in the future.
To believe in a god is fucking stupid. There is not even remotely as much proof for that as there is to all other theories

[Anonymous No.10434131]

>>10434116
We can explain pretty much how everything works, maybe not everything for now but we will at some point
But we can't explain why it works that way or why it even exists

To believe in god is stupid yes, saying God doesn't exist without proof is pretty stupid too
The only answer is we don't know
We could be living in a simulation made by beings living in your anus for all I know

[Anonymous No.10434137]

>>10434131
>To believe in god is stupid yes, saying God doesn't exist without proof is pretty stupid too
I agree.
Agnostic atheism.
>But we can't explain why it works that way or why it even exists
No but we couldn't do that with lightning back in the day. We claimed it was the gods being angry (at least in Scandinavia), until we found out it was purely electrical charges happening in the sky.
We can't explain it now, but we can explain a ton of it, and at some point I'm sure we can we able to explain it all.

The fact we even know it's there is more proof than we have of god.

[Anonymous No.10434142]

>>10434137
>>10434131
>We could be living in a simulation
And no.
Every time we as humans get a new technology we always try to force the meaning of life in to it.
"Oh hey we can run simulations now, maybe we are in a simulation!"
"Oh hey we can make steam machines now! Maybe the world is just one big machine"
"Oh hey we can dream! Maybe it's all just a big dream"
Like come on. That's stupid

[Anonymous No.10434156]

>>10434008
I don't give a shit when it comes it comes

[Anonymous No.10434162]

>>10434137
You don't get me, maybe because my english is bad so I'll give you examples :
We do know that light travel at 300000Km/s (approx)
We don't know why this is the limit or what made it to be the limit

We know that atoms and subatomic particles exists, we don't know why either
We know that the universe exists, and approximately how it works, but we don't know why it exists

>>10434142
How do you know that you aren't the only true living being in the universe?
The rest of the world could be simulated for you and you alone
You can't prove that the next person you meet has a consiousness, you can't prove this isn't the result of a Matrioshka brain type computer because we will be able to simulate realities as complex as ours with this kind of tech

>>10434156
That's the spirit

[Anonymous No.10434211]

>>10434162
>We do know <x>
>We don't know why
No but go 300 years back and we knew <y> but we didn't know why <y> was a thing until we found <x>. Now we are in a similar position. We now just know <x> but need to know why <x> is as it is.
There is 100% a reason for it, we just haven't figured it out yet.

and
>How do you know that you aren't the only true living being in the universe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Anonymous No.10434220]

>>10434211
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You are falling for this same fallacy yourself.

>>10434162
Don't waste your time, he doesn't get it. At least one epiphany behind.

[Anonymous No.10434226]

>>10434220
stop samefagging.
And
>You are falling for this same fallacy yourself.
difference is, that one shows rapid development in terms of "proof", whereas the other has made zero development

[Anonymous No.10434228]

>>10434211
I get what you're saying
You think that at some point we will also understand how the universe was created and why
I really hope we will, that's the dream of every scientist or non religious person

But that doesn't make any sense, what you don't get is that there isn't a logic answer to everything

>>10434226
I'm not
>>10434220

[Anonymous No.10434230]

>>10434228
>what you don't get is that there isn't a logic answer to everything
If not logic, what is then?
Because logic is all we got as of now

[Anonymous No.10434234]

>>10434230
Do you think that if we find another intelligent and civilized lifeform, that their logic MUST be the same as ours? That pretty stupid

[Anonymous No.10434241]

>>10434234
>Do you think that if we find another intelligent and civilized lifeform, that their logic MUST be the same as ours? That pretty stupid
of course not. Our logic got developed through evolution!
But that dosen't mean that our logic isn't valid.
I'm not sure math is the best way to measure it all, but it's the best tool for our logic.
Even if their logic is different, it dosen't change how the universe works, they might just have different tools to measure it, but they might just reach the same conclusions

[Anonymous No.10434253]

>>10434241
We think the universe works one way but it could be working in a way we have no idea about
Our definition of life itself could be wrong

[Anonymous No.10434258]

>>10434253
>We think the universe works one way but it could be working in a way we have no idea about
It most certainly could! But so far our theories have proven to work quite well! So I doubt they are that wrong if we can prove they are right with our calculations!
But questioning that is like questioning the entire front of reality, which is also an interesting topic but more just speculation than actual theories.

>Our definition of life itself could be wrong
sure it could! But it could also be right!
so far our definition seems to hold up quite well though

[Anonymous No.10434275]

>>10434013
To build muscle, stop 4chan and please go out

[Anonymous No.10434285]

>>10434258
>So I doubt they are that wrong if we can prove they are right with our calculations!
They say that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old because that is the distance to the CMB. However, consider a diver in the ocean using the Doppler shift of the current to compute the distance to the blue wall he sees at the distance of the mean free path of the photons in sea water. If he said, "Because of the distance to this blue wall, I can tell the ocean is about 30 nanoseconds old," we would know he was being retarded. With regards to the age of the universe, we have reason to at least suspect that the estimated age of the universe is based on some retarded assumptions. Honestly, there is A LOT of handwaving is the interpretations of the cosmological data. The data is really solid in most cases but the preferred interpretation is usually sold as if it is as solid as the data itself but that a categorical misconception.

I have a fairly well-reasoned critique of the major issues in modern cosmology in section 4.1 of my book (which is free.)
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

[Anonymous No.10434290]

>>10434013
I took a month break from /sci/ and you're still here, fucking give it up already.

[Anonymous No.10434308]

>>10434285
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
Op here
I think I lack the necessary knowledge to read and understand your book
Plus English is not my native language unfortunately

[Anonymous No.10434337]

>>10434285
But there has been many different theories & tests made to verify those theories.
I get that if it was just one theory without verification why you would be so critical, but since there are so many different theories it's hard to prove them wrong!
And regarding >a categorical misconception
I'm really not smart enough to say anything about that, but I'd love to read your book!
>(which is free)
That's a very noble thing to do! Thank you :)

[Anonymous No.10434435]

I write stories about people dying all the time and I've gotten used to it

[Anonymous No.10434443]

>>10434290
Help me

[Anonymous No.10434449]

>>10434443
no

[Anonymous No.10434467]

>>10434449
You are heartless.

[Anonymous No.10434469]

>>10434467
yes

[Anonymous No.10434494]

>>10434443
Help yourself anon, this world is ruthless