/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11669176]

Why haven't more people adopted the belief that the Universe is cyclical in nature? The idea that it functions as a closed system in an eternal state of flux is the only thing that makes sense to me. The notion that there was a beginning and will be an end is downright idiotic.

[Anonymous No.11669182]

>>11669176
>The notion that there was a beginning and will be an end is downright idiotic.
lol who the fuck cares what your worthless monkey brain interprets reality to be there is only beauty in death eternity has no value infinity is worthless

[Anonymous No.11669185]

>>11669176
You have a fully Native European mindset. Congratulations OP, your mind is noticeably un-infected by Jewish toxins.

This reminds me of the people who believe "0.999... (an infinite amount of 9s) equals 1.

Regarding that: their inability to comprehend that ".999..." isn't the same as "1" is directly tied to their inability to grasp eternity and infinity. Their minds have basically been programmed to believe eternity and infinity are impossibilities. Over the course of many generations of indoctrination into an alien worldview, their parents and their parents etc gradually "learned" to be unable to comprehend it and this "learned disability" was inherited, and encouraged/fueled by various external factors from the echoing modern culture.

So basically, they're mentally damaged.

This difficulty they have with eternity/infinity shows up in many different fields, from math to astrophysics.

This mental handicap is inherited directly from the (((Abrahamic))) religions, more specifically (((Christianity))) for us Westernerns. In it's origin, the inability to understand infinity and eternity is 100% Judaic in thought/philosophy. In contrast, the non-Jewish man; the Pagan man, at least the /European/ Pagan man, never had any problem with infinity and eternity. (((Christianity))) introduced into the minds of people the idea of life and the world/universe being linear, starting from point A and ending at a point B, whereas in the Native European worldview everything is an infinite circle.

That's why many people today can't understand that .999 repeating forever will never reach 1 - they refuse to accept the idea of an infinite/eternal repetition. Saying "it's 1" is their method of escaping from the uncomfortable (and to them insurmountable) challenge which the concept of infinity/eternity is to their Judaically-induced mental disease.

[Anonymous No.11669189]

>>11669185
https://files.catbox.moe/bredcm.webm
https://files.catbox.moe/tthc1f.mp4

[Anonymous No.11669191]

>>11669182
Value and beauty are matters of perception.

You're a moron. Please don't shit up this thread anymore with your idiocy.

[Anonymous No.11669197]

>>11669182
>lol who the fuck cares what your worthless monkey brain interprets reality to be there is only beauty in death eternity has no value infinity is worthless

[Anonymous No.11669199]

>>11669185
Are you the same guy who posted this last time?

The anti-Semitic stuff leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I suppose your take on it isn't far-fetched.

[Anonymous No.11669201]

>>11669191
i guess it is pretty close minded to believe there is only value and beauty in darkness and despair but it certainly adds to the beauty and value from my perception if this is a 1 shot deal that is never to happen again also fuck you stupid moron cunt you're a moron

[Anonymous No.11669218]

>>11669201
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that those abstract concepts are based on mere perception. However, there's another problem with your perception.

>but it certainly adds to the beauty and value from my perception if this is a 1 shot deal that is never to happen again
Obviously you won't have any recollection of your previous lives, dimwit.

[Anonymous No.11669235]

>lol who the fuck cares what your worthless monkey brain interprets reality to be there is only beauty in death eternity has no value infinity is worthless
Ladies and gentlemen, that is a prime example of a Jewish mindset. This anon >>11669182 is thoroughly poisoned by the Jewish worldview. His mind is damaged beyond repair. Well, he could also simply be a Jew - in which case he himself /is/ the poison (and his mind already damaged in the womb).

[Anonymous No.11669239]

>>11669199
I guess you want me to cool it with the antisemitism, right? Don't worry, it's already cool.

[Anonymous No.11669279]

>>11669239
I mean, it's just kinda silly and superficial. Jews have contributed a great deal of valuable things to maths and the sciences.

I can't think of any Jewish scientists who subscribe to cyclic models of the universe, but I'm sure they're out there. The only notable scientists I can think of off the top of my head are Roger Penrose and Max Tegmark.

[Anonymous No.11669537]

>>11669176
You're not allowed to have a differing opinion because it would undermine 100 years of scientific "progress". The prophets of the big bang have cornered the market and have too much money at stake to let it go.

[Anonymous No.11669574]

chris langan had the same idea in the CTMU

http://infolab.ho.ua/Langan_CTMU_092902(1).pdf

[Anonymous No.11669611]

>>11669537
It's not entirely incompatible with certain concepts of the big bang, though. "The Big Bang" is a massively idiotic name, though.

I think most notable scientists refer to it as an inflationary period now. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.11669634]

>>11669574
Ok, based on the small part of this that I read, it seems reasonable. But, since I'm not gonna read all of it right now, can you give me the highlights?

I always thought Langan was a dumbass with a high IQ desu

[Anonymous No.11669847]

>>11669634
>Because of the condition that reality must evolve in a way parallel to the logical evolution of the theory that describes it – that is, by logical substitution – the CTMU depicts reality in terms of a logical nesting of states. The operative model, USRE (Universe as a Self-Representational Entity), is the “conspansive dual” of the ERSU (Expanding Rubber-Sheet Universe) model of standard cosmology. In ERSU, local space and time scales remain constant while the universe expands. In USRE, local space and time scales shrink while the universe remains constant in extent, and do so in a way that can look from a local, internal vantage like accelerating cosmic expansion. By the way in which it internalizes space and time scales, USRE supports certain distinctions between the forward and reverse directions of time that ERSU does not support; these explain the arrow of time. But by the same token, USRE says that the universe will not end until its self-actualization is complete, and that if and when this occurs, it will occur (from a global perspective) at the precise instant that the universe began to evolve in the first place. More precisely, concepts like the “beginning” and “end” of the universe are meaningful only when interpreted within the universe itself, which is actually timeless from a global perspective.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180727055335/http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Time.html
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Reality
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Conspansion

[Anonymous No.11669854]

>>11669185
Lol .99999... = 1 fags blown the fuck out, Jesus

[Anonymous No.11669871]

>>11669847
Holy fuck, this is pretty much exactly how I conceptualized it.

Langan is still a rube, though.

[Anonymous No.11669889]

>>11669847
>But by the same token, USRE says that the universe will not end until its self-actualization is complete, and that if and when this occurs, it will occur (from a global perspective) at the precise instant that the universe began to evolve in the first place
>Began to evolve
No

A beginning requires a first cause. And a first cause is illogical. There is no fucking way around it.

[Anonymous No.11669955]

We're really at this bs again?

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...

10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
× = 1

x = 1
x = 0.999...
0.999... = 1

[Anonymous No.11669972]

>>11669176
>>Because of the condition that reality must evolve in a way parallel to the logical evolution of the theory that describes it – that is, by logical substitution – the CTMU depicts reality in terms of a logical nesting of states. The operative model, USRE (Universe as a Self-Representational Entity), is the “conspansive dual” of the ERSU (Expanding Rubber-Sheet Universe) model of standard cosmology. In ERSU, local space and time scales remain constant while the universe expands. In USRE, local space and time scales shrink while the universe remains constant in extent, and do so in a way that can look from a local, internal vantage like accelerating cosmic expansion. By the way in which it internalizes space and time scales, USRE supports certain distinctions between the forward and reverse directions of time that ERSU does not support; these explain the arrow of time. But by the same token, USRE says that the universe will not end until its self-actualization is complete, and that if and when this occurs, it will occur (from a global perspective) at the precise instant that the universe began to evolve in the first place. More precisely, concepts like the “beginning” and “end” of the universe are meaningful only when interpreted within the universe itself, which is actually timeless from a global perspective.

[Anonymous No.11669992]

>>11669955
The mathematical gymnastics is pathetic

[Anonymous No.11670028]

>>11669992
It's an incredibly simple algebraic process to determine that 0.999... = 1.

[Anonymous No.11671391]

Blump

[Anonymous No.11671438]

>>11669847
A bunch of meaningless gibberish.

>That is, reality consists of (1) perceptions, and (2) all relevant supporting structure. For example, if you see an apple fall from a tree, your perception of the apple qualifies as real by (1), while the law of gravity that caused the apple to fall qualifies as real by (2).

The apple is real. Perceptions and laws are concepts that don't exist. If I can't see or touch the apple, does it no longer exist? Observation has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.11671710]

>>11671438
>If I can't see or touch the apple, does it no longer exist?
Objectively yes, it doesn't exist.
The universe did not exist until there was at least one conscious being there to perceive. Perception IS existence. And I don't mean this in a quantum mechanics way.

[Anonymous No.11671725]

>>11669176
"muh cyclical universe" is a sire sign of a crackpot and a lesser mind

everything has a beginning and an end, entropy is king

[Anonymous No.11671830]

>>11671710
You don't know this. The fact that you're so certain about it is telling.

You're essentially saying that nothing exists beyond your perception

[Anonymous No.11671853]

>>11669176
It goes against God

[Anonymous No.11671876]

>>11671853
I think this is probably what it comes down to.

[Anonymous No.11671909]

>>11671710
How are you defining objective?

Objective: observer independent
Exist: something somewhere (object w/ location)

The apple either exists or it doesn't. If all intelligent life in the universe is wiped out by a virus, the apple doesn't vanish into thin air. I don't see how a conscious being's perception can be objective. We're limited by our sensory system in what we can perceive.

[Anonymous No.11671930]

>>11669847
Langan is a fucking dumbass

>at the precise instant that the universe began to evolve in the first place
>began to evolve
Lol

[Anonymous No.11671942]

If you accept that
1. All numbers can be represented by infinite decimal expansions in the form of a function f: N->{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, ".", "-"}, (for example, 0.99999... is the function f(0)=0, f(1)=. , f(2)=9, f(3)=9, f(n)=9 for all n>3 . 1 can be represented by g(0)=1, g(1)=., g(2)=g(3)=... = g(n) = 0). A sequence is valid if it has at most one "-" in front and exactly one "." somewhere in the sequence. We assume that every valid representation determines a unique number but not necessarily that every number has a unique decimal representation (for this is what we will want to disprove).
2. You can do arithmetic on numbers in expected ways.
Then you are forced to have
0.9999....=1
Proof:
By comparing each digit, we see that 1 is not less than 0.999....
Now subtract the two numbers (which you can do by assumption 2)
1-0.999... = x >= 0
As every number can be represented by an infinite decimal expansion (assumption 1), there is a sequence of digits for x.
If there are any nonzero digits of x after the dot ".", there is a first nonzero digit and it has a well-defined natural number position N. But clearly that cannot be, since then it would mean that x is bigger than some fraction 1/10^N. Thus every digit of x must be zero and so x itself is zero.
So 1-0.999... = 0
now again, by assumption 2., you can add 0.999... to both sides to get
0.999... = 1
QED

[Anonymous No.11671946]

>>11671942
Possible objections you might have:
1. Not all numbers have a sequential decimal expansion of the form f:N->{digits}. Evidently, an expression like 0.0...1 cannot be made into such a sequence because for every position in a natural sequence there are finitely many terms coming before it.
To make sense of an expression like 0.0...1 rigorously, you could instead define it as an ordinal sequence f:(w+1)->digits. w+1 is ordinal obtained by taking the natural numbers and adding one element to the end that is larger than every other element. (Look up ordinals here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number))
So 0.0....1 could be interpreted as f(0)=0, f(1)=".", f(2)=...=f(n)=0 and f(w)=1.
Now the problem still arises because not only you've gained a lot more numbers in this way, they would not be considered to be numbers by mathematicians because you cannot add, subtract them.
To illustrate this:
What's 10* 0.0...1? Intuitively, we shift the decimal point by 1 (do you have other suggestions?). But that would result in exactly the same representation, hence the same number 0.0...1! And we cannot have that because if 10*0.0...1 = 0.0...1, subtracting 0.0...1 we find 9*0.0...1=0 and so if we assume 0.0...1!=0, we can divide by it to find a blatant contradiction 9=0. So we see that even allowing nonstandard decimal sequences doesn't solve the problem: we need to be able to do arithmetic on numbers in expected ways and assuming 0.99...!=1 always leads us to a contradiction!
2. Not all numbers have decimal representations. In that case, there's not a lot to say here on my part except to ask what do you mean by a number then? Because in all these discussions a prevaling implicit assumption has been that numbers mostly ARE their decimal representations. "What's 0.999..? Obviously it's the number you get by writing 0 and 9999 repeating": there is no notion that it's just a notation that represents some number: it's a number itself.
cont.

[Anonymous No.11671948]

>>11671946
<cont.>
So if you believe not all numbers have decimal representations, please provide your own definition of a number. I assume by numbers you don't mean equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts, because in those formulations 0.999... = 1 is a trivial theorem.
3. You cannot do arithmetic in expected ways on all the numbers. In that case, there is nothing left to argue about, it's all just a matter of a definition of what you mean by numbers. For me and most mathematicians, numbers are something you can add, subtract, multiply (although not necessarily divide in themselves, e.g. the integers are not closed under division). Although, appealing to commons sense, in what sense are your numbers "real" if you cannot even add, subtract, multiply them?

That's it for now.

[Anonymous No.11672053]

>>11671948
Number 3 is a sufficient objection. Math is simply a tool devised by humans to model the world around us. When taken literally you can prove all kinds of nonsense. See Zeno's Dichotomy paradox.

[Anonymous No.11672068]

>>11669176
it is impossible to know.