/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14739782]

So, lets say we find the answers to everything. CERN finds the dark matter particle. JWST confirms it. The Standard Model is complete and correct and super-symmetry is in harmony with it.
The math for GUT checks out and we know why the big bang has happened. We can explain everything now.

What's next? Do all the scientist go home?

[Anonymous No.14740423]

answer me!

[Anonymous No.14740434]

They start work on genetically engineered anime catgirls

[Anonymous No.14740438]

>>14739782
Probably finding weird/interesting novelties.

[Anonymous No.14740439]

We all become engineers

[Anonymous No.14740517]

>>14739782
>We've answered all the questions that we have contained by our current paradigm
>Surely that wouldn't raise new questions about the state of the universe and force us to adjust our models accordingly
>What's that? Someone's found a flaw in our reasoning during the process? Our previous scientific worldview has been shattered?
>Say it isn't so

[Anonymous No.14740532]

>>14740423

[Anonymous No.14740573]

>>14739782
What caused the cause of the Big Bang?
What caused the cause of the cause of the Big Bang?
What caused the cause of the cause of the cause of the Big Bang?
etc.
Also, no matter how well the fundamentals of physics are understood, there will always be phenomena that are not trivially predicted by the fundamental theory. Akin to how understanding how a Turing machine works doesn't automatically give you infinite knowledge of every algorithm that can run on a Turing machine; that's not how math works.

[Anonymous No.14741604]

>>14740517
>>14740573
So we can never fully understand this universe? Is that what you're saying?

This seems opposed to current scientific achievements:
We know of all the geometric shapes and how to describe them.
We know of all the chemical elements and their properties.
Complex systems may be hard to understand at first but in due time we can work it out step by step.

I think it is very well possible that tomorrow we may read a headline that says "Dark matter particle found!" and in the time of a decade we can fully describe all the properties of the universe.

[Anonymous No.14741638]

>>14741604
Not true though

[Anonymous No.14741648]

>>14739782
Don't worry, human language, such as math, is far too rigid and imprecise for that to ever actually happen, there will always be gaps.

[Anonymous No.14741680]

>>14739782
Janus is the demiurge. Comedy versus art I believe. Strangely charming.

[Anonymous No.14741683]

Math/Science is like an infinitely layered onion where every time you peel back one, the next layer is ever thicker. The thing is that once you describe 90% of reality easily, 9% left is pretty fucking difficult, then .9% is incredibly fucking difficult, .09% can't be feasibly solved within 500 years, .009% 1000 years, etc. Theres always that annoying remainder you can't quite solve and it gets kicked along for hundreds of years until a miracle comes. It'll likely be another couple hundred years until dark matter gets solved desu. We can get arbitrarily close to understanding the universe fully.

[Anonymous No.14741694]

>>14741604
>So we can never fully understand this universe? Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, basically. Things can interact in a potentially unlimited number of ways, creating a potentially unlimited number of differing behaviors.
>Complex systems may be hard to understand at first but in due time we can work it out step by step.
There are nearly an infinite number of ways chemicals can combine, for example. You can run simulations to guess what a chemical's properties might be, but afaik the reverse is impossible--you can't just ask your theories, "What chemical is superconductive at STP? What chemical is strong enough to make a space elevator? How do I make said chemicals?"

[Anonymous No.14741762]

>>14741694
>Yeah, basically. Things can interact in a potentially unlimited number of ways, creating a potentially unlimited number of differing behaviors.
This implies that the universe is ruled by chaos and can not be understood at all.
Then why search for reason, meaning and logic in the first place if it does not exist? The very existence of scientific laws disproves your statement.

>There are nearly an infinite number of ways chemicals can combine, for example.
A finite sum of particles has a finite sum of possibilities to organize itself.
The limiting factor would be the time of a human lifespan to discover all the possibilities.

[Anonymous No.14741773]

>>14741762
>A finite sum of particles has a finite sum of possibilities to organize itself.
Then given the 3.28x10^80 particles, what is the finite value of all the permutations ie 3.28x10^80!?

[Anonymous No.14741777]

>>14739782
aslan?

[Anonymous No.14741795]

>>14741773
(3.28x10^80)^2 would be my first guess

[Anonymous No.14741814]

>>14741604
Why do you hate the demiurge?

He is just superintending subtly behind the scenes. This is why dumb fucks believe Jews or white men, or liberals or whatever are secretly conspiring to make bad things happen, they can sense something isn't right, but don't know we're to look.

[Anonymous No.14741815]

>>14741795
Factorial is defined very differently than you seem to think.

x! = x*(x-1)*(x-2)*...*(x- (x+1)
You haven't even properly accounted for the first two multiplier let alone the ~3.28x10^80 that follow, it would be more like (3.28x10^80)^(3.28x10^80) which you can feel free to give the finite results of that if you can.

[Anonymous No.14741879]

>>14741815
>it would be more like (3.28x10^80)^(3.28x10^80) which you can feel free to give the finite results of that if you can.
my calculator might be slightly challenged with that but are you saying that the power of two finite elements results in an infinite? I would doubt that.

[Anonymous No.14741882]

>>14741795
Molecules can create chains, it isn't just like all combinations of 2 atoms. How many configurations can 1 milion atoms have?
How many different organisms can exist?
If a person gets 1 mg fatter, is it a different organisms now?

[Anonymous No.14741886]

>>14741879
Don't doubt it, prove it.
Isn't the entire purpose of math to make proofs why can't you prove your point?

[Anonymous No.14741924]

>>14739782
then we have the technology to build replicators and we enter star trek timeline

>>14741777
aslan is just a lion nigga

[Anonymous No.14741929]

>>14741886
My calculator is able to give results of finite nature for smaller powers.
It continues to give finite results if I increase the size of the power up to 10^1000.
Beyond that point there are two possibilities:
a) Powers higher than 10^1000 are infinite.
b) Powers higher than 10^1000 are finite but can not be shown (or proven) due to technical limitations.

Interestingly enough, Googles calculator faints at values of 10^309 and gives a result of 'Infinity'.
This is in conflict with the results of my calculation device. It can be used as an argument for a) and b) alike.

If you use the argument of extrapolation then the power of finite elements results in a finite outcome.

If you claim that (3.28x10^80)^(3.28x10^80) results in an infinite than prove it or show your arguments. At this point I expect the result to be finite.

[Anonymous No.14741939]

>>14740573
>What caused the cause of the cause of the Big Bang?
Only things which have a beginning demand a cause for their beginning. In philosophy these are called contingent beings or entities. Everything in the physical world is a contingent being/entity, including the physical world itself. At least according to the most prevalent model To avoid an infinite regress of contingent beings and avoid this 'who caused the cause' situation, there logically arises the necessity for what is called a necessary being. The necessary being is eternal and uncaused and so it doesn't need an explanation for it's existence. Here is a vid that sums it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

[Anonymous No.14741941]

>>14741929
>If you claim that (3.28x10^80)^(3.28x10^80) results in an infinite than prove it or show your arguments.
You made the original claim, you claimed it is finite, I just gave you some numbers to crunch in order to prove it, so you should be able to prove your claim with the example values provided otherwise your claim is questionable at best and you have no idea whether or not finite elements can result in non finite outcomes.

[Anonymous No.14741942]

>>14741939
Here is a form of the Leibnizian cosmological argument with regard to this
>>14741939

Premise 1:
Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
Premise 2:
The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
Premise 3:
The universe exists
Premise 4:
Therefore the universe has and explanation existence from 1 and 3.
Premise 5:
Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2 and4).

[Anonymous No.14741947]

>>14741929

[Anonymous No.14741950]

>>14740573
this
>>14741942
was supposed to be a response to your post here
>>14740573
It lays out the argument that ends the infinite regress of contingent causes.

[Anonymous No.14741951]

>>14741947
>>14741929
Sophia is so fucking hot. I bet her boss fucks her after work at Pleroma Inc. That's why she's late home so often, and why her autistic son the Demiurge has become idle and works on his project universe to pass the time.

[Anonymous No.14741954]

>>14741942
The universe is a catch all to describe things that can be observed, it doesn't actually exist itself, it is an arbitrary ambiguous set to describe random observations.

[Anonymous No.14741969]

>>14741954
There is a point to which it can be traced back to where time and space were booted up. Before then it makes no sense to talk about what was 'in' the universe or at what time. And this goes for any expanding universe by the way
>The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem

[Anonymous No.14741975]

>>14741954
I would also disagree that it's a catch all term. I am talking about the physical universe. By the way, I am not saying that the physical universe is all there is.
>The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the universe.
Not saying this is the end all be all proof, just that this is what is commonly meant by the term.

[Anonymous No.14742018]

>>14741969
>There is a point to which it can be traced back to where time and space were booted up.
Not accurately, the further you project the more catastrophic minor errors in observation and calculation will be.

>Before then it makes no sense to talk about what was
It doesn't ever make sense for you to try to bear witness to things that happened before you were born, the past doesn't exist.

>>14741975
That word all in your definition proves the term universe is just a vague catchall.
Starts might exist, the light from stars definitely exists, but galaxies do not, they are just arbitrary groupings of stars for convenience rather than physical necessity.

[Anonymous No.14742033]

>>14741941
isn't the expression (3.28x10^80)^(3.28x10^80) proof enough in itself?

[Anonymous No.14742039]

>>14742033
In that case, isn't the symbol pi proof that you can get infinite elements from some finite element?

[Anonymous No.14742042]

>>14742018
>Not accurately, the further you project the more catastrophic minor errors in observation and calculation will be.
It doesn't matter the content of the universe. If you read this here
>>14741969
>The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations.
>It doesn't ever make sense for you to try to bear witness to things that happened before you were born, the past doesn't exist.
Then I suppose my birth was the beginning of the universe in that case. But that is still a beginning and that still makes me and the universe contingent beings and then this
>>14741942
argument still holds.
>That word all in your definition proves the term universe is just a vague catchall
I disagree. I am talking about the physical universe
>space and time[a] and their contents,including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.
>Starts might exist, the light from stars definitely exists, but galaxies do not, they are just arbitrary groupings of stars for convenience rather than physical necessity
That is irrelevant though because they are part of the physical universe regardless of how they are classified. They are in space time so they began when space time was booted up, like everything else in the universe. Or, as you suggested, they began when I was born. The point is they are contingent entities.

[Anonymous No.14742050]

>>14742042
>been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.
You don't take into account that the opposite of expansion is contraction, so time contracts and slows down as you go back to the point that the first second would approach an infinite time frame to preempt.

>Then I suppose my birth was the beginning of the universe in that case
No you can't even bear witness to that, your memory didn't begin until you were a toddler and back then it was very much prone to error, so its even hard to use that as the point where you could begin to make valid observations.

>physical universe
Still a vague catchall, also you aren't even applying it correctly given you include things like potential energy which isn't actually physical, but an abstract construct.

> they are part of the physical universe
No, they are mathematical/geometric abstractions.

>The point is they are contingent entities.
They are contingent on the definition, ie they are abstract in nature.

[Anonymous No.14742128]

>>14742039
Pi is a geometric uncertainty principle on how you can not know both, the exact radius and the circumference (or area) of a circle, at the same time.
This mathematical abyss is a trick and does not describe our world sufficiently.

[Anonymous No.14742682]

>>14741604
There's a whole dearth of material questions we haven't even been able to comprehend, let alone ask or find the answer to. Modern science would quicker become obsolete than totally solved. That would be my assumption, anyway.

[Anonymous No.14742698]

>>14741604
There's an overabundance of material questions we haven't even been able to comprehend, let alone ask or find the answer to. Modern science would quicker become obsolete than totally solved. That would be my assumption, anyway.

[Anonymous No.14742750]

>>14742050
>You don't take into account that the opposite of expansion is contraction, so time contracts and slows down as you go back to the point that the first second would approach an infinite time frame to preempt.
Yes, they took time into consideration. Here is a brief exposition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOyQFkB1AGM
>No you can't even bear witness to that, your memory didn't begin until you were a toddler and back then it was very much prone to error, so its even hard to use that as the point where you could begin to make valid observations.
Then my first memory was the beginning. Still a beginning.
>Still a vague catchall
Ok then, I suppose if we can not even agree on the meaning of the universe then we can not have a discussion about whether it began or not and what are or are not included in a list of it's constituents. we are at an impasse.

[Anonymous No.14744632]

>>14742128
So infinite and finite are not even real concepts since math is fake and gay and your earlier claims involving infinite/finite elements was a lie?

[Anonymous No.14744650]

>>14744632
No, the infinite nature of Pi is a trick but the attributes of radius and circumference are real and finit.

[Anonymous No.14744655]

>>14744650
Then all of math is "a trick".
Why do radius and circumference lead to pi if they are real, but pi isn't and why can't other finite values lead to "unreal" infinite outcomes similar to values like pi and e?

[Anonymous No.14744710]

>>14741762
>A finite sum of particles has a finite sum of possibilities to organize itself.
One small simple line of code can produce an infinite execution, there is no reason finite elements are limited to finite permutations.
While(true)x++;

[Anonymous No.14745962]

>>14744655
Pi is a crutch to lead from radius to circumference or the other way round. But due to the nature of Pi you will never know the exact value of the wanted term.
I don't know about the nature of other transcendental numbers but I bet the same would apply.

Show me a circle with exactly defined radius and circumference (preferable in natural numbers), and I'll reconsider.

>>14744710
A loop isn't infinite. It's just a countable and finite string of elements that repeat themselves.