[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 607 KB, 976x850, 1662976592564.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14886063 No.14886063 [Reply] [Original]

You cannot disprove the Unmoved Mover theory.

>> No.14886780
File: 169 KB, 1365x1024, Aristotle+s+view.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14886780

You dont necessarily need a prime mover for the things to move..
Also Aristotle claimed that this prime mover is some sort of God whos good and immaterial "just because".
Funny thing is..brainlets think that Aquinas came up with theory and he claimed that this prime mover is God of Israel.
Top kek

>> No.14886791

>>14886063
You can. By Newton's third law, every action has an equal reaction. So if the mover moves something, the something reacts on the mover too.

>> No.14886809
File: 281 KB, 828x714, 1636974650696.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14886809

>you cannot unmove the disproved prover hypothesis

>> No.14886833

>>14886780

Sorry kiddo but it's been proven the bible is divinely authored. I get it, you're inlove with your own ego and shitty behavior so you desperately need God to be not real but that's just now how it works .

>> No.14886837

>>14886833
Kekd and saved

>> No.14886854

>>14886780
aristotle also believed that semen was stored in the brain

>> No.14887039

>>14886063
>You cannot disprove the Unmoved Mover theory.
...but I can move the Unproved Prover theory.

>> No.14887089

>>14886063
An unmoved mover is the same as nothing, just call it nothing, there is no reason to call it anything other than nothing except to add unnecessary complexity.

>> No.14887090

>>14887089
>An unmoved mover is the same as nothing
What is this 80 IQ assertment based on?

>> No.14887096

>>14887090
The numerical system and the value assigned to the origin number.

>> No.14887100

>>14887096
What does "the numerical system" have to do with anything? You sound like you're having an episode.

>> No.14887102

>>14887100
Anything can be modeled with a numerical system even everything.

>> No.14887103

>>14887102
>Anything can be modeled with a numerical system
What does "the numerical system" have to do with anything? Reasserting your schizophrenia doesn't answer this question.

>> No.14887112

>>14887103
You came to a science and math forum asking about the original value of the universe since the universe is modeled with physics and physics is done with geometry and geometry is an application of numerical systems, then the universe is just an application of the numerical system used to model it and the "unmoved mover" of the numerical system is zero which is simply a value of nothing and if nothing can be the unmoved mover of the numerical system, there is no reason that can't be projected to the higher systems of organization built on the numerical system such as physics and the model of the universe.

>> No.14887121

>>14887112
>You came to a science and math forum asking about the original value of the universe
No one came here asking anything like that. This is schizobabble.

>the "unmoved mover" of the numerical system is zero
Okay, I think I'm just gonna stop reading your posts. You're clearly mentally ill.

>> No.14887123

>>14887121
Oh, I get it, you don't even know what unmoved mover theory is.

>> No.14887135

>>14886854
Obviously, where else would pee be stored?

>> No.14887141

>>14887123
You don't know what zero is, what a number system is, how an analogy is supposed to function, or even how to follow basic instructions like "take your meds first thing in the morning"

>> No.14887145

>>14887121
>>14887141
Numbers don't just represent movement, they represent value, which can include some value of movement, no movement is the same as zero movement, the origin number, 0, is a value of no value a movement of no movement and unmoving unmoved mover.

>> No.14887156

>>14887145
Meds.

>> No.14887174
File: 6 KB, 225x225, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14887174

>>14887156
I accept your implicit concession based on your continued use of fallacy and the self admitted fact that you would require a lot of adhd and productivity medicine to understand the fairly simple things I am saying.

>> No.14887175

>>14887174
I know your IQ was measured as 105 when you were 10 years old so you think you're a genius, but you've clearly lost a good 20 points since then.

>> No.14887184

>>14887175
I see you still can't concentrate on the conversation at hand because you have a desperate need to project you own psychological insecurities instead.

>> No.14887192

>>14887184
What conversation? You just keep vomiting pure schizobabble and begging for my attention. lol

>> No.14887198

>>14887192
The conversation that clearly established the unmoved mover as nothing which you keep trying to distract from with personal attacks and general fallacy.
You are the one begging for personal attention by trying to shift from talking about the unmoved mover to talking about whatever personal insecurities revolving around personal identity and intelligence that you constantly feel the need to project instead of actually trying to use intelligence to say something meaningful.

>> No.14887213

>>14886063
Unmoved Mover is matter.

>> No.14887215

>>14887198
>The conversation that clearly established the unmoved mover as nothing
That "conversation" consists solely of your one-sided schizobabble. LOL. Keep replying.

>> No.14887217

>>14887213
Energy existed before matter.

>> No.14887229

>>14887215
Then why do you keep replying for attention if you are not "contributing"?
Why can't you ever seem to prove your sluggish schizophrenia assertions and what does that have to do with the argument, if zero is not the origin number or the model of the universe is not built on the number system, why can't you come up with a counter model or provide any proof of your own counter claims, why do you have to shift to unfalsifiable psychobabble nonsense instead of engaging in the actual argument, what do you think you have contributed other than making random pseudoscience diagnoses that are impossible to actually make anonymously?

>> No.14887234

>>14887229
>why do you keep replying
I wanna see how desperate you are for someone to actually debate your schizobabble. You know I'm not engaging with it but you will keep replying in the desperate hope that I'll crack. lol

>> No.14887239

>>14887089
Nothing is the same thing as something, there is no reason to call it anything other than something.
unnecessary complexity is the reason we exist at all

>> No.14887242
File: 55 KB, 640x729, 352433252.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14887242

>>14887239
>Nothing is the same thing as something
At last, the schizo finds his match. :^)

>> No.14887244

>>14887234
You can't engage with it logically because you don't have a more logical model that that which has been presented, so you have to engage with it fallaciously and emotionally by projecting all your insecurities and reciting all the really mean names in your cache of cliche.

>> No.14887246

>>14887244
>You can't engage with it logically
Yeah, because it's schizobabble.

>> No.14887247

>{} := 0
>{0} := 1
>{0, 1} := 2
>ad infinitum
Set theory bros... we fucking won

>> No.14887254

>>14887239
Nothing is a type of something, but there are many categories of something, so there is need to further refine from the vagueness of something to the clarity of the type of thing, the no thing, with more precise defining of the type of something nothing is which is to say that nothing is the smallest amount of anything and everything possible. To come up with more complex synonyms for nothing is not necessary except to allow it to fit in with a different more complex context than one traditionally applies to the idea of nothing.

>> No.14887259

>>14887242
What a surprise, there is more than one person on /sci/ with a large enough vocabulary to easily confuse you.

>> No.14887268

>>14887246
It is mathbabble, if you prefer psychobabble because you can't keep up with the type of babble that is more rigid and logical, >>>/lit/.

0 is the origin number, that is not schizo, it is a mathematical fact.
Physics is derived from geometry and other math, again, mathematical and physical fact that no amount of your shitty psychology 101 memes and lack of attention span can change.

>> No.14887275

>>14887242
nothing being something is the necessary implication for anything to exist
represent nothing as a numerical value of 0, of the things which exist there is one: 0, and thus this implies 1 must also exist. Then of things which exist: 0, 1. And this is essentially the principle of induction.

>> No.14887302

>>14887254
you can define it existentially and then it will apply over all types because types of things which exist are things that exist.

>> No.14887321

>>14887302
I already did that, I defined it as the smallest possible amount of any something and every something combined which means nothing is not just something it is also a way to describe everything else in a way that puts it as an origin to all in the same way the unmoved mover is generally set up to describe the origin of everything in a much more complicated, apparently contradictory, superstitious, anthropomorphic, and imprecise manner than just calling it nothing just like it is much simpler to call zero nothing than to call it the valueless value or the value of valuelessness.

>> No.14887351

>>14887321
Of the set of all things, though, would zero not be among them?
Which is then to say the things which exist are unmoved.
Among things which exist are ourselves, even if as components of things, we know that our existence might be an implication of a primitive type, but that the exact defined state of existence is axiomatic.
Before our egos exist nothing could have existence, and so in the same way we must exist.
The totality of the unmoved must then allow for a select type of thing which inherits types of things and the property of being moved.
So then the primordial mover must then be either our ego or the parent of our ego.

>> No.14887364

>>14887351
It is the original thing.
No, most things have other value than no value, other movement than no movement.
The definition is axiomatic, but the direct experience is empirical.
I don't know how you define ego, if that is just a stand-in for your ability to experience and observe, yes nothing and many other things could have and must have existed before your ability to experience or observe existed, but I still don't understand your final conclusion that we must exist when it is not nothing that dictates we must exists, but out experience and observation that demonstrates, at least to ourselves, that we must exist.
I would more say that the potential for multiple unmoved existing in a shared space creates a situation of experience and observation which generates movement of information between the two distinct points of nothing that intrinsically separates them into distinct categories of something, the observed and the observer, the give and the take, +1 and -1, in a sense.
The ultimate parent of your ego, the prerequisites for your ego and its parents, and everything else and al of their parents is still just nothing that can somehow bifurcate into two distinct yet opposing holes of wholes.

>> No.14887407

>>14886063
If something is unmoving, everything else moves around that thing so relatively watched from the outside.. it is the thing that moves
>or sumdin

>> No.14887454

>>14886780
He doesn't have to be good in the sense you think is good. He may have wanted that guy to bully you back in high school.
>bu but why should I love him then?
You don't have to, but hating him would be like yelling at clouds, hating life and ultimately yourself

>> No.14887504

>>14887268
>It is mathbabble
No, it's really just your psychosis. Nothing whatsoever to do with math.

>> No.14887506
File: 29 KB, 500x565, nothing-is-something.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14887506

>>14887275
>nothing being something is the necessary implication for anything to exist
Nothing NOT being something is the necessary implication of nothing being nothing. Buy a rope and end it ASAP because you will never be the intellectual you so desperately want to be.

>> No.14887512

>>14887504
So math doesn't define zero as the origin number, its just something I made up?
Physics isn't an extension of geometry either, I am just seeing some link that doesn't actually exist and geometry has nothing to do with math or physics?

>> No.14887513

>>14887512
Math doesn't define zero as "nothing" nor does it define it as a "prime mover of numbers". I have no idea what "origin number" is supposed to mean -- that's not mathematical nomenclature. Meds ASAP.

>> No.14887517

>>14887513
>Math doesn't define zero as "nothing"
Yes it does, it defines the empty set ie nothing with the symbol 0, or {0}.

>"prime mover of numbers
It is defined as the first number, the prime number, the origin number, the one value that connects all the dimensions together.

>I have no idea
It is very much mathematical nomenclature, there just seems to be a lot about math you have no idea about and are unwilling to look into because you think it will drive you crazy when really you very clearly simply lack the necessary attention span.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_(mathematics)

>> No.14887520

>>14887517
>it defines the empty
It doesn't "define" the empty set, and the empty set isn't "nothing" -- it's a set.

>It is defined as the first number
It's not defined as the first number. It's defined as the additive identity. Without that property, the number system might as well start from 1.

>It is very much mathematical nomenclature
It isn't. You're deranged.

>> No.14887526

>>14887520
The empty set is very clearly defined, I told you the definition, you have offered no counter explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

Adding zero is exactly the same as adding nothing, that is what the additive identity means, if zero is not the same as absolutely nothing and it is not the first number, then what absolute value comes before zero and how would you mathematically add absolutely nothing to a particular value x if not with x+0?

No, I gave you a link, you are clearly just ignorant and actively trying to ignore reality.

>> No.14887529

>>14887526
>The empty set is very clearly defined
Cool. Your schizobabble about zero "defining" the empty set which is "nothing" is incoherent and plainly wrong.

>Adding zero is exactly the same as adding nothing
That doesn't mean zero is "nothing", retard. Zero is the additive identity. That's plainly not "nothing". Meds now.

>> No.14887538

>>14887529
Then use the more precisely worded wikipedia link I gave you, if you don't like my wording let wikipedia better describe how it is the set of nothing.

So again tell me how I add nothing to x with math symbols if x+0 isn't the same as adding nothing to x, you seem to retreat back to personal attack every time your logic fails you because you are not actually attacking me, you are attacking your own inarticulate ignorance.

>> No.14887541

>>14887538
>let wikipedia better describe how it is the set of nothing.
Being a set "of" nothing (whatever that means) doesn't mean the set itself is nothing. It's still a set, not a "nothing". You're a legit retard and you need to stop trying to bring your 80 IQ pseud "philosophy" into elementary math.

>tell me how I add nothing to x with math symbols if x+0 isn't the same as adding nothing to x
Adding 0 to x is the same as adding nothing to x, but that doesn't mean 0 is nothing. It just doesn't follow. I don't know what kind of retardation you suffer from.

>> No.14887544

>>14887541
The what is the value of the empty set if not nothing?
How can two values have the same value, but not be equal and be the same?
You are the one who can't be consistent.

>> No.14887547

>>14887541
If you don't know then don't participate, find some thread about digging through your own shit for corn kernels or whatever else you are directly familiar with if you can't follow what is happening in this thread.

>> No.14887553

>>14887544
>The what is the value of the empty
The empty set is the "value", retard.

>How can two values have the same value
What to values? lol. Man, you're really out of your depth talking about basic arithmetic.

>> No.14887555

>>14887547
Why are you losing your mind with absolute rage? Zero isn't "nothing" as far as mathematics is concerned. That won't chage no matter how much you shit yourself.

>> No.14887558

>>14887553

>Being a set "of" nothing (whatever that means) doesn't mean the set itself is nothing.
You already said that empty is not the value but the description of the set, so now you are changing your mind, it actually is the description of the value?

>What to (sic) values?
The value of nothing and the value of zero.
The value of zero is the value of the empty set with is the value of nothing as far as math is concerned zero is nothing you can keep crying about it but you already admitted yourself that.
>Adding 0 to x is the same as adding nothing to x
So you already admitted the two values are the same.

>> No.14887562

>>14887555
Value is the only thing math concerns itself with, the value of nothing is 0, zero is the same thing as nothing as far as math is concerned or you would be able to give some other value of nothing that isn't equivalent to zero, null, void, nil, or some other synonym.

>> No.14887564

>>14887558
>now you are changing your mind
No, I'm actually telling you the same thing for the 20th time: the empty set is a set. It's not a "nothing". lol

>The value of nothing and the value of zero.
Nothing has no "value" and zero is a value.

>> No.14887573

>>14887564
A set that represents the zero value of nothing in the set, it is one of the most basic mathematical representation of nothing ie 0, assert it all you want, until you have evidence, you are not adding anything to the discussion, you are just ignoring reality and sources that conflict with your misinterpretation.

Then why did you say adding nothing is the same thing as adding 0 if they don't have the same value?

>> No.14887581

>>14887573
>A set that represents the zero value of nothing in the set,
It doesn't "represent the zero value of nothing". That's pure schizobabble. It's just zero.

>why did you say adding nothing is the same thing as adding 0
You said it, and it's the only correct thing you've said so far. lol

>if they don't have the same value?
Oh, I see what's going on here. You're a simple-minded word thinker and you're confused by your sloppy language. "Adding nothing" doesn't mean you are adding 0. It means you're just not adding.

>> No.14887591

>>14887581
Zero is a value.
You just said it again and agreed zero and nothing are the same value.
Not adding is the same as adding nothing.

>> No.14887595

>>14887591
At this point you're not just wrong about zero, but apparently hallucinating voices that agree with you and having trouble with basic reading comprehension. lol. I have nothing to add. :^)

>> No.14887602

>>14887595
No, you are the one who doesn't agree with all the sources and can't seem to provide any that agree with you, so you need to rely on mean words instead of sources.

>> No.14887607

>>14887602
None of your sources say that zero is nothing. All of them actually say that zero is something and you really need to take your meds.

>> No.14887944

>>14887607
The sources all equivocate nothing and 0. Nothing is something, a zero amount of everything, if it wasn't, you wouldn't have a word for it, it has an absolute value of zero by definition, adding it to other things is how you synthesized the definition of the additive identity proving that they are mathematically equivalent and represent the exact same value of quantification.

>> No.14887998

>>14887506
>nothing doesn't exist
untrue

>> No.14888012

>>14887944
>The sources all equivocate nothing and 0
I'm glad you said this because it really drives the point home that you are suffering from psychosis. Not one of them does this and you are hallucinating.

>> No.14888027

>>14887506
>Nothing NOT being something is the necessary implication of nothing being nothing.
Nothing being immeasurable is the necessary implication of nothingness, but it still has to be something because the only alternative is that it is just something else, you can hold nothing, but as an extension of uncertainty principle, you can never measure with certainty a specific amount of nothing you are holding because you would have to hold something to measure it which would mean it is no longer nothing.

>> No.14888029

>>14888027
Buy a rope and end it ASAP because you will never be the intellectual you so desperately want to be.

>> No.14888039

>>14888029
I have plenty of rope, its tied in a circle, there are no ends. Maybe I should get on your level and have a notepad full of cliched insults to recite to every post that confuses me by ignoring my superstitious nonsense about an anthropomorphic universe instead.

>> No.14888051

If the question is about how the universe can arise out of nothing, the answer is pretty clear: Quantum mechanics. There's been lots of research into this and it's pretty much well accepted at this point

>> No.14888065

>>14888039
Meds or rope. Pick one and leave.

>> No.14888069

>>14888051
holy midwit popsci cringe

>> No.14888071

>>14888069
>t. failed physics

>> No.14888115

>>14888065
I have plenty of rope and self medicate, you aren't contributing anything, if you don't want to see other people's opinions you can leave instead of spazzing out with pointless tantrums of fallacy.

>> No.14888127

>>14888051
And where did quantum mechanics come from? How did THAT start?

Btw, the answer everyone who harps about this crap wants is the hand wavy non-answer of "durrrr God did it"

>> No.14888141

>>14888051
>quantum mechanics = nothing

either youre a completely disabled retard or youre wrong here kiddo

nothing does not obtain, has no properties (physical or metaphysical), cannot stand in causal relation to anything, etc. its not 'hurr durr qwannum mechwarriors"

stop watching lawrence krauss youtube videos and go actually learn something about the world you live in

>> No.14888170

>>14888127
>>14888141
Does anyone have any real arguments?

>> No.14888179

>>14888127
Infinite nothing over infinite time necessarily produces pairs of energy potentials known as virtual particles which eventually accumulated and coalesced into real amounts of things in the reverse process of annihilation because 0!=1.

>> No.14888185

>>14888141
>nothing does not obtain
Nothing is a void, a hole, a potential, it has many synonyms and physical correlates, if you remove something from itself, you have annihilated it and are left with nothing in its place though causality.

>> No.14888193

>>14888141
The proper definition of nothing requires you to understand quantum field theory at least. Your philosophical ramblings are totally worthless

>> No.14888198

>>14886780
Crazy that Heraclitus was right in the end

>> No.14888202

>>14888193
So because you don't understand it, the only ramblings you are equipped to project are fallacious ramblings instead and that only have emotional value instead of logistical value?

>> No.14888218

>>14888202
You're incapable of saying anything correct. Waste someone else's time

>> No.14888226

>>14888218
The proper understanding of correctness requires you to understand everything, which you clearly don't since you don't even understand how to formulate a non-fallacious consistent logical argument.

>> No.14888925

>>14888071
>t. failed life
physics isn't real, idiot
it's a representation

>> No.14888985
File: 40 KB, 567x567, tmp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14888985

>>14886063
> he thinks a theory being unfalsifiable is a good thing

>> No.14888986

You cannot state the Unmoved Mover theory.

>> No.14889426
File: 2.92 MB, 1020x7200, universeorigin7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14889426

>>14886063
Take the Zero Ontology pill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU