Why is the universe imperfect?

[Anonymous No.15173048]

There is a finite amount of energy.
There is a finite amount of time.
Amount of Matter versus anti-matter is not equal.
Prime number distribution looks weird.
I think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."

[Anonymous No.15173055]

Our universe is simulated.

[Anonymous No.15173083]

because math is nothing but a model and all models are wrong. You could just say that the universe is perfect and our model of math is imperfect.

[Anonymous No.15173107]

>>15173048
you feel entitled to a perfect universe because you're been indoctrinated to believe in ideas like heaven and the garden of eden, but you're not religious so you don't believe in those specific forms of perfection, they were not sufficient to satisfy you, so you feel entitled some greater universal perfection, all while claiming that you know heaven and the garden of eden are mere fairy tales. somehow you still believe you're entitled to their perfection though, you never gave up on that idea, you just rejected the packaging the first time it was offered to you. first offer is still available, if you're willing mend your evil way and earn it.

[Anonymous No.15173128]

>>15173048
>are our theories wrong?
>no it's reality that's broken

[Anonymous No.15173155]

>>15173083
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIkyqLDl9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOwG-hcd_k

[Anonymous No.15173156]

>>15173055
What about the imperfections of the “real” universe in which ours is being simulated?

[Anonymous No.15173164]

>>15173048
>I think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."
If the mathematical universe hypothesis is true, the universe exists because it's a subset of all possible computations. Some of those computations include universes with imperfections and asymmetry. In the multiverse, there might be other universes with the opposite asymmetries and imperfections, so reality as a whole might be symmetrical and perfect at the highest levels.

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

[Anonymous No.15173202]

>>15173048
>think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."
It perfectly explains our imperfect universe.

[Anonymous No.15173225]

>>15173048
“Perfect” for whom? For you?

[Anonymous No.15173431]

>>15173164
You don't need to explain God's existence. He is the causeless cause and he is angry about your sin.

[Anonymous No.15173520]

>>15173202
Look, fuck this shit. Really. FUCK THIS SHIT! Here we have the foundations of our our entire mathematical system reduced to pure mockery right at the very ground level!
>OH! Lets put another number line at right angles to our first number line! Tee Hee! I wonder what amazing things we will discover!
> Oh! the distance between right angles of our most fundamental concept, 1, so happens to be impossible to compute! Oh! Oh! Whatever shall we do?

FUCK! There's the red flag right out of the starter's gate. A big note handed in from the Universe that there is something fundamentally flawed about our notion of numbers and dimensions. The assfucking ancient Greeks knew this shit and it pissed the shit out of them, and rightfully so. But since then we have buried it. Instead ARSE FUCKING AROUND for 2000+ years all of Mankind's intellectual power should have been harnessed to resolving this issue. But no, instead we got absolute raving faggots like Newton and Leibniz giving us bandaid fixes which paper over the underlying problem.
>Here ya go, now you can calculate the trajectory of your fucking cannonballs, absolute accuracy doesn't matter when you are just smashing people to bits with bits of metal! lolol!

Christ, the absolute faggotry of assfucks who think mathematical imprecision is perfectly acceptable. Go and build your fucking bridges, fix your lawnmowers, and shut the fuck up about anything else. GODDAMN!

[Anonymous No.15173531]

>>15173520
>impossible to compute
My shitty calculator that's over a decade old can compute it

[Anonymous No.15173541]

>>15173531
No it cant you fucking subhuman. Grow the fuck up and come back in 20 years if your IQ gets above room temperature.

Goddamned ignorant subhumans, talking shit about stuff beyond their cretinous comprehension, should be sterilized at birth and given a job peeling bananas.

[Anonymous No.15173545]

>>15173541
Yes it can you completely retarded monkey. What the fuck do you think it's calculating, if not sqrt(2) ?
>inb4 decimal approximation
It can calculate to any desired order of accuracy in finite time.

[Anonymous No.15173555]

>>15173545
Here's ya fucking banana, you ignorant moron, I know its hard task, take your time, but I do expect you to finish peeling it by the time I come back.

[Anonymous No.15173557]

>>15173555
So you gave up on debating? Shame

[Anonymous No.15173577]

>>15173557
There's no debate with you, fuckwit. You are incapable of understanding the most basic terms. So any effort spent on you is wasted, like trying to explain quadratic equations to fish. You have had your (you)s and a banana, be happy with that.

[Anonymous No.15173593]

>>15173048
>I think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."
Yea, that's because it is. Welcome to the beginning of the 20th century with the Incompleteness and Undefinability theorems. Godel and Tarski say hello from 100 fucking years ago.

[Anonymous No.15173630]

>>15173520
I guess Mathmeticians really do hate him

> Oh! the distance between right angles of our most fundamental concept, 1, so happens to be impossible to compute! Oh! Oh! Whatever shall we do?

Cope forever.

>FUCK! There's the red flag right out of the starter's gate.
It's astounding isn't it? It really is that simple. Mathematicians need numbers you see, how else will they do math without them? They have to reify them if they don't exist.

>>15173545
>>15173531
>My calculator can define "undefined"

And I thought this guy was shitting on math.

[Anonymous No.15173634]

>>15173577
Lol, let me know when you have an actual argument, other than saying "banana" again.

[Anonymous No.15173637]

>>15173630
>"undefined"
Why do you think square root of 2 is undefined? Is it because you failed high school math?

[Anonymous No.15173749]

>>15173431
what is it about religion that makes it the number one most popular schizo topic of discussion amongst the brainlet poltard tourists?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that makes religion so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

[Anonymous No.15173774]

>>15173637
>Why do you think square root of 2 is undefined?
Because you keep saying "Square root of two" instead of posting the actual quantity. Also it's irrational, so even if it's not "undefined" it's still not a number and therefore math cannot quantify it.

>Is it because you failed high school math?
No it's because I'm respecting math by respecting the quantities and properties of numbers that math relies on to..well do math. It is you who shits on it by implying it is anything other than "undefined". A know unknown.

>>15173749
what is it about incommensurable magnitudes that makes it the number one most popular mathematics topic of discussion amongst the mundane?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the irrational, undefined and completely known unknown "measures" which go along with the topic that makes quantifying them so popular amongst the scientist posers and materialists?

[Anonymous No.15173828]

>>15173520
Look at this way, some animals, like apes, dolphins, cats and even dogs, are smart right? They can learn, they can remember, its even been demonstrated that they are capable of low level abstract reasoning and forms of elementary language. But if you took the very smartest of those animals and tried to reach them anything more complex than simple tricks or to solve simple puzzles you would fail. Simply because they lack the cognitive ability, the reasoning power, the ability to form complex concepts. Lets say you even taught some Gorillas complex language, so well that they could fully communicate with us. Then asked them to formulate a theory of clouds. They lack the technology to even investigate what a cloud is let alone the conceptual framework to explain it in terms of molecules of water. Well, the same applies to Humans when it comes to trying to understand the Universe. Its simply beyond our reasoning powers. We have some crude tools, such as mathematics and physics, but no one but fools, engineers, and Indian college students believe these accurately model reality. In the really big picture these tools are no more sophisticated than a monkey using a stick as a to extract ants from a nest.
Even if you put the best human minds onto the topic for the next 1,000 years we would still be stuck with the basic principles of mathematics that we have today. Because we cant conceptualize any other way yet. Imagine, if some genius had been capable of providing an alternative mathematical system that resolves the issue of incomputable numbers by simply providing a conceptual framework where they just dont exist anymore, I think we would have heard about it by now.
As it stands we probably have to wait another 6 million years or so before our brains evolve enough to form higher concepts that bring us closer to understanding the nature of reality.
TLDR. Humans aren't smart enough yet.

[Anonymous No.15173853]

>>15173774
>posting the actual quantity
Here it is.

Take 2.

Take its positive real square root.

You're done.

[Anonymous No.15173865]

>>15173853
You have to be older than 13 to post here. Now fuck off and let the adults talk.

[Anonymous No.15173871]

>>15173865
I think you need to understand how math works in order to talk about math. It’s pretty telling that middle schoolers understand math better than you.

[Anonymous No.15173876]

>>15173853
>Take its positive real square root.

Just post the quantity, then there will be an end to the horror.

[Anonymous No.15173879]

>>15173876
I did already. Why do you keep asking me to repeat myself?

[Anonymous No.15173890]

>>15173879
>I did already.
You told me to take its real square root, but you never elaborated on what to do with it to make it a quantity.
>Why do you keep asking me to repeat myself?
Try not to make the same mistake?

[Anonymous No.15173896]

>>15173890
>make it a quantity
It's the square root of 2. There's your quantity.
>>Why do you keep asking me to repeat myself?
>Try not to make the same mistake?
Are you ESL?

[Anonymous No.15173914]

>>15173896
>It's the square root
What's the square root?

>of 2.
What is it then? It's "of 2" so what is that? What is the quantity? The words "square root" are not a quantity.

>Are you ESL?
Are you a physicist? Is there a "virtual number" I'm supposed to be aware of?

[Anonymous No.15173919]

>>15173914
Tell me how you are constructing the real numbers, and I'll give you a definition of the square root within that framework.

[Anonymous No.15173943]

>>15173919
>Tell me how you are constructing the (modern arbitrary conception) numbers, and I'll give you a definition of the square root within that framework (of former mentioned conception; "real numbers").
Oh I'm sure you would love to keep applying false reification to an undefined non number with no properties of numbers using your ignorant psychosis methodology , but that's fucking retarded. I don't argue over "undefined", I need something to go off first then comes the argument. Restating the premise of what I'm asking is also not an argument ("durr the square root of 2 is the square root of 2 on both sides of an arbitrary line).

[Anonymous No.15173947]

>>15173943
Ok, since you're a retard, let me try to walk down to your level. First, do you consider the integers to be "defined"? If so, why?

[Anonymous No.15173983]

>>15173871
Right, you are middle school, makes sense. Great, Now fuck off stupid cunt.

[Anonymous No.15173997]

>>15173983
Lol go back to Bulgaria or wherever you're from

[Anonymous No.15173999]

>>15173947
>First, do you consider the integers to be "defined"? If so, why?
Let me put it to you this way. If every number you can think of is fake and gay, then put irrationals...not even on the diagram because they're still "undefined". It's a known unknown in math...that is until you redefine and complicate the original meaning until it suits your needs. Even if it's to the point that you are now opposing the very essence of what made the original definition useful and everyone in your secret math club wants to drown you at sea for being an insufferable living contradiction.

[Anonymous No.15174002]

>>15173876
You are wasting your time. You are talking to a twat, a particularly stupid one at that. You could hold his hand all the way through elementary grade again and if he had any brains he would just shut up, realizing just how stupid he sounds, having contributed nothing of value, just wasting your time. But its more likely he will continue to spout moronic bullshit like a flat-earther. Be real dude, the chances of getting a real discussion going on /sci/ was pretty slim to start with.

[Anonymous No.15174003]

>>15173999
>"I'm afwaid of scawy and complicated looking definitions and axioms!"
See but that's not really the fault of mathematics though, is it?

[Anonymous No.15174005]

>>15173997
So you do want me to fuck your mother? Makes sense. Still will not reverse your brain damage though.

[Anonymous No.15174006]

>>15173048
>There is a finite amount of energy
The universe would be very shitty if that wasn't true
>There is a finite amount of time
No there's not. We've just decided that we don't care about any time after the universe becomes unlivable.
>Amount of Matter versus anti-matter is not equal
This is theorized and not remotely confirmed.
>Prime number distribution looks weird
Only correct point. Still not particularly significant.

[Anonymous No.15174007]

>>15174002
Sorry for wasting your time lol. Could you please demonstrate to me how to contribute something of value, then?

[Anonymous No.15174008]

>>15174005
But my mother does not live in the same shitty country you're from, where they don't teach basic maths?

[Anonymous No.15174010]

>>15174003
>"I'm afwaid of scawy and complicated looking definitions and axioms!"
>I want to complicate "math"

Yes. That's exactly what I said. That's the problem.

>See but that's not really the fault of mathematics though, is it?
It's the fault of other languages and histories version of "the telephone game"

[Anonymous No.15174016]

>>15174010
You're trying to set up something that can describe the whole universe and you don't want it to be complicated? Lol good luck with that

[Anonymous No.15174045]

>>15174016
>You're trying to set up something that can describe
"Undefined"

>you don't want it to be complicated?
You think the universe is complicated?

[Anonymous No.15174052]

>>15174045
>You think the universe is complicated?
If it's not complicated, tell me what I'm thinking about right now, other than how much I fucked your mom last night.

[Anonymous No.15174063]

>>15174052
>If it's not complicated, tell me what I'm thinking about right now,
>thinking
You think the universe "thinks"?

[Anonymous No.15174066]

>>15174063
>You think
You just said it lmao

[Anonymous No.15174067]

>>15174066
And?

[Anonymous No.15174070]

>>15173048
>I think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."
If arithmetic were perfect, its system wouldn't be a logically explosive set of axioms based on an origin number that is its own opposite number.

[Anonymous No.15174071]

>>15173083
>You could just say that the universe is perfect
No you couldn't because the only direct experience you have of the universe is yourself which you know to be imperfect which is why you need indirect bullshit like math to try to make it appear perfect in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15174076]

>>15173107
>first offer is still available
Then why are you making yourself look stupid on some work safe mongolian degeneracy forum instead of basking in the perfection of some heavenly garden?

[Anonymous No.15174081]

>>15174067
Well to spell it out, you said "you think the universe 'thinks'?" which suggests you don't think the universe thinks. However, you and I are thinking, and part of the universe, so we are the universe thinking.

[Anonymous No.15174083]

>>15174071
>which you know to be imperfect
How exactly is the universe imperfect?

[Anonymous No.15174091]

>>15174083
You gonna die while everything you can observe decays over time. You are far from perfect, you couldn't even begin to coherently make a case for your perfection or the perfection of anything around you.

[Anonymous No.15174101]

>>15173545
>It can calculate to any desired order of accuracy in finite time.
What finite amount of time would it take to calculate with precise accuracy the second to last digit in the order of the sequence?

[Anonymous No.15174103]

>>15174091
>You are far from perfect
So? That doesn't answer her question

[Anonymous No.15174104]

>>15173593
>Yea, that's because it is.
>Hurr durr de maf sistums is perfect because it is incomplete, uncertain, indeterminable, and undefinable.

[Anonymous No.15174106]

>>15174091
1. How is this a case for imperfection?
2. What would be a perfect universe in your view?

[Anonymous No.15174107]

>>15173637
>Why do you think square root of 2 is undefined?
How can you say it is well defined, without knowing what the last digit even is or if it even exists at all?

[Anonymous No.15174112]

>>15174107
The last digit doesn't exist, just like "the largest number" doesn't exist. I suggest reviewing some basic maths.

[Anonymous No.15174114]

>>15174081
>which suggests you don't think the universe thinks. However, you and I are thinking, and part of the universe, so we are the universe thinking.

And if all of that is true, then it's still "undefined". Thoughts are not objects and therefore cannot be described with quantity. You took it one step further though. Thinking if not even defined as an action is certainly not something in and of itself that exists in reality. It's basically retardation before the actual quantifiable action.
If the universe wasted energy thinking about how many moms are fucked then it wouldn't have time to make the people who fuck them or the moms.

[Anonymous No.15174118]

>>15174104
>I am afraid of things that are provably true

[Anonymous No.15174120]

>>15174114
Lmao you sound like one of those people who don't know if you yourself exist. Tell me, does the integer 251 exist to you? Or is that too complex a concept for you?

[Anonymous No.15174124]

>>15173853
>Take its positive real square root.
No that is what we are telling you do do and you can't do it because the process will never terminate, so you just shift the burden over to someone else and pretend like you did it.

[Anonymous No.15174127]

>>15174118
How exactly have you proven that something that you claim can't be defined can actually be defined as something perfect?

[Anonymous No.15174129]

>>15174112
So you can't actually calculate it because most of it isn't actually defined given there are only finite values that are definable and infinite values that are not?

[Anonymous No.15174130]

>>15174124
I just did it.

[Anonymous No.15174131]

>>15174120
>Lmao you sound like one of those people who don't know if you yourself exist
I know that I don't exist. Why don't you try knowing something instead of "thinking" sometime?

>Tell me, does the integer 251 exist to you? Or is that too complex a concept for you?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15174133]

>>15174127
I define everything to be perfect

[Anonymous No.15174139]

>>15174131
Define 251.

[Anonymous No.15174142]

>>15174130
Yes, I know you just shifted the burden onto someone else to do the calculation that would supposedly take you infinite time to complete yourself, I just told you I saw what you did.

[Anonymous No.15174145]

>>15174139
As real as a thought in my fake head. Real as an imaginary concept.

[Anonymous No.15174147]

>>15174142
>you just shifted the burden onto someone else
Do you want me to repost the entire text of an undergraduate textbook in set theory and analysis? Why not do it yourself? Maybe you'll learn something, for once.

[Anonymous No.15174148]

>>15174133
You can't define yourself as immortal, though, you gonna die, you are not even perfect enough to think of a perfect demonstration of your supposed perfection and will die long before anyone could do such a thing.

[Anonymous No.15174151]

>>15174145
Then so is square root of 2 you dingus. Damn, I thought you had something here.

[Anonymous No.15174155]

>>15174139
Exactly 250+1, so what is the exact value of sqrt(2) +1?

[Anonymous No.15174157]

>>15174148
Sure. But the difference is, it's much easier to define myself as mortal than immortal. Whereas, I see little reason to prefer to see the universe as imperfect rather than perfect, or vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.15174158]

>>15174155
It's sqrt(2)+1 . This is algebraically the most simplified expression you can have starting from integers.

[Anonymous No.15174159]

>>15174147
You can try as many infinite stall tactics as you need to like trying to tell me to calculate it myself or shift the burden to some authority that still can't actually calculate the complete value of sprt(2), but you have still failed to do the calculation yourself too in the process.

[Anonymous No.15174164]

>>15174151
>Then so is square root of 2 you dingus
>>15173999
>Let me put it to you this way. If every number you can think of is fake and gay, then put irrationals...not even on the diagram because they're still "undefined". It's a known unknown in math...that is until you redefine and complicate the original meaning until it suits your needs

[Anonymous No.15174165]

>>15174157
If it were perfect, you would have no choice but to recognize its perfection, the fact that you have to make a choice to believe one way or the other proves it is not inherently perfect because your perspective of the universe is your only knowledge of the universe and it is very clearly not perfect itself, so you have no way to extrapolate perfection from an entirely imperfect vantage point.

[Anonymous No.15174170]

>>15174158
I don't actually care that you can't calculate it because math is so imperfect, I just needed you to admit that you can't even apply basic addition to the value.

[Anonymous No.15174172]

>>15174165
>If it were perfect, you would have no choice but to recognize its perfection
I do

[Anonymous No.15174187]

>>15174106
1. It is a direct demonstration of the imperfection of the universe.
2. I don't know exactly since perfection is fake and gay, but a perfect universe would be undeniably perfect, there would be no flaws, no loss, no need, and no decay from any perspective and all perspectives would be in perfect agreement, at the very least.

[Anonymous No.15174188]

>>15174159
I already took those classes and went through the constructions. Did you? You sound like a biologist or something with your complete lack of knowledge about anything in formal mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15174193]

>>15174170
But, like I already said, I did calculate it. It is sqrt(2) + 1 . Just like 251 = 250 + 1 .

[Anonymous No.15174195]

Why don't you guys just make a triangle with two 1" sides at a right angle (using a square) and then measure the hypotenuse?

[Anonymous No.15174197]

>>15174172
I know you have a choice, you already said you chose to make an assumption from two potential choices and ignore anything that doesn't support your assumption because you have already manufactured definitions based on your assumption because you have no reason to stop pretending you are perfect, but the universe will give you reason soon enough since you mostly likely won't even last a single century in the universe and would be lucky to make it even halfway to one.

[Anonymous No.15174198]

>>15174187
>It is a direct demonstration of the imperfection of the universe.
I can tell you're not a mathematician, because when I ask you prove something, you just repeat it but using different words.

[Anonymous No.15174202]

>>15174193
>But, like I already said, I did calculate it. It is sqrt(2) + 1 . Just like 251 = 250 + 1 .
No, a calculation is when you determine a final value such as calculating that 250+1 = 251, not when you just repeat the exact formula back that you were given to calculate such as just repeating that sqrt(2)+1 = sqrt(2)+1.

Look at me, I can calculate the value of orange + apple: orange +apple = orange + apple.

[Anonymous No.15174205]

>>15174197
But if I made the choice, then deterministically speaking, I had no choice but to make that choice.

[Anonymous No.15174209]

>>15174198
You didn't ask me to prove it, you asked how it was proven, and it was proven through direct demonstration by observing the universe decay directly, perfection doesn't decay.

[Anonymous No.15174211]

>>15174202
>final value
The final value is sqrt(2)+1. You can also write it as sqrt(2) + 1^2 , or 1+sqrt(2) , if you like. It's freely your choice. Next question please.

[Anonymous No.15174212]

>>15174205
No, if you made a choice, by definition, you had the option to choose.

[Anonymous No.15174216]

>>15174209
In what sense does the universe decay?

[Anonymous No.15174217]

>>15174212
Prove that there could have been a universe in which I made the opposite choice.

[Anonymous No.15174219]

>>15174211
>The final value is sqrt(2)+1
No, that is the original value, there is no final value to sqrt(2), the calculation will take forever to perform which is why you just keep saying it can only be sqrt(2) without acknowledging that it can actually be partially calculated to 1.414213562..., but never completely calculated.

[Anonymous No.15174223]

>>15174219
>there is no final value to sqrt(2)
But there is. It's called sqrt(2). Exercise: construct it as a Dedekind cut on the rationals.

[Anonymous No.15174225]

>>15174216
In every sense, in the sense you will decay and decompose and so too will every molecule and element that ever made up every organism and inorganic experience radioactive decay over time.

[Anonymous No.15174229]

>>15174223
No, that is not the final reduction, the sqrt function can still be partially applied to the value of 2 and it will render 1.414213562,,, without ever being able to determine an actual complete final value.

[Anonymous No.15174236]

>>15174229
The final value is the Dedekind cut which is the partition of the rationals into the numbers which are negative or have square less than 2, and the numbers which are positive and have square greater than 2. Stop making me do your homework for you.

[Anonymous No.15174243]

>>15174236
In other words, you can't actually provide a final value in the same way you can define 251 without appealing to some other infinite process like infinitely partitioning some other infinite line or some infinite processing function that can never resolve an output from the simple input of 2?

[Anonymous No.15174255]

>>15174243
>infinitely partitioning
I partitioned it once, idiot.

[Anonymous No.15174258]

>>15174255
So are you not going to do >>15174195 or...?

[Anonymous No.15174264]

>>15174258
1. He already did it
2. This is the definition from wikipedia, of sqrt(2) as a Dedekind cut, so idk what else you want.

[Anonymous No.15174284]

>>15174255
>I partitioned it once
No, you invoked some ability to do an infinitely precise partition to an infinitely small magnitude on a function you can't even calculate to a precision of 10^-1000.

[Anonymous No.15174285]

>>15174284
Why do you insist on putting everything in terms of decimal expansions? Stop relying on integers if you want to think about the continuum.

[Anonymous No.15174290]

>>15174285
>Why do you insist on putting everything in terms of decimal expansions?
I just insist on actually calculating the function instead of calling an unresolved function a number and the only way to calculation the value of the output of the square root function at the magnitude 2 ends with infinite decimal expansion which you can't just wish away by pretending the function itself is the final number value.
I don't want to think about the continuum, I want you to prove you can actually calculate the function instead of relying on some system that is infinitely unknowable to not solve the function for you. You are the one who brought up integers when you asked to define 251 and when you realized 251 doesn't have the problems of your shitty function, you tried to back pedal back to shifting the burden of the functional calculation again.

[Anonymous No.15174295]

>>15174290
I tried to explain that you need to define 251. Let's go through it again more carefully. Define 251, please, without defining it in terms of other integers and integer operations.

I'm interested to know why you seem to have something against definitions involving rational numbers, but not definitions like 251.

[Anonymous No.15174297]

>>15173048
>Prime number distribution looks weird.
>I think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."
How do you square these two?

[Anonymous No.15174302]

>>15174295
I already clearly explained what it was which is why you just tried and failed to explain what sqrt(2) is using similar methodology. Now you are just moving the goalposts because your function doesn't stand up to the same scrutiny as an actual well defined integer.
>Hurr durr explain what a number is without referencing numbers.

>involving rational numbers
I assume you mean irrational numbers.
>but not definitions like 251.
Because the definition of 251 doesn't require invoking some illogical infinite process that can never actually complete, it just involves adding 1 to itself 250 times.

[Anonymous No.15174305]

>>15174302
>I don't want to define a number without referencing numbers
>I want you to define a number without referencing numbers
Lmao

>Because the definition of 251 doesn't require invoking some illogical infinite process that can never actually complete
Neither does asking which is the greater of two given rational numbers. I'm not sure why you keep insisting this is an infinite process.

[Anonymous No.15174314]

>>15174305
>>I want you to define a number without referencing numbers
I told you to use numbers and you got mad at the idea that numbers tend towards decimal expansion because you wanted to use a function instead of a number as your final value, but a function is not a number, it is a way to map inputs to outputs and with input 2, the square root function can't produce a coherent output because it tends towards infinite numerical expansion of decimals.

I want you to define the actual number sqrt(2) resolves to wtihout referencing the original function or some divergent infinite process that can never resolve.

>rational numbers
You keep saying that, but sqrt(2) is not a rational number, you might be able to say it is the ratio of two unknown variables, but you can not find any actual numbers that would satisfy the ratio.

>why you keep insisting this is an infinite process.
Because you keep admitting that there is no final number because the calculation would take infinite time to reach the infinite precision needed to come to a final conclusion, so its easier to just call the function itself the final number without doing any calculation at all because decimal expansion bad since it disproves your assumptions that sqrt(2) can be resolved.

[Anonymous No.15174320]

>>15174314
I'm wondering why you want to rely on decimal expansions if the decimal expansion is nonterminating and nonrecurring.

>I want you to define the actual number sqrt(2) resolves to
It's a Dedekind cut, just like all real numbers (if you are using that construction).

> you wanted to use a function instead of a number as your final value
sqrt(2) isn't a function, it's a number. Please review your middle school mathematics.

>the square root function can't produce a coherent output
It does. It's called a real number.

>Because you keep admitting that there is no final number
No, there is a final number. It's sqrt(2).


By the way, are you planning on explaining to me how to define integers without using integers? I assume not, since you don't really seem to know much of what you're talking about. "Final numbers" lol.

To clarify, you can obtain reals from rationals, and rationals form integers. So if you can construct integers, you can construct the rest.

[Anonymous No.15174334]

>>15174320
>sqrt(2) isn't a function
Square root is most certainly a function and when applied to the input 2, the output is incoherent, it is not a real number or you would be able to say exactly what that number is instead of just saying it is a function with input 2.

>It does.
It doesn't not, it produces a number with infinite precision that can never be fully coherently calculated.

>No, there is a final number. It's sqrt(2).
Sqrt is a function, not a number, with the input of 2, the function can not be used to actually calculate a final real number, it can only be used to estimate to an arbitrary number of digits.

> are you planning on explaining to me how to define integers without using integers?
No that has nothing to do with you being unable to resolve your function to a definite complete set of integers that fully represents the true output of the function, it is you shifting the burden to incoherent nonsense because your "answer" necessitates a function requiring infinite processing to calculate.

>So if you can construct integers, you can construct the rest.
Except you can't construct sqrt(2) out of integers, you keep requiring the function to remain in tact and not be used for calculation since attempting to calculate sqrt(2) will never resolve a final output. What is sqrt(4) able to be resolved to the number 2 if a function itself is the same as a number?

[Anonymous No.15174338]

>>15174334
>the output is incoherent
Just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it is "incoherent".

>Sqrt is a function, not a number, with the input of 2
Yes, but I said sqrt(2) , not sqrt . Those are different things. Do you understand?

>a function itself is the same as a number
Wrong lol. They're different just like e is not equal to the 2-sphere.

[Anonymous No.15174341]

>>15174334
>Except you can't construct sqrt(2) out of integers
Like I said, you are fine with integers; then construct the rationals, then construct the reals, and within the reals you have your square root of 2.

[Anonymous No.15174353]

>>15174338
>Just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it is "incoherent".
Then if you are so smart and understand that doesn't tend towards incoherence, what is the last digit in the sequence?

>Yes, but I said sqrt(2) , not sqrt
sqrt is the main component of sqrt(2) and it is not a number, it is a function, -2 or 12 would be a number, sqrt(2) is not a number, it is a function with an input of 2 and no coherent output.

>Wrong lol. They're different
Exactly sqrt(2) is different than 1.414213562..., one is an unresolvable function, one is a partial estimation of an irrational number resolved to an arbitrary number of digits that would require infinite calculation to simply display to a non arbitrary number of digits.

[Anonymous No.15174357]

>>15173048
If the universe was symmetrical then we wouldn't exist to observe anything.

[Anonymous No.15174359]

>>15174341
>within the reals you have your square root of 2.
Except you can't actually say exactly where, the numbers will only produce an arbitrary estimation because they are based on incomplete open ended explosive logic.

[Anonymous No.15174365]

>>15174353
>>Just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it is "incoherent".
>Then if you are so smart and understand that doesn't tend towards incoherence, what is the last digit in the sequence?
What is the last digit in 1/99 = 0.010101 ... ?


> one is an unresolvable function
Once again, sqrt(2) is not a function, just like 2^2 is not a function.

Sorry but I have to go to sleep, and this is just getting to the point where I'm explaining basic concepts to you anyway. C u l8r

[Anonymous No.15174372]

ITT Schizos go wild!

[Anonymous No.15174373]

>>15174365
>What is the last digit in 1/99 = 0.010101 ... ?
In other words you aren't actually smart enough to answer the question, the best you can do is attempt to shift the burden of computation back to someone else while proving that the numerical system is inherently incomplete and mostly undefined.

>Once again, sqrt(2) is not a function
Once again sqrt(2) is the square root function with an input of 2 and an incoherent output the would require infinite precision to resolve.

> 2^2 is not a function.
Yes it is, it is the exponentiation function of 2 with an input of 2, it just isn't as incoherent as the sqrt function because the input 2 can be resolved to an output of exactly 4, it doesn't require infinite calculation to resolve that function, so you don't have to say 2^2=2^2, you can actually say 2^2=4 because it is a function that can be calculated.

[Anonymous No.15174375]

>>15174365
>Sorry but I have to go to sleep
Oh you are sleep deprived, that explains all the nonsense you have been talking about this whole time.

[Anonymous No.15174382]

>>15174375
SCHIZOS GO WILD!

[Anonymous No.15174383]

>>15174382
I accept the concession implied in your argument devolving into pure ad hominem, sleepyhead.

[Anonymous No.15174408]

>>15174264
>1. He already did it
No you didn't. Show me a picture of you holding up the ruler to the hypotenuse.

[Anonymous No.15174427]

>>15173048
I'd say your standards of perfection are completely arbitrary monke brain constructs but the funny thing is that they look unappealing or irrelevant even to a human. Your post is just autism speaking. I challenge you to come up with a better universe if you think this one isn't good enough.

[Anonymous No.15174437]

>>15174427
Open a book sometime and you will see plenty of people coming up with imaginary worlds and universes that are much more spectacular than this one.

[Anonymous No.15174452]

>>15174437
When you think about the implications of those universes outside the context of the problem, it always turns out they're absurd at best.

[Anonymous No.15174455]

>>15174452
>context of the problem
context of the plot*

[Anonymous No.15174462]

>>15174452
>its absurd to think about a better universe
If you think it is absurd, then why ask people to do that in the first place as if people haven't already been doing it for all recorded history?

[Anonymous No.15174465]

>>15174462
>>its absurd to think about a better universe
Whom are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.15174487]

>>15174465
An anonymous dipshit who has never even read a book involving alternative universes, yet someone believes they are an expert.

[Anonymous No.15174489]

>>15174487
You're legit mentally ill. I don't understand why this board is overflowing with "people" like you.

[Anonymous No.15174501]

>>15174489
GAY SCHIZOS GO WILD!!!

[Anonymous No.15174529]

>>15173048
>I think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."
Quite the contrary. Math is imperfect, and our universe is perfect.

[Anonymous No.15174538]

>>15174529
Your universe is decaying while you are dying, neither decaying nor dying is a state of perfection, you have no perfect perspective from which to infer perfection.

[Anonymous No.15174550]

>>15174538
>neither decaying nor dying is a state of perfection
Why not?

> you have no perfect perspective from which to infer perfection.
So you have no basis for making your claims?

[Anonymous No.15174558]

>>15174550
>Why not?
Perfection is a state of unchangeable flawlessness while decay is a rotting state of decline and deterioration.

>So you have no basis for making your claims?
There is no way to infer perfection from an imperfect state, you can only infer imperfection from an imperfect deteriorating perspective, so while you can't prove any coherent claim of perfection, a claim of imperfection is trivial and actually backed up any incoherent imperfect elements present in the claim.

[Anonymous No.15174561]

>>15174558
>Perfection is a state of unchangeable flawlessness
How do you know the rules of this universe are changeable and/or flawed?

>There is no way to infer perfection from an imperfect state
So you have no basis to tell anyone what is or isn't perfect?

[Anonymous No.15174574]

>>15174561
>How do you know the rules of this universe are changeable and/or flawed?
Decay is change induced by flaws, if it were perfect it would be eternal and unchanging rather than constantly radioactively decaying and expanding.

>So you have no basis to tell anyone what is or isn't perfect?
There is no basis for anyone who is obviously imperfect to make any assertions about perfection or being perfect, they can only bear witness to their own flaws and use those flaws about elements of the universe as proof the universe has flaws that force change over time rather than being eternally perfect and unchangeable.

[Anonymous No.15174582]

>>15174574
>Decay is change induced by flaws
You're literally just taking some change, giving it a negative term and claiming it's flawed because you picked a negative term to refer to it. lol

>There is no basis for anyone who is obviously imperfect to make any assertions about perfection
Ok. You can delete your thread now.

[Anonymous No.15174591]

>>15174076
i dont think he necessarily implied that he is religious, but rather that hoping for a "perfect" universe is almost like being religious and therefore one could just as well be religious since it would be no different
>>15174081
well the universe has thought in it, but it also has non-thought in it (see: rocks), infact most of the universe is non-thinking, yet you didn't focus on that?

[Anonymous No.15174597]

Because the smallest of the imperfection allowed the universe to exist in the first place. If the universe were uniform at the start, then it wouldn't have ballooned and big banged. Big bang happened due to quantum fluctuations that were uneven in nature and scale. A uniform fluctuation would have fizzeled out

[Anonymous No.15174600]

>>15174582
>because you picked a negative term to refer to it
Because its an inherently negative process of loss and deterioration, decay isn't about gaining energy or momentum, it is about losing it, by definition.

>Ok. You can delete your thread now.
Its not my thread and I have only proven that your perspective is imperfect and can make no claims of perfection only the imperfection of your direct experience that necessitates loss and deterioration over time.

[Anonymous No.15174607]

>>15174600
what the hell have you schizos been talking about for the past 200 messages. i wanna argu- i mean debate with someone, but i dont know the sides involved, and don't have the years required to read through the posts. something about sqrt(2) it seems

[Anonymous No.15174610]

>>15174600
>Because its an inherently negative process
Prove it.

> I have only proven that your perspective is imperfect
The degree of your delusional narcissism is truly stunning.

[Anonymous No.15174619]

>>15173828
you wrote all of this so have a (you), (((you)))

[Anonymous No.15174621]

>>15174610
>Prove it.
Its the definition. Decomposition is explicitly a reduction.

>The degree of your delusional narcissism is truly stunning.
Both of our perspectives are imperfect, you are the only one refusing to acknowledge your own limitations and imperfection, Narcissus.

[Anonymous No.15174639]

>>15174621
>Decomposition is explicitly a reduction.
Why is a "reduction" inherently negative? Word thinkers are genuine meat GPTs on the margins of sentience.

[Anonymous No.15174641]

>>15174621
>you are the only one refusing to acknowledge your own limitations and imperfection
Truly stunning delusional mental illness. I'm not the one asserting anything about the universe's perfection or lack thereof. You are doing so in every one of your deranged posts.

[Anonymous No.15174648]

>>15174639
>Why is a "reduction" inherently negative?
Because reduction means something is being decreased which is inherently negative rather than being increased or raised or incremented. De- prefix is inherently connected to negation, decay, decompose, detract, decrease, etc.

[Anonymous No.15174650]

>>15174648
>reduction means something is being decreased
Why is it inherently bad for something to be decreased?

[Anonymous No.15174654]

>>15174641
The only view of the universe you have is your own perspective.
Is you perspective part of the universe or nonexistence?
Either your own perspective is perfect or imperfect, which do you think it is?

[Anonymous No.15174656]

>>15174654
Okay. I see. Your posts are just more GPT bot spam.

[Anonymous No.15174659]

>>15174650
It is inherently imperfect and negative, this is the first time you tried to move the goalposts to "bad" whatever that means.

[Anonymous No.15174662]

>>15174659
>It is inherently imperfect and negative
Why? Looks like I broke the bot. It will keep looping here.

[Anonymous No.15174663]

>>15174656
Either your own perspective is perfect or imperfect, which do you think it is and why?

[Anonymous No.15174665]

>>15174663
Are the mods seriously too dumb to notice which IP range all the GPT spam is coming from, or are they letting it go on on purpose?

[Anonymous No.15174667]

>>15174662
If the conversation is looping, it is because I am being consistent and you are just asking the same questions over and over.

De- is explicitly a prefix of negation.
Loss is inherently destructive and imperfect.
You have no case based on your direct evidence that the universe is perfect because you are not perfect.

[Anonymous No.15174669]

>>15174667
>De- is explicitly a prefix of negation.
Word thinkers are nonsentient.

>Loss is inherently destructive and imperfect.
Why?

[Anonymous No.15174670]

>>15174665
Do you not know if you are perfect or imperfect, is ignorance you problem?
Is there anything a perfect being could possibly not know, is ignorance really a hallmark of perfection in your worldview?

[Anonymous No.15174671]

>>15174669
Then feel free to try to explain your position without using words.

>Why?
Because it is a type of subtraction, a negation, making some whole less than whole and reducing it to some lesser value.

[Anonymous No.15174672]

>>15174671
>Because it is a type of subtraction, a negation
So what? Honestly, I don't even consider you human anymore and see no value in talking to you. I just wanna see how long your primitive language model can get stuck in the same loop.

[Anonymous No.15174674]

>>15174672
>So what?
So you got your answer to >>15174639. it is inherently negative because it is a reduction in value rather than an increase or perfect balance.

[Anonymous No.15174675]

>>15174674
>it is a reduction in value
So? If you're talking about a reduction in subjective value, no one cares. If you're talking about a reduction in some numerical value, no one cares. You lose.

[Anonymous No.15174677]

>>15174672
If you keep asking the same questions over and over and retorting with "Duh... So?", you are the one who is stuck.

[Anonymous No.15174678]

>>15174677
You are either a bot or profoundly mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15174681]

>>15174675
Lose what? The mere fact that loss exists in the universe means it is imperfect, so anytime there is loss, I win the argument that the universe is imperfect, for it to be perfect, we would both have to win the argument.

[Anonymous No.15174683]

>>15174678
Sorry you are so mad that you can't put your thoughts into words because you have been easily convinced that robot boogeymen are better at thinking and expressing themselves than you are.

[Anonymous No.15174685]

>>15174681
>Lose what?
Lose your mind, apparently. Keep looping infinitely. You never get to any objective premise but you lack the basic metacognition needed to see it.

[Anonymous No.15174687]

>>15174683
Unironically take your meds. This is some serious delusional mental illness you're displaying. Auto-hiding all further posts from you. Confirm your obsessive mental illness by replying to me again.

[Anonymous No.15174688]

>>15174685
I didn't loop though I changed from loss is loss by definition to proving that if there are winners and losers there is inherent imperfection since perfection is only achieved when everyone wins.

[Anonymous No.15174693]

>I didn't loop
>I didn't loop
>I didn't loop
>I didn't loop
>I didn't loop

[Anonymous No.15174700]

>>15174687
>You are a robot
>You need medicine
>You are a robot
>You need medicine
>You are a robot
>You need medicine
Talk about being stuck in an incoherent loop, kek.

[Anonymous No.15174706]

>>15173774
It must hurt being this fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.15174716]

>>15174688
>use [word] to describe a natural process
>ascribe negative value judgment to [word]
>be asked why [word] is inherently negative
>use [other word] to describe [word]
>ascribe negative value judgment to [other word]
>be asked why [other word] is inherently negative
>use [yet another word] to describe [other word]
>ascribe negative value judgment to [yet another word]
he's right. if you weren't so stupid, you would have noticed your strategy is doomed to fail

[Anonymous No.15174721]

>>15174716
>ascribe
I didn't ascribe it de- has been ascribed a negative value judgement since latin was popularly spoken.

[Anonymous No.15174728]

>>15174721
the final state of this board

[Anonymous No.15174889]

>>15173164
Multiverse is a religion. Shut the fuck up nerd

[Anonymous No.15174935]

>>15174716
>>15174728
So the final state of your argument is that words are bad and people who actually know what they mean are stupid, its stupid to point out all the negative prefixes attached to words like decay and decrement indicating that everything in a state of decay isn't actually perfect by definition?
Are you going to scold people for ascribing negative value to numbers with minus signs as a prefix next?

[Anonymous No.15174942]

>>15174693
The looper was the one stuck asking the same question (So?) over and over, not the one answering it differently every single time.

[Anonymous No.15174960]

>>15174935
>So the final state of your argument is that words are bad
no, it's that you can keep going on forever trying to reformulate your vague feefees using "negative"-sounding words but you'll never be able to show that the actual things the words refer to are inherently negative or that your value judgments are objective

[Anonymous No.15174962]

>>15174935
>So the final state of your argument is that words are bad
no, it's that you can keep going on forever trying to consolidate your vague feefees into an actual case by using "negative"-sounding words to describe things, but you'll never be able to show that the actual things the words refer to are inherently negative, nor that your value judgments are objective

[Anonymous No.15174970]

>>15173055
>Our universe is mutilated.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.15174979]

>>15174962
>by using "negative"-sounding words
They aren't negative sounding words, they are words that specifically define negation and loss which was derived from empirical observation and absolutely exists in the universe and your only cope is that decay is only semantic, but its not, decay is physical and continuous like the aging process that will kill you and everything else.

>the actual things the words refer to are inherently negative
Negative and Subtraction were conceived to reflect the reality of decay and loss in the universe, you can never prove that they are only semantic knowing that you are in the continuous process of losing time and will absolutely lose your life one day.

[Anonymous No.15174984]

>>15174979
>they are words that specifically define negation
i know it must be very hard for someone like you to process (what with you not being able to keep more than one sense of a word in mind at the same time) but negative isn't inherently negative in the value judgment sense your whole point relies on

[Anonymous No.15174991]

>>15174979
>they are words that specifically define negation
i know it must be very hard for someone like you to process (what with you not being able to keep more than one meaning of a word in mind at the same time and shitting out rhetoric based on connotations), but negation isn't inherently negative in the value judgment sense your whole point relies on. you'd be better off if you were less stupid; subtracting some of your stupidity wouldn't make you a less perfect person

[Anonymous No.15175008]

>>15173048
well yeah, i kind of view math as a cube expanding in a balloon or a sphere, sure it will cover most of the area but there are always those little bits at the side that you simply cant fill in with a cube or cuboid

[Anonymous No.15175010]

>>15174991
>the value judgment sense your whole point relies on
Which point, that the universe isn't perfect, it has both positive and negative characteristics or that you aren't perfect because you will eventually lose your life?
It doesn't really matter since both of those points assume any potential for negation or progression indicates imperfection and in this universe, you gonna die.

>subtracting some of your stupidity wouldn't make you a less perfect person
Any need for to add or subtract any amount of stupidity would mean you are not perfectly stupid. Any universe that has positive and negative imbalances or even just potential positive and negative imbalances is not perfect or perfectly balanced by definition.

[Anonymous No.15175012]

>>15175010
you display the same patterns as pic related

[Anonymous No.15175023]

>>15175012
Back to your robot/medicine ad hominem loop?
Robot or not, medicated or not, trapped in looping patterns or not, we are all going to die, you are not perfect, your perspective is not perfect, your concept of the universe is not perfect, the only thing you can possibly know about the universe is that it is not entirely perfect because you are not entirely perfect.

[Anonymous No.15175094]

>>15175023
see >>15174716. that's the final word whether you comprehend it or not

[Anonymous No.15175115]

>>15175094
I understand your very wrong misconception about semantics, negative value isn't just being randomly ascribed with the semantics tricks, the consistent set of semantics with negating prefixes were developed over time to reflect the observation of loss and deterioration.

While you probably didn't lose your virginity, you definitely lost your childhood, you lost a lot of time trying to make a losing argument here, you know loss, you know deficit, you're not perfect, your universe is not perfect, your perspective is not perfect, the only thing you can possibly know about the universe is that it is not entirely perfect because you know you are not entirely perfect, your experience is not perfect, you gonna die.

[Anonymous No.15175123]

>>15175115
not an argument

[Anonymous No.15175128]

>>15175123
Either way, argument or not, you gonna die because you're not perfect, your universe is not perfect, your perspective is not perfect, the only thing you can possibly know about the universe is that it is not entirely perfect because you know you are not entirely perfect, your experience is not perfect, you gonna die.

[Anonymous No.15175130]

>>15174706
It must hurt replying this late and still not have the ability to articulate a post of worth.

>>15174991
>rhetoric based on connotations
>math
>but negation isn't inherently negative in the value judgment sense your whole point relies on.

you get a positive when you use two negatives, okay...

>you'd be better off if you were less stupid
>less lack of intelligence
>less lack
See?

>>15174962
>it's that you can keep going on forever trying to consolidate your vague feefees into an actual case by using "negative"
Yes, it's called "double negative".

[Anonymous No.15176119]

>>15175008
well yeah, you are kind of fucking retarded too.

[Anonymous No.15176158]

Man, there were a couple of interesting and thought provoking posts way back near the start of this thread. I come back the next day and see its all degenerated into absolute fuckheads shit flinging and shit talking.

Every fucking time. Always at least one fuckhead who has to reply to another fuckhead, provoking a chain reaction of sheer fuckery that persists until the entire thread is full of absolute fuckery.

Every fucking time. Always at least some schizo fuck who has to splerg his delusional nutcase ideas. Doesn't matter if the thread is about mathematics, soon enough they will derail everything with total nonsense. Similar to the way flat earthers talk.

Every fucking time. Always at least some 12 year old mental midget that's just got to chime in with their two cents, which is always wrong anyway, and then goes bitch mode when corrected

EVERY FUCKING TIME!

Why cant we have nice things? And better yet, how do we remove the fuckheads from existence? Those are the questions that deserves our immediate and unwavering attention.

[Anonymous No.15176169]

>>15176158
>Doesn't matter if the thread is about mathematics
>He is this far in the thread and hasn't figured out that that's what we're trying to figure out despite OP's post clearly laying it out for him.

>EVERY FUCKING TIME!
This is what happens when you make threads that potentially contradict mathematics on a math and science board. I really don't know why you wouldn't expect this to happen at this point, it's only been like...2000+ years.

[Anonymous No.15176393]

>>15173048
>There is a finite amount of energy.
No there isn't
>There is a finite amount of time
Time is not a thing
>Amount of Matter versus anti-matter is not equal.
Antimatter is less stable
>Prime number distribution looks weird
Has absolutely nothing to do with the universe and is only a consequence of how we've built up mathematics

[Anonymous No.15176399]

>>15174373
Hey I'm back, could you explain your reasons for your retarded beliefs again, I forgot

[Anonymous No.15176403]

>>15176393
>Time is not a thing
lol. Time is very obviously a thing, it's just immeasurable.

[Anonymous No.15176412]

>>15173048
>Prime number distribution looks weird.
Prime numbers are just trivia. There is no special meaning to them, they are obviously a phenomenon that arises in our base-10 decimal system, because of the way counting and division is done in that system.

[Anonymous No.15176416]

>>15176412
I don't think anyone thinks prime numbers alone are important. The important thing is that we've come up with incredibly powerful and intricate mathematics just in the course of pondering and investigating problems regarding prime numbers and number theory.

[Anonymous No.15176536]

>>15173048
>There is a finite amount of energy.
>There is a finite amount of time.
Basis for these claims? None.
>Amount of Matter versus anti-matter is not equal.
If it were we wouldn't be here to observe it.
>Prime number distribution looks weird.
Anthropological principle kicked you hard in the head. #many such cases!

[Anonymous No.15176543]

>>15176403
No it isn't, there is always only the current moment, you perceive the illusion of time because you compare the current state of the system with states that already happened or haven't happened yet, time itself is not a thing, there are no seconds, minutes or hours, only right now.

[Anonymous No.15176642]

>>15176536
>>There is a finite amount of energy.
>>There is a finite amount of time.
>Basis for these claims? None.

[Anonymous No.15176703]

>>15176642
>>>There is a finite amount of energy.
>>>There is a finite amount of time.
>>Basis for these claims? None.