/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3055921]

What is the most valid theory about the creation of our universe ? Is it possible that it created itself out of nothing ?

[Anonymous No.3055931]

>out of nothing

Before the big bang is a singularity, because "time" didn't exist then, and therefore "before" has no meaning in the first place.

So it didn't create itself out of "nothing", a singularity cannot be quantified.

[Anonymous No.3055932]

>>3055921

Steven Weinberg was talking to Richard Dawkins in an interview. Steven said that right now, a multiverse is an accepted model by physicists since they have found evidence for multiple big bangs.

"Is it possible that it created itself out of nothing ?"

Yes. What are the other options? If all causes had a cause, then there would be an infinite amount of causes. If not all causes have a cause, then there is the chance that are universe has no cause.

[Anonymous No.3055964]

yeah "out of nothing" doesn't make sense. Perhaps we can say it was created out of itself. or that it's always been. The universe, by definition, encompasses everything - that would include the "nothing" and the "multiverse" (should that exist). So the terms, multiverse and nothing should really be used in the context of origins.

As far as self creation is concerned, i dont have a problem with it since the universe is filled with things that are self organising, and self generating

[Anonymous No.3055971]

>>3055932
>since they have found evidence for multiple big bangs.

Wait, what? Where? Source please?

[Anonymous No.3055974]

yeah "out of nothing" doesn't make sense. Perhaps we can say it was created out of itself. or that it's always been. The universe, by definition, encompasses everything - that would include the "nothing" and the "multiverse" (should that exist). So the terms, multiverse and nothing shouldn't really be used in the context of origins.

As far as self creation is concerned, i dont have a problem with it since the universe is filled with things that are self organising, and self generating

[Anonymous No.3055976]

It was created when two branes collided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_%28M-theory%29

Ed Witten's crazy ideas aside,
>>3055931
>"time" didn't exist then, and therefore "before" has no meaning in the first place
I love this. Time didn't exist before the universe existed and time won't exist after the universe existed. Therefore, after the destruction of the universe (e.g. via heat death or whatever floats your universe) we can say that the universe never was, since "was" is not a meaningful concept.

[Anonymous No.3055977]

>>3055921
>Is it possible that it created itself out of nothing ?
No. Spacetime is something and had to come from something. The most common theory for where it came from comes from m-theory, which can mathematically describe the emergence of spacetime as coming from a collision of branes in additional dimensions.

[Anonymous No.3055981]

>>3055964
what do you mean "self generating"?

[Anonymous No.3055986]

>>3055977
>Spacetime is something and had to come from something.

We don't know that for sure. We have seen only one universe, and we can't make inductive conclusions about it such as causality.

[Anonymous No.3055987]

>>3055964
The universe only includes space-time, however many dimensions our physical world encompasses. If there are dimensions unrelated to us, or other universes, those are not part of "the universe".

[::_ralph_:: !!BskCf8Efa1a No.3055988]

>>3055974
Are you implying the universe is a being-for-itself therefore being conscious of the choices that shapes it's destiny ?

[Anonymous No.3056001]

>>3055986
>We have seen only one universe

I don't understand this. the word universe by definition encompasses everything. So how can there be more than one? if there was prove that the enormous entity that we and everything we know off exists in isn't the only one of its kind, wouldn't it just mean that the universe was both of those things?

[Anonymous No.3056012]

>>3055976
I'm surprised and a little pissed off that you're allowed to post things on string theory, when I try. I get people screaming at about how it makes too many untestable claims and therefore is useless to consider.

[Anonymous No.3056015]

>>3055976

>Therefore, after the destruction of the universe (e.g. via heat death or whatever floats your universe) we can say that the universe never was, since "was" is not a meaningful concept.

Except there can be no "end" of the universe.

Even after all matter disintegrates, even with heat death, photons don't decay.

All of the universe, all the heat and matter, down to photons radiating through the void. Enough to keep spacetime meaningful, however.

Then all we need is a nice ol' stabilized quantum fluctuation. Which will take eons, but it's not like those photons have watches.

[Anonymous No.3056018]

The human condition traps us between the two options: infinite and finite.

We cannot accept things with an end. If I say there is this biggest number ever, you will rebel and find the next one. If I say you die and then it's nothing, you rebel. If I say the universe came out of nothing or is heading towards nothing, it sounds absolutely impossible.

At the same time, the thought that infinite possibilities are real, beyond space and time, beyond imagination and sensoral response, we rebel just as well. The part turns out to be bigger than the whole, the ending is the middle of the beggining, anything can happen and will happen and is happening is a frightening thought.

So, we create models, simple models that are there just to hold this burden. "My dad knows it all, I'm just a child". "Humans don't know stuff, only God knows his plans for the universe". "I cannot feel the universe, so I'll try and understand it rationally". Abstractions, states of mind, that's all.

[Anonymous No.3056020]

>>3056001
What don;t you understand about us only seeing this universe? We have never seen any other universe come into existence, and thus we can't make conclusions about this universe's existence.

Science makes conclusions after repeated observations, but at most we can only see this universe come into existence ONCE, if we can see it at all. Therefore, we can't make conclusions such as "it must come from somewhere" because that is an inductive conclusion, which only works after multiple observations.

[Anonymous No.3056032]

There is circumstantial evidence for various theories, there is nothing more than that. Claiming a singularity did it is no less retarded than claiming god did it

[Anonymous No.3056033]

>>3056020
the universe is everything that exists. You keep talking about "other universes". that would just mean that everything that exists is more than we thought. it would still all have to come under the term universe - because it is part of everything that exists.

[Anonymous No.3056035]

>>3055986
But it's logically and philosophically untenable to have something popping into existence from nothing. (inb4 virtual particle pairs. They don't come from nothing.)

[Anonymous No.3056036]

>>3056012
I mentioned Ed Witten and everyone respects Ed Witten.

[Anonymous No.3056040]

>>3056001
> the word universe by definition encompasses everything.
No it doesn't. That's not how it's used in science.

[Anonymous No.3056043]

>>3056012
Anyone who claims that only testable things are useful to think about is a nitwit.

[Anonymous No.3056044]

>>3056032
>Claiming a singularity did it is no less retarded than claiming god did it
this

[Anonymous No.3056046]

A perfect vacuum still has a lot of energy in it. Quantum theory is certain to a very high degree that when a space lacks everything, observable through interference, fluctuations of energy are coming in and out of existence. Evidence has shown us that the universe has a total net energy of zero, so when you ask how the universe started, we can only really state with any confidence that the universe is the result of quantum fluctuations that exist as a part of the nature of our universe.

[Anonymous No.3056048]

>>3055921
My thoughts on this, and bear with me, im not a sciencey person:

The universe was indeed created out of what we'd understand as 'nothing'. For our sake, lets use the term 'outside' the universe, aswell, although of course there is no outside, because there is no space.

"Outside" our universe is a "place" with nothing. Complete nothingness. No laws of physics, or of any kind apply here. And BECAUSE there are no laws here, ANYTHING can happen, and in turn, EVERYTHING happens; an infinite amount of events. One of these things is our universe.

I just think the universe happened because it happened. No causality here, it's an inevitability.

[Anonymous No.3056050]

>>3056043
if we give up falsifiability we enter religion

[Anonymous No.3056051]

>>3056043
>Anyone who claims that only testable things are useful to think about is a nitwit.
God doesn't need to be tested

[Anonymous No.3056053]

>>3055971

A quick Google search found this article on the topic.:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe

I suggest reading the guys paper if you want to find out more, but I, personally, have a hunch that neither of us will be able to understand the physics very much....

Good luck!

[Anonymous No.3056054]

>>3056040
>>3056043
Ah, then this is certain people on /sci/ leading me astray. I mentioned multiverse once and I swear they were ready to skin me alive

[Anonymous No.3056057]

>>3056020
Isn't this one of the goals of the LHC? To recreate the conditions of the big bang (although that's related to supersymmetry and finding the Higgs Boson and graviton).

[Anonymous No.3056059]

>>3056032
>>3056044

It's not that "a singularity did it", but that "it was a singularity".

It simply WAS a singularity, and we just can't apply physics to it.

Because how do you apply physics, WHEN PHYSICS DIDN'T EXIST?

[Anonymous No.3056061]

>>3056035
This highlights the flaw in inductive reasoning. In the world we see that everything that happens does so because it has a reason, a cause. Therefore, you are inductively concluding that everything has a cause.

Inductive logic works only because we have so many data points to draw an inference. But we have no such data in regards to the origin of the universe, therefore, inductive conclusions can't be applied to the origin of the universe.

[Anonymous No.3056073]

[Anonymous No.3056086]

a person who claims that the universe came from nothing is like an orphan saying, "i don't know who my parents were, therefore they don't exist! i simply came into being!"

[Anonymous No.3056103]

>>3056086
Well, the orphan is wrong because we can see that many, many MANY people have parents, and we can prove that these children came from these parents.

Is it possible to do this with the universe? Can we go out and see other universe popping into existence from some cause? No. It isn't. At this point all we can say is that we just don't know.

[Anonymous No.3056104]

[Anonymous No.3056111]

>>3056086
Not really. That's just you suggesting the universe needs a creator or creation event, just like a baby needs birth.

[Anonymous No.3056132]

>>3056086

Godfag? GTFO.

[Anonymous No.3056134]

[Anonymous No.3056136]

>>3056086
exept that we've never seen another univerce's parents

[Anonymous No.3056137]

>>3056111
i'm just trying to think outside the box. how can you be sure that our universe is the first and last universe? how can you be sure that nothing came before it? how can you be sure that nothing triggered it's creation?

[Anonymous No.3056154]

>>3056132
for the record, i'm no godfag. i'm just skeptical of certain theories.

[Anonymous No.3056155]

>>3056137
That's the point. We don't know. Therefore we can't just conclude that the universe does have a cause.

[Anonymous No.3056179]

>>3056086

But that's retarded. There's evidence to support that people need to have parents. 0/3

[Anonymous No.3056240]

The universe and existence is a hallucination. "God" is merely electrical impulses in your brain. When those electrical impulses stop, the universe no longer exists.

[Anonymous No.3056252]

The universe and existence is a hallucination. "God" is merely electrical impulses in your brain. When those electrical impulses stop, the "universe" goes back to the state it was in before those electrical impulses began: Non-existence.

[Anonymous No.3056259]

>>3056252
How do you know what a hallucination is, Ms Solipsist?

[Anonymous No.3056267]

>>3056252

[Anonymous No.3056275]

>>3056259
All of my knowledge and all of that in the "universe" is part of the hallucination. The knowledge as to our/my origins cannot be known, just as the beginning of your dream cannot be remembered.

[Anonymous No.3056284]

>>3056267
Congratualtions?

[Anonymous No.3056294]

>>3056284

Why mad tho ?

[Anonymous No.3056305]

>>3056294
I'm not even mad

[Anonymous No.3056320]

>>3056305
>>3056294
Quality discussion here gents.

[Anonymous No.3056324]

I've heard of two universes coliding and creating our universe

[Anonymous No.3056364]

It has been speculated that the net energy of the universe is zero because of gravity, which makes sense if our universe could spawn from nothing like quantum fluctuations. However that only raises the question, how did our natural laws arise to even permit zero net energy matter/antimatter annihilation?

[Anonymous No.3056366]

>>3056358
Owned by delete-edit.

No, I do believe in objective knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3056358]

>>3056345
>>3056345
>Your subconscious decides.
I bet you don't believe in objective knowledge either.

[Anonymous No.3056359]

I'm sure some of you are familiar with Schrodinger's cat. Does this paradox, and quantum mechanics as a whole not support >>3056252 ?

Reality is random. Like a dream or hallucination. The cat could be alive or dead. It's 50/50. Who decides? What's the decision based on? Your subconscious decides; not until you actually observe the cat is reality determined.

[frostbyteLT1 No.3056374]

Why do dumbasses always debate this and fail at finding the obvious answer? I figured this fucking question out in ninth grade.

Its fucking simple.

There is no beginning to the universe - there's no beginning to anything. Beginnings and endings are anomalies of human perceptions. Categories we use to simplify the world to an understandable, usable form and scale. When a baby is born, an egg and a cell combine, and then parts of food the pregnant mother consumes are added to the developing structure of the child, constituting every iota of its being.

throughout its life it develops, constantly consuming, taking in mass and energy to replace dead mass and expended energy, an amalgam of everything it eats and breaths in.

then it dies, is consumed by other things, and then other things consumed that which consumed it, nothing is wasted on the atomic scale. Ever.

I posit to you that the universe had no beginning, it has existed eternally (conservation of energy) and reached its current form (and likely eventually every imaginable form obtainable within the laws of physics whatever they may be) due to the forces of entropy (and perhaps, once sufficiently powerful beings came into being, perhaps tampered by them as well). We are just the product of chance working within the laws of physics stretching across an infinity of time and space - i suspect there have been an endless series of explosive rebirths and drifting deaths for the collective matter that is existence, but maybe there weren't any at all, the evidence for the big bang theory is still imperfect.

[Anonymous No.3056375]

stewie created it accidentally.

[Anonymous No.3056377]

>>3056359

>Reality is random. Like a dream or hallucination. The cat could be alive or dead. It's 50/50. Who decides? What's the decision based on? Your subconscious decides; not until you actually observe the cat is reality determined.

Confirmed for not knowing one fuck about Schrodinger's cat.

Who decides? It is not 50/50. The cat is not alive OR dead. The cat is alive AND dead at 100% chance. It is at a superpositional state existing with both at once.

[Anonymous No.3056382]

>>3056359
>The cat could be alive or dead. It's 50/50. Who decides? What's the decision based on? Your subconscious decides;

No, your subconscious does not decide what happens in reality. You may come up with a guess to the fate of the cat, but your opinion on the matter doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous No.3056387]

>>3056377
What I meant by alive or dead was what will the cat be after you observe it, not while it's unobserved. The fact that it's both alive and dead is moot; it may as well not even exist in that moment.

Why so hostile anyways? Is it really so hard to have a civil discussion for once?

[Anonymous No.3056390]

I always think about a cell sees its cell neighbors and itself, but realizes there's something bigger. Lets say these cells form a liver. They don't realize they make up a liver. Now a larger scale a human body and then the universe. I think of us the same way just cause we are not aware of it our universe could be a cell in a sea of different universes. I don' t know man I like to trip myself out. I'm a numbers man but there's always that what if in the back of my mine.

[Anonymous No.3056391]

>>3056377
>>3056359
Actually, I had a conversation with someone here a while ago about this. When scaling up to the macroscopic, the cat is no longer in superposition, it has a definite value, so it is not both alive and dead, is is one or the other. Quantum super positions only occur at the quantum level. At the macroscopic, it all balances out to one outcome.

[Anonymous No.3056393]

>>3056364
This is a red herring. The net energy of the universe being nothing does not equate to something being able to come from nothing. Energy and matter are just concentrations of the stuff of spacetime. The spacetime itself is what needs a reason to exist, energy and matter condensed out of it because of the laws by which the spacetime works.

[Anonymous No.3056396]

>>3056382
What exactly does one's subconscious have to do with guessing or opinions?

[Anonymous No.3056407]

>>3056396
When does one's subconscious come into deciding the fate of the cat?

[Anonymous No.3056409]

>>3056374
That doesn't work. If entropy has been working in the universe for an infinite amount of time, there should be no structure or usable energy left. And that's ignoring the logical and philosophical problems with an infinite chain of causation.

[Anonymous No.3056410]

>>3056407
The same as it has to do with hallucinations or dreams.

[Anonymous No.3056424]

>>3056410
I'm sorry, are you saying my subconscious is creating my reality independent of any objective standard?

[Anonymous No.3056427]

>>3056409

The easy answer would be that the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of conservation are not immutable, and were violated at least once.

[Anonymous No.3056432]

>>3056427
How?

[Anonymous No.3056434]

>>3056424
Yes.

See:
>>3056275
>>3056252

[Anonymous No.3056440]

>>3056393
>The net energy of the universe being nothing does not equate to something being able to come from nothing.

Indeed. Which is why I alluded to the question of how could our natural laws also arise from nothing. It's an infinite regress.

>The spacetime itself is what needs a reason to exist, energy and matter condensed out of it because of the laws by which the spacetime works.

Yes, one could say gravity's effects as spacetime are intrinsically linked to energy and matter which end up being symmetries like virtual particles.

[Anonymous No.3056441]

I'm 100% sure the day m-theory is falsified some guy will add a few more dimentions, speculate on new fantasy conditions and call it nigga-theory.

[Anonymous No.3056445]

>>3056434
see
>>3056366

If my mind is just making everything up as I go, then I don't actually have objective knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3056453]

If you don't know shit about QM just don't talk about it y'all seriously

[Anonymous No.3056456]

>Is it possible that the universe created itself out of nothing?
>creation of the universe
>creation

Who said the universe needs a creation to exist?
Who's to say that the equilibrium of matter and energy (which can never be created or destroyed) wasn't constant?

Saying that the universe was created is a very bold statement.

I, for one, believe that the universe already existed forever. And that it will probably most likely exist forever more into the future, too.

The big bang? That was nothing more than the remnants of the last big crunch.

The cycle continues.

[Anonymous No.3056468]

>>3056432

What part of "singularity" do you not understand?

[Anonymous No.3056469]

>>3056445
Your mind creates the objective standard of knowledge just as your senses create the physical standard.

[Anonymous No.3056478]

>>3056456
Created is just a poetic term for "origin" Furthermore, every there is a big crunch/big bang, wouldn't that be a new universe?

And galaxies are ACCELERATING away from each other. The universe will keep expanding forever. No collapses into a big crunch,.

[Anonymous No.3056481]

>>3056453
No one knows shit about QM. Not even physicians who've been studying it their entire career.

[Anonymous No.3056493]

>>3056469
>Your mind creates the objective standard of knowledge

No. the ontological meaning of objective means that it's independent of my mind.

[Anonymous No.3056498]

>>3056493
Nothing is independent of your mind.

[Anonymous No.3056501]

>>3056440
>one could say gravity's effects as spacetime are intrinsically linked to energy and matter which end up being symmetries like virtual particles

[Anonymous No.3056509]

>>3056478
Each black hole has a singularity in it

[Anonymous No.3056513]

>>3056481

Is this bullshit that pop-sci believe stemming from some quote Feynman made when he was hopped up on his own ego?

Also
>Physicists
>Physicians

[Anonymous No.3056515]

>>3056498
Then there is nothing that is ontologically objective. Which is absurd.

[Anonymous No.3056528]

>>3056498
>>3056515
Furthermore, you are confusing ontological objectivity, with epistemological objectivity. Because everything we know is filtered through our minds, everything we know has some layer of epistemological subjectivity. But this rock will exist if I exist or not, it's ontology is independent of me. It exists even if I don't think about it.

[Anonymous No.3056529]

>>3056515
You're arguing semantics in that case; it's entirely dependent on the precise definition you want to attach to the word 'objective'.

The universe is absurd. Wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous No.3056533]

>>3056529
see
>>3056528

[Anonymous No.3056538]

>>3056533
In that case I am indeed arguing that there is no objective standard of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3056542]

>>3056374

I love you in a non-gay way. You have your shit straight. I wish more people think like you.

[Anonymous No.3056550]

>>3056515

Are you shitting with me? Are you telling me the fucking moon is up there just because we're looking at it?

[Anonymous No.3056551]

It'd be nice if our "universe" was falling into a black hole, and the redshift / dark energy we saw was due to the gravitational redshift and change in acceleration of approaching the singularity.

[Anonymous No.3056560]

>>3056542
I found his post to be rather single-dimensional and simplistic. What you see is what you get, everything is concrete and in front of your eyes.

But that's not how existence is. The question of the origins of the universe should boggle your mind. If it doesn't, you're probably dumb.

[Anonymous No.3056562]

>>3056538
There I will disagree with you. While it is impossible to avoid the subjective layer of biases and opinions, we can minimize them. That is the entire purpose of peer review. Science has been constructed as to minimize our own subjective interpretations of the matter, and get to the raw, objective truth. We will never get there, but we can keep shaving off subjective biases.

[Anonymous No.3056563]

>>3056550
Correct, sir. But not "we". Just you.

[Anonymous No.3056567]

Our society today mistakes the "big bang" for an actual explosion, scientist say that the universe was created by an orifice in a wall of matter creating a light in which expanded into million of molecular ions into the universe. Not an explosion.

[Anonymous No.3056572]

>>3056550
NO! That's why I said it was absurd. Nonsense, crazy, untrue.

[Anonymous No.3056576]

Who cares about the creation of the universe. I'm more concerned about why. Why is the universe like this? Why are things the way they are and not something else like different universal constants and such. You get my drift?

[Anonymous No.3056588]

>>3056567
>orifice in a wall of matter creating a light in which expanded into million of molecular ions into the universe
>mfw

[Anonymous No.3056590]

>>3056560

Says you.
Who declared that the universe has to be mind-boggingly difficult? When it comes down to it, things are simple. And the only thing that matters, and what we care about, is that it makes sense.
Who says it can't be simple? Even if it is a bit boring, that doesn't make it wrong.

[Anonymous No.3056599]

>>3056576
>Who cares about the creation of the universe.
That's what the thread is about.

If you want to ask "Why" go make another thread and ask.

[Anonymous No.3056625]

>>3056590
If it were simple we would have it figured out by now. And by "we", I mean mainstream science, not some dull kid on a message board who can't grasp complex ideas so refuses to believe in their existence.

[Anonymous No.3056633]

>>3056560

>should boggle your mind. If it doesn't, you're probably dumb.

That's backwards. To smart people, everything seams simple and easy, because they understand it. To dumb people, things seam complicated and difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.3056643]

>>3056588
>Only a savage beast would not comprehend what this brilliant man is saying.

[Anonymous No.3056648]

>>3056633
Actually, that's almost backwards.

Smart people are able to understand the issue and see the complexity that comes from education.

Dumb people who don't understand it often see the issue as simple.

[Anonymous No.3056653]

>>3056633
>To smart people, everything seams simple and easy, because they understand it

This only applies to school work. Not complex theories pertaining to existence. A wise man knows only one thing: That he knows nothing.

[Anonymous No.3056666]

>>3056633
It's the other way around, retard. Monkeys are never dumbfounded by the mystery and complexity of the universe. Newton and Einstein were.

[Anonymous No.3056670]

>>3055921
oh boy here we go.
>What is the most valid theory about the creation of our universe ?
You already beging with bullshit, wtf you mean by creation?
>Is it possible that it created itself out of nothing ?
You begin with bullshit and keep with it right?
>implying the universe was "created"
>imlying there was nothing and than something

[Anonymous No.3056681]

>>3056653

Oh hey look a generic socrates (and by extension) plato quote. I be this statement gets philosophy majors a hard-on. We got invented measurements and predictable outcomes nowadays, stop being dumbshits.

[Anonymous No.3056692]

>>3056643
Person A sees starving children and says the solution is simple: Give them food

Person B sees starving children and says the solution is complex: Their economy is broken, their government is corrupt, they're born into a world that gives them almost no chance. The solution? Well, there is none, only time will tell.

Is person A smarter than person B because he came up with a simple solution to a "simple" problem?

[Anonymous No.3056706]

>>3056681
Wow, you're thick. The more you know, the more you know you really don't know.

Only idiots think that they have the whole picture, or that the whole picture is simple. The more you learn, the more you learn that you have much to learn. And you can't start to learn if you think that you already have the whole picture.

Before, we thought that we had the whole picture with deities hiding behind every rock, moving the universe beneath our noses. Now we know that the universe is so god damn complex that there is so much we don't know about it.

[Anonymous No.3056714]

>>3056692
Hint, the answer is no, A is a dumbass for not realizing how big the problem is.

[Anonymous No.3056715]

>>3055921
I think it's possible that the universe never had a "beginning", it simply is.

As a property of living things, we are born and we die. We create memories, and we lose them. So naturally, it should be hard to comprehend a universe that never had a beginning as we once did.

[Anonymous No.3056726]

>>3056706

Oh... and what system did we use to deduce deities? Cause it sure wasn't as fuck close to logic. Stick to your idiotic questions about knowing and unknowing, while the people who are grounded and decided to use logic as an axiom do meaningful work and actually contribute to more than just salting fries at McD's.

[Anonymous No.3056750]

>>3056726
Do you honestly think that I am saying we know absolutely nothing? No, we know plenty, but what we do, we don't know completely. And everything we know, we know only to a degree. Furthermore, as we learn more, more questions are raises, and we realize that we don't know the answers to them. So we keep searching.

[Anonymous No.3056755]

>>3056726
You totally missed his point brah.

[Anonymous No.3056759]

>>3056692
>The solution? Well, there is none,

Give starving families the knowledge and rudimentary means to cultivate crops organically and sustainably for their climate. This is the first foundational step for a robust economy.

Another is to support democratic and transparent interests in promoting a legitimate government. Corruption will eventually wane as it has in the most democratic and transparent governments like Denmark, Canada, Finland etc.

After progress in these areas such people may have a chance. Although not entirely simple, some solutions do exist for these complex problems.

[Anonymous No.3056760]

If our universe was created by the collision of 2 universes. How did that 2 universes come to exist in the first place ?

[Anonymous No.3056783]

>>3056759
You're right, a solution does exist in theory, albeit it takes time and is no guarantee.

I should have said there was no immediate solution. Certainly "giving them food" is not a solution, as the simple-minded individual would claim, and in fact only compounds the problem as they would become less self-sufficient and more reliant on aid, all but digging their own future's grave.

But we're getting off topic.

[Anonymous No.3056788]

>>3056760
Balls touched.

[Anonymous No.3056789]

>>3056760
Collision of two branes, not universes. A brane is a membrane of energy that exists in a certain number of spacial dimensions. A string in string theory is a 1-brane. Our universe is "on" a brane.

Watch this series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7FV9aaiwKQ
It's pretty interesting, though, not knowing much about string/M theory, I can't vouch for it's factual accuracy...

[Anonymous No.3056794]

>>3056750

Nobody is saying we know everything.
The only thing he's saying is, that smart people see everything in a much clearer aspect than dumb people.
In retrospect, everything (even simple things, or at least so to smart people) is complicated to those who are dumb.

Even if more questions arise the more we know, the fact that smarter know more, makes it that much more simple and closer to the truth. In this way, everything is simple to the smart because they can "see".

[Anonymous No.3056816]

>There are tiny strings that vibrate and make up the state of matter through the vibration, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THEM THEY'RE TOO SMALL.

>There are branes in which these strings attach in which to denote placement in a dimension, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THE BRANES THEY CONSTITUTE DIMENSIONS TO SMALL TO SEE.

...fuck string theory. That shit is the religion of physics.

[Anonymous No.3056827]

>>3056794
Some things cannot be seen "clearly". Such as many of the subjects being discussed in this topic. These are complex ideas and theories; anyone claiming to "see everything clearly" most likely understands least of all.

[Anonymous No.3056833]

>>3056794
I still doubt that. I'm reminded of the Dunning Kruger Effect. People who are less educated in a field see themselves as more competent in that area then they really are.

While people who ARE well educated see themselves as less competent in their field than they really are.

It probably transfers to this because the smarter you get, the more you can appreciate the complex facets of the field, and realize that you may not be smart enough to deal with it properly.

[Anonymous No.3056848]

>>3056833
People who are good at things do not underestimate themselves significantly.

[Anonymous No.3056857]

>>3056848
Dude, they did an actual study on this. Despite what /sci/ tells you, psychologists do actual experiments, and do get results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Anonymous No.3056870]

>>3056857
For example, lobotomies cure depression.

[Anonymous No.3056877]

>>3056857

Alright. First off... this is /sci/ don't fucking link to wikipedia when the actual article is free and easy to find.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Anonymous No.3056891]

>>3056877
>>3056877
Yes, but this is the internet. Does TL;DR mean anything to you?

[Anonymous No.3056902]

>>3056870
And bloodletting cures all kinds of crazy shit. Medicine is totally not a pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.3056908]

>>3056891

Perhaps this isn't the place for you?