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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 591 KB, 2682x2196, Structure_of_the_Universe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3965588 No.3965588 [Reply] [Original]

Hi /sci/
I have some questions:
Why is there something?

Why does everything exist? Why and how is there existence and not just nothing?
How did nothing suddenly became something?

>> No.3965590

Why not?

>> No.3965595
File: 61 KB, 500x363, not sure if better.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3965595

To answer your question honestly, no one knows for sure.

But there is a good chance you are some type of troll so I'm not really sure how to respond to this.

>> No.3965603

Look kid, no one knows a damn thing about any of it and if they tell you they do, they are liars.

>> No.3965604

>>3965595
I'm not a troll, this is just my first post on this board.
How is this trolling?

>> No.3965614

And how does everything keep existing? How does it not just disintegrate?

>> No.3965652
File: 1021 B, 1280x1024, 1315254986726.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3965652

bump

>> No.3965661

If there was nothing, you wouldn't be hear to know it. So it exists simply because you do.

(Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between Socrates and a 3-year-old)

>> No.3965664

>how did nothing turn into something

This isn't how it happened, and I'm assuming you're going to refer to BBT, in which no where does it say that something came from nothing, the theory doesn't cover what came before it

>> No.3965666
File: 771 B, 300x300, Patterned-Background.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3965666

>>3965652
patterns are nice

>> No.3965725

/sci/ sucks

>> No.3965750

What makes you think there is something?

>> No.3965764

>>3965750
My perception.

>> No.3965767

>>3965764
What makes you think you're perceiving anything?

>> No.3965785

>>3965604
I know this is a bit late but I was elsewhere.
I thought you might be a subtle religious troll because the subject of how the universe came into existence (before the big bang) is commonly used by them and usually works.

>> No.3965786

The question you should be asking:

Is reality objective?

>> No.3965794

>>3965661
>>3965661
>>3965661

HURR DURR ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
I LIEK HARUHI TOO

>> No.3965795

>energy is an indirectly observed quantity.

>> No.3965802

Thanks to you and I, the universe has the chance to experience itself.

>> No.3965811

>>3965661

>If there was nothing, you wouldn't be hear to know it.

Non Sequitur

>So it exists simply because you do.

Recursive

>(Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between Socrates and a 3-year-old)

Difference between you and Socrates is apparent, however.

>> No.3965817

>>3965588
These questions are within bounds of speculative sciences and philosophy (meaning faggotry). Better start learning some real theoretical physics instead. This is the only solid advice you will get.

>> No.3965835

>>3965661
>implying I exist

Prove it.

>> No.3965847

>How did nothing suddenly became something?

ive always wanted to know this

how did them first atoms appear in this place we called space ?

>> No.3965856

>>3965588
Matter can be created (converted) from energy. So essentially you are asking how come there is energy that didn't decay into it's highest possible entropy state yet assuming it has existed for infinite time?

We don't have any empirical data regarding this area. Currently the best thing we can say is the energy was released from a higher dimensional space upon which we currently have no grasp - essentially it is an excuse for the question where did the low entropy energy came from.

Another excuse might be to say that there isn't any such "highest possible entropy" state and that the entire Earth/galaxy/universe/multiverse/uber-multiverse-whethever is cyclic and to essentially give an exception to second law of thermodynamics (kind of).

Third possible excuse is to say there was nothing before big bang - not even time and to mask the entire thing as an illusion heavily relying on someone else's interpretation of relativistic equations - essentially to say "I don't care" in a murky ambiguous way and to rely on the fact that no one can disprove it with high certainty - and even if someone can, it will take so much time, effort and complete absence of any kind of gain for the other person that it will essentially be a Pyrrhic victory for the other person so no one will ever do it in common discussion.

- don't misunderstand me I have nothing against relativity itself (as in equations and results obtained by them).

>> No.3965865

>>3965847
what are scientist thoughts on this ?

do they have any idea any theorys

>> No.3965871

Well, I believe in God so I'm fairly content with this topic.

To be honest, I'd rather research be done into other fields than how we came to be.

>> No.3965876

>>3965588
Why would nothing exist? Isn't it also likely that everything exists (God). Based on that something does exist, us, the first isn't even a possible however the second makes logical sense.

>> No.3965879

>>3965811
You fail at deconstructing and critiquing arguments. You don't even appear to understand the words you use, just repeating things you inferred were insulting when you read them in other threads. I bet you find my posts "shallow and pedantic" too.

Go back to writing D- philosophy papers. Let the rest of us add to the present discussion, because you're adding nothing of value.

>> No.3965886

>>3965786
No.
Gtfo.

>> No.3965928

>>3965876
What are you talking about??

>> No.3965931

>>3965879

>You fail at deconstructing and critiquing arguments You don't even appear to understand the words you use, just repeating things you inferred were insulting when you read them in other threads I bet you find my posts "shallow and pedantic" too Go back to writing D- philosophy papers Let the rest of us add to the present discussion, because you're adding nothing of value

Ad Hominem

Try to keep a decent discussion without resorting to Fallacies like you have until now.

>> No.3965932

>>3965928
no nevermind please dont answer that

>> No.3965957

>>3965931
hey guy you might be an awfully good scientist but you are a terrible philosopher

>> No.3965958

If there was everything, but no perception, it would not be perceived. In a reference frame of ones own existence there is only the "everything exists" option. You can't perceive if you don't exist, but that doesn't mean that everything goes away. It simply means that you aren't there to perceive it.

I don't buy that everything exists because we do. It is phrased misleadingly. If I understand the intent, it should be phrased like this:

"We actualize reality when we perceive it."

>> No.3965960

>>3965876
I'm not sure why you had to include God in your post. It's not obvious how that would be relevant, and it's the sort of thing that could start flame wars.

The question wasn't the likeliness of nothing or something existing. The question was why there's something. The question assumes that things already exist.

>> No.3965979

>>3965931
Only sentences 3 and 4 were ad hominem. The rest were valid points. You're also being quite hypocritical, and haven't really made a point or added anything of value to the thread yet.

>> No.3965988

>>3965588
If there is nothing isn't dictated by any laws. Anything can happen in nothing. Everything can happen in nothing. Everything did happen in nothing. Our universe is something among the everything.

>> No.3966013

>>3965958
You're only looking at it in one direction, but the why can be answered in either a forward or backward manner. The purpose can either be for something preceding or succeeding.

>> No.3966293

>>3965988
We have observed "nothing" and we can say with fair precision that it is not a valid interpretation. Or shall I rather say that the density of matter created as a consequence of random fluctuations of higher something (say higher dimensions for the sake of the algebra) in vacuum are utterly insufficient to create dense universe such as ours - unless a really big fluctuation occurred.

That's not an answer though. It is just an excuse as already mentioned in >>3965856 in the first case where energy is assumed to flow from higher dimensions (that we presumably can not/did not observe directly).