[ 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: 104 KB, 600x849, determinism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5098953 No.5098953 [Reply] [Original]

I understand that this is more of a philosophy subject, but since there isn't a /phi/ I'll ask here.

What sets the rules of the universe ? Why does mass attract each other ? Why is the maximum speed of matter can't go above 300,000 km/s ? Is there a fundamental single smallest indivisible building block of matter or can it divide forever.

When did everything start ? There must have been something there to previously trigger the initial action to start all this. Which means there can't really be a starting point in time since it always needs a previous action.

And lastly, why is there something instead of nothing ?

I know a lot of these questions are impossible to answer, or they simply just don't have an answer. But I don't even know where to start in order to answer to these.

>> No.5098958

>What sets the rules of the universe ?

An omnipotent, transcendental being obviously.

>> No.5099001

asking implying there was something before the universe is paradoxical and absurd. therefore time is cyclical

>> No.5099013
File: 77 KB, 600x742, standardmodel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5099013

>When did everything start?
The observable universe began in a big bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago

>Why does mass attract each other ?
Because space-time curves in the presence of matter/energy

>Why is the maximum speed of matter can't go above 300,000 km/s ?
Actually, all particles would go at this speed if they didn't interact with the Higgs field. So, it's just a fundamental constant of how fast massless particles move through spacetime.

> Is there a fundamental single smallest indivisible building block of matter or can it divide forever.
The Standard Model of physics suggests that fermions and bosons are the smallest constituents of matter. String theory suggests that tiny hyper-dimensional vibrating strings are.

> There must have been something there to previously trigger the initial action to start all this. Which means there can't really be a starting point in time since it always needs a previous action.

Not necessarily. Read what quantum physics has to say about causality and watch "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

>why is there something instead of nothing ?

Because Quantum vacuums are unstable.

>> No.5099027

>>5099013
/thread

>> No.5099034

>>5098958
This. Reality is so intricate and rule-bound that it couldn't have possibly come about spontaneously.

>> No.5099051

>>5099013
A Universe from Nothing still implies "something". I wish people would stop using that as the explanation to all the mystery surrounding the beginning of the Universe.

>> No.5099073

>>5099051
The nothing described is an absence of space, time, matter ,and energy.

That doesn't sound like something to me.

>> No.5099676

>>5099013
Thank you, that was helpful

>> No.5099691

>>5099013

Why would quantum physics generate a space-time volume from nothing? What mechanism would it use? Not Heisenberg - Δt is invalid outside of spacetime.

So, please explain how "quantum physics" used here isn't just a magical patch.

>>5099027
>>5099676

Skepticism failure.

>> No.5099692

>>5099051
semantics

>> No.5099694

>>5099691
>isn't just a magical patch
it is, but magical patches are awesome

>> No.5099697

It's unrealistic to assume your answers go anything beyond a theory.

>> No.5099702

>>5099034
So the inclusion of another entity that simply exists, and follows yet more rules is less intricate and rule bound?

>> No.5099705

>>5099691
Why do you expect anyone to be able to answer all the why's? Did you not play this game when you were 4 where you asked your mom something and kept asking why until she didn't know the answer any more?

>> No.5099709

The geometry of the universe, OP

>> No.5099710

>>5099697
>I don't know what a theory is so I'm just going to sound like a massive faggot now


Hint: the word you want is "hypothesis".

>> No.5099714

This thread is of my interests

>>5099691
>>5099691
>>5099691
>>5099691
Has nobody been able to answer it?

>>5099705
I don't think we've pushed the 'whys' back enough, really. We've merely pondered on the surface of it all.

>> No.5099716

>>5099013
You answer the 'how's but not the 'why's

>> No.5099720

>>5099716
Science can never answer the whys, sir.

>> No.5099723

>>5099716

Here's your "why"


>"WHY NOT"

>> No.5099733

>>5099716
Why and how are really quite similar when it comes to science.

>> No.5099736

>>5099733
No they are not.

>> No.5099741

>>5099736
Yes, they are. The answer to why an event occurred, and how an event occurred are both descriptions of the events leading up to the event.

How did the rock roll down the hill? Force of gravity. Why did the rock roll down the hill? Force of gravity.

Simplistic example, but whatevs.

>> No.5099742

i can't believe no-one has posted this yet

hey op, watch this and come back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

>> No.5099781

>>5099742
Every human should be forced to watch all of these videos.

>> No.5099788

>>5099781
He said what has essentially already been said earlier.

>> No.5099790

>>5099788
yeah, but, it's feynman?

>> No.5099840

read brian greenes 'The Elegant Universe'.

>> No.5099872

Am I a bad person?

>> No.5099912

>>5099716
There is no why, they act the way they do because thats how they act.

>> No.5100055

>>5099912
Thats like saying god exists and is omnipotent because it just is.

>> No.5100249

>>5099742
Yes, and I'm asking the why's not the how's.

>> No.5100256

>>5098953
Actually light travels instantaneously, its only observed at 300000km/s

>> No.5100261

>>5100256
Nope it actually travels at 3*10*8 m/s the distance it travels however is just 0.

>> No.5100290
File: 109 KB, 500x400, retard-owls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100290

>>5098953
>There must have been something there to previously trigger the initial action to start all this

Nope.
"There must" is not a valid reason for something to exist or behave a certain reason. You fail at basic logic and reasoning, and are probably incapable of understanding the answers you seek.

>> No.5100299

>>5100290
> it all started out of nowhere
I surely know a retard now

>> No.5100302

>believing in Feynman sum of infinities
>2012
>shiggsboson

>>5098953
Time exists in that we have evolved to perceive a phenomenon that is the property of spatial movement which arises from the governing forces between matter.

>> No.5100305

>>5098953
You are fucking retarded.

\thread

>> No.5100311

>>5100305
>if you see it in others you have it yourself
the more you know.

>> No.5100316
File: 17 KB, 250x172, laugh-at-you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100316

>>5100299
Not sure if you are a troll or really just fucking retarded?

It is basic physics that something can come from nothing. Shit happens all the fucking time, we observe it, predict it, and know a shitton about it. Shit has been known fro over 50 years now. Are you living under a fucking rock?

Lawrence Krass does a good job of trying to dumb the whole thing down for people like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=
0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>> No.5100318

>>5100316
\thread

>> No.5100322

>>5100316
It's really difficult to take you seriously with your childish reaction images and your ad hominem posts. Please grow up and try /sci/ later. Until then, I think I'll just skip your garbage, and keep talking to people who have intellect.

>> No.5100323

>>5100316
You are the person I despise the most.
You are the majority who will never have an original strain or idea. You rely on the supposed knowledge of others and push those ideas to pretend you are intelligent.

Protip: Lawrence Krauss is almost certainly wrong.

>> No.5100326

>>5100290
>>5100305
>>5100316
>>5100318
so obvious it hurts

>> No.5100333

>>5099034
Typical scientist, confusing scientific models with "rules of the universe". Rules are what we DERIVE FROM THE UNIVERSE. The universe isn't "bound" by rules at all.

>> No.5100335
File: 209 KB, 1024x768, january_jones_laughing-5103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100335

>>5100323
>thinks it is just Krauss
>doesn't understand any higher level physics
>thinks it is all wrong

Confirmed for a fucking retard.
Again...
WE LITERALLY OBSERVE SHIT COMING FROM NOTHING ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

Your refusal to accept reality is fucking meaningless and saddening. You are the cancer of humanity.

>> No.5100338

>>5100333
I can create a universe within a computer program that is bound by rules. Should beings within that universe arise that could work out what was going on to any degree of accuracy they would have developed a philosophy. Science is philosophy. Science also has an objective reality and those are laws/rules.

>> No.5100340
File: 113 KB, 446x354, Cat_FAIL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100340

>>5100333
>implying most scientist to that

I don't think you know any scienists.

>> No.5100346

>>5100335
As a scientist I explain 'things coming from nothingness' in ways that don't include magic. Yes things spontaneously appear. No, it isn't magic; it's causality.

>> No.5100350
File: 36 KB, 390x399, WTFAMIREADING2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100350

>>5098953
>There must have been something there to previously trigger the initial action to start all this

Are you fucking kidding me?
You talk as if you are unaware of all physics research/discoveries that has happened in the last 500 years? WTF OP? Physics didn't end with Newton you ignorant fuck!

>> No.5100355
File: 109 KB, 268x314, bales.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100355

>>5100350
>>5100340
>>5100335
>>5100318
>>5100316
>>5100305
>>5100290

Oh boy that raging shitposting

>> No.5100357

>>5100346
"Nothingness" is unstable, simple as that. Most common folk understand the concept of "unstable".

>> No.5100358

42

>> No.5100359

>>5100346
So what you mean is energy CAN be created ?

>> No.5100362
File: 27 KB, 341x450, laughing at you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100362

>>5100355
>religiousfag detected

I am sorry reality hurt your worldview. Maybe it is time you grow up? You can't believe in fairytales forever little guy

>> No.5100369
File: 370 KB, 640x480, COMEDY GOLD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100369

>>5100362
> everything came from nothing
> lel u believe in magick

>> No.5100364

When will we get a /phi/ board for those threads?

>> No.5100367
File: 9 KB, 300x300, 4173R51P0GL__SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100367

>>5100359
>2012
>conservation of energy

Your lack of physics knowledge is showing.
Conservation of energy isn't a fundamental law of the universe, it is derived for systems with certain type of symmetries. This shit is literally known by an senoir physics student, and is covered in the most basic classical mechanics books.

You need to educate yourself!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

>> No.5100372

>>5100364
Science is a philosophical viewpoint because it relies on the PSYCHE of the mind.

Perhaps you should ask when we are going to get a Maths board?

>> No.5100373

>>5100355
Are you from Alabama? Mississipi? Only people from the american south are so ignorant.

>> No.5100374

>>5100367
I didn't say it was possible or impossible to be created. I simply asked if you were saying it can be created. Can't you comprehend what you read ?

>> No.5100379
File: 63 KB, 470x600, troll 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100379

>>5100369
>implying Quntum Field theory the most accurate science ever constructed is magic

0/10
Try harder

>> No.5100387

>>5100359

Present events rely on the past therego future events rely on the present. Energy is not created from 'nothingness' because it already exists.

>> No.5100391
File: 55 KB, 600x400, 1326494002435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100391

>>5100374
Yes. Even by the basic physics of classical mechanics, this shit has been know for hundreds of fucking years.

This whole "conservation of energy" thing only applies to certain system with homogenious time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)

>> No.5100397
File: 34 KB, 480x480, 255553_480587608642328_586782889_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5100397

>>5100374
protip: The shit your learn in high school is either very very very very very dumbed down, or completely fucking wrong.

Stop acting so god damm suprised that the universe is not all based off shit-teir highschool physics.

\thread

>> No.5100401

>>5100391
>limits to the conservation of energy
>known for hundreds of fucking years
Let's not get ahead of ourselves buster, conservation of energy itself only dates back to the XIXthe century.

>> No.5100406

>shit literally just comes out of nowhere

I accept this, but man does it feel kinda shitty.

>you're actually worthless
>when you die nothing happens
>it will all be over in ~0s compared to the scope of the universe

feels sad, man

>> No.5100414

>>5100397
>>5100391

So you still can't comprehend that I asked spesifically what you think about.

>> No.5100419

>>5100055
define god?

if god is omnipotent then what relevance does god have?

>> No.5100432

>>5100055
Just because you have to think thinks in a teleological way doesn't mean there is actually a "deeper truth".