[ 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: 23 KB, 337x372, 1504910189253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9235785 No.9235785 [Reply] [Original]

>You're either something or you're nothing
>You can't be nothing
>No one is certain how the universe ends/begins, so it could've done so trillions of times over
>Consciousness could of died and been reborn an infinite number of times as a slightly different life form, etc

I know a lot of people claim "there are too many variables for them to recur", but I doubt this when there's too much that remains unknown about the reality we live in.

Ancient aliens could've already built a machine that automatically resets the universe once it hits heat death, and we'd never know.

>> No.9235787

>>9235785
>>You can't be nothing
[citation needed]

>> No.9235790

>>9235787
You can't experience nothingness.
Just look at all of the time before you came into this world.

>> No.9235824

>>9235790
>You can't experience nothingness.
Why do you have to experience nothingness to be nothing?

>> No.9235834

>>9235824
>>9235790

ayy lmao there we go

>> No.9235841

>>9235824
because if you're conscious then you're a center of the universe, and there's no real way to be nothing as a sentient life-form unless your brain dies and you revert back to material like everything else in the world around you.

There is no way to experience nothingness as there will be nothing there to touch it once your brain dies.

>> No.9235843

not /sci/ fuck off faggot

>> No.9235851

>>9235841
>because if you're conscious
Why do you have to be conscious to be nothing?

>> No.9235853

>>9235843
>Implying science doesn't exist to answer concrete questions about reality

>> No.9235856

>>9235853
how about you prove to me how this is science that would be a good start

>> No.9235864

>>9235856
>No one is certain how the universe ends/begins, so it could've done so trillions of times over

There's a way to prove/disprove it.

>> No.9235870

>>9235864
you are not using science

>> No.9235875

>>9235870
That's debatable.

>> No.9235876

>>9235875
no it's not you have to prove how you're using science until then there's nothing to debate. science isn't some new agey everyone is allowed to the party type thing it's a strict methodology that you aren't following.

>> No.9235938

>>9235876
>It's a strict methodology

Hypothesizing is the first step.

>> No.9235945

>>9235938
try /r/philosophy