/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10748358]

how did something come from nothing?

[Anonymous No.10748363]

There was never "nothing".

[Anonymous No.10748375]

>>10748363
Why is there something?

[Anonymous No.10748377]

>>10748375
why not?

[Anonymous No.10748386]

>>10748377
why not nothing?

[Anonymous No.10748389]

>>10748386
yes

[Anonymous No.10748406]

>>10748358
The question revolves around a bigger question: does logic or truth necessarily exist?

[Anonymous No.10748407]

in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram

[Anonymous No.10748422]

>>10748389
agreed

[Anonymous No.10748547]

>>10748375
Literally what else could there be?

[Anonymous No.10748602]

>>10748358
Where do I exist?
In this universe. Sure, but where is the universe?
Everywhere? Nowhere? Undefined?
Same weird thing goes for "When?"
Always? Not at all? Undefined?
I guess it just is.

What about other universes(parallel to ours)?
Can there a distance or time relation between the two? Can I say that they exist at the same time? After each other? I don't think so.

What does even qualify as universe?
Can there even be more since universe means everything? Can we define a universe as unrelated existances? Again, how many are there since they are apparently independent from space and time?

This shit is so weird. If infinity is real it could be a infinite regression of simpler and simpler space times in which were embedded it I guess.

[Anonymous No.10748615]

>>10748407
reminder that chr*tians and c*tholics do not worship the true creator of the universe

[Anonymous No.10748630]

>>10748358
Thing always there. Thing is and will always be. Always.

[Anonymous No.10748689]

>>10748386
because then we wouldn't be here having this conversation now would we?

[Anonymous No.10748702]

>>10748689
So something happened just so we could have this conversation? Weird logic

[Anonymous No.10748727]

another reminder that string gas cosmology is alive and well, and cyclic models are totally plausible, which means one could resolve this never ending godfag crap by having the universe be eternal

[Anonymous No.10748732]

>>10748702
Of course not, but our conversation implies that something exists right? Just like you playing a videogame implies that your were born, but your birth didn't happen just so you could play that particular videogame.

[Anonymous No.10748733]

>>10748727
>the universe is eternal because reasons
>physics exists because reasons
>lalalala stop asking why

[Anonymous No.10748737]

>>10748732
That doesn’t prevent us from asking how we were born though.

[Anonymous No.10748743]

>>10748732
>stuff exists, like come on maaan like *bubble bubble bubble* that’s so t-*COUGH COUGH COUGH* so trippy maaaan
uh huh, lay off the bong bro

[Anonymous No.10748747]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

[Anonymous No.10748750]

>>10748737
agreed. I was just replying to that anon's post about why there is something rather than nothing. Our conversation implies the existence of something, so the anthropic principle takes care of "why something rather than nothing".

But of course, seeking answers about the origin of the universe is bound to result in profoundly interesting explanations.

[Anonymous No.10748756]

>>10748733
i’m not saying i know the universe is eternal, but people who go
>big bang! haha! i found a proof that science is bullshit because how could that happen, haha btfo
are just naysaying anti-science douchebags who don’t ever think of reasonable explanations for things. they just cling to wishful magical thinking like children with santa

[Anonymous No.10748757]

>>10748743
I suggest you read a bit more, man

[Anonymous No.10748764]

>>10748750
>the anthropic principle takes care of "why something rather than nothing".
That's not how the anthropic principle works at all lmao

[Anonymous No.10748767]

>>10748750
>Our conversation implies the existence of something, so the anthropic principle takes care of "why something rather than nothing".
No it doesn’t. At best, you might say that something was somehow preferable to nothing. Everyone KNOWS there is something. They’re asking WHY that is.
>>10748756
The Big Bang isn’t a problem given that the laws of nature exist. But how those laws got there is the problem

[Anonymous No.10748770]

>>10748764
?? Explain to me how it works then

[Anonymous No.10748774]

>>10748406
yes, necessarily

[Anonymous No.10748782]

>>10748757
i suggest you read wittgenstein, where he explains that philosophy questions like this are meaningless word game memes; literally, their semantics don’t exist. it’s as meaningful as doing a crossword puzzle

[Anonymous No.10748788]

>>10748774
why?

[Anonymous No.10748792]

>>10748767
>The Big Bang isn’t a problem given that the laws of nature exist.
uh, no, in cosmology, the initial singularity hypothesis is an outstanding problem
> But how those laws got there is the problem
there are scientific ways to do this. for example, it is believed that string theory might be the only mathematically consistent way for physical laws to exist, so the math implies it had to be that way. magical thinking OTOH is dumb

[Anonymous No.10748794]

>>10748770
This >>10748767 has it.
The anthropic principle means we shouldn't be surprised that something exists rather than nothing, but it doesn't answer the question of "why".

[Anonymous No.10748796]

>>10748794
What kind of answer to expect asking 'why'?

[Anonymous No.10748798]

>>10748788
"the world is all that is the case"
-wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.10748799]

>>10748796
they’re looking for a Langan type idiot to say they know for sure that it’s god or qi or anime waifu pony fairies. they don’t realize it’s a meaningless question

[Anonymous No.10748802]

>>10748796
I have no idea what such an answer might look like and to be honest I doubt there is an answer that we'd be satisfied with. But that doesn't mean that the anthropic principle can be substituted for a real answer.

[Anonymous No.10748804]

>>10748799
Yeah, i agree that it seems a bit of a meaningless question.

[Anonymous No.10748816]

>>10748799
>>10748804
It’s not meaningless at all because it highlights our ignorance. Can we even apply logic to the pre-universe? Is everything random? Is there a multi-verse? Or is this universe the only one, and somehow a necessary development? Did the unlimited potential of nothingness create everything or was there never nothing at all? Is the existence of non-existence a contradiction, and therefore impossible, or is it still possible?

[Anonymous No.10748817]

>>10748802
what's a "real answer" though? God? Aliens?

When you ask something like "why" you gotta mean something specific because the word can have pretty different meanings.

In a sense, the anthropic principle DOES answer "why" because for humans to exist, there must be conditions that allow it, e.g. the universe must exist.

I get the feeling that you all are asking something different when you ask "why something rather than nothing", though. Do you expect some answer that will give meaning to the universe or something?

[Anonymous No.10748823]

>>10748816
yeah I get that these questions are interesting, but they don't really ask "why", do they? More like the "how" of things.

[Anonymous No.10748868]

>>10748817
I'm just as uncertain about what the question means as you are.
It's odd that I can ask a question like "Why does the Earth exist" and be fully satisfied with an answer describing the mechanics of planetary and star formation, yet with questions like "Why does the universe exist" that sort of answer just doesn't seem to be enough.

[Anonymous No.10748900]

>>10748868
well, asking a question like “why is the sky blue” is fine, it’s because of rayleigh scattering, but rayleigh scattering explains how the light gets scattered leaving blue. so it’s almost a little bit of anthropomorphizing the universe by saying the universe or “science” _wants_ to scatter light that way. but really nothing in the sky “wants” to do anything. OTOH “why did nyannyancosplay pick the song hit or miss?” refers to a real why question; she had a reason for it.

rocks don’t have an intentional reason for falling, that’s just how it works. see what i’m getting at?

[Anonymous No.10748916]

>>10748358
Being is no-thing

[Anonymous No.10748948]

>>10748358
There are two possibilities: either it came from something, or what we're experiencing is actually nothing.

[Anonymous No.10748963]

>>10748358
Because if nothing existed, then there would be nobody to ask that question.

[Anonymous No.10748975]

>>10748963
>how was I born?
>becuz if you wuzn’t born, u woodn’t be axing dat kweschun

[Anonymous No.10748980]

>>10748948
no, it could be eternal. >>10748727

[Anonymous No.10749014]

>>10748358
Who gives a fuck

[Anonymous No.10749025]

>>10748980
Eternally something or eternally nothing then.

[Anonymous No.10749027]

Why the hell are you all wasting your time asking yourself "why", instead of acting?
Act.
Do something.
Don't waste your time here pondering retarded questions, live your life.
But also just kidding, you can do whatever the fuck you want because it's within the real of possibilities of your free will, that you actually don't have, because everything is predetermined, or not, you should go outside but also you can stay here.
Stop wasting all your days, or do it, clean your room, live like a pig.
Get into politics, fuck politics, play video games, they're all shit, consume media until you're braindead, have fun but it doesn't matter, or it does and they're wonderful experiences that really change you into being the same person you were before.
Give a fuck all the time or don't give a fuck even once.
Die or live and everything in between.
Have sex, cope, seethe, project, cringe, all at once.

[Anonymous No.10749031]

>>10749025
gonna have to go with eternally something, then, if those are the only two options

[Anonymous No.10749035]

>>10749027
>Have sex, cope, seethe, project, cringe, all at once.
Sounds uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.10749036]

>>10748733
>introduce magic sky daddy
now it's 'simple', lalalala stop asking why

[Anonymous No.10749045]

>>10749027
hey, don’t hate. you’re here too. it’s okay to do nothing and engage in the scientific equivalent of masturbating to cringe compilations

[Anonymous No.10749137]

>>10748358
Nothing requires something

There’s no light without darkness and no darkness without light

[Anonymous No.10749148]

>>10749137
>Nothing requires something
It doesn't by definition.
>There’s no light without darkness and no darkness without light
This sentence being used to justify stupid views has gone on long enough.

[Anonymous No.10749190]

>>10749036
No one said anything about a “sky daddy.”

[Anonymous No.10749299]

>>10749190
um, it was one of the first posts
>>10748407

[Anonymous No.10749301]

>>10749148
>This sentence being used to justify stupid views has gone on long enough.
fucking this

[Anonymous No.10749415]

Its a tough spot for empiricists/scientists cause usually they believe in the principle of sufficient reason, if they don't they would be cutting off the tree branch their entire field sits on. They usually duck such hard hitting questions by retreating to hard empiricism so they don't even have to consider the question, like in this thread. And God forbid they start spouting about brute facts and don't think about it.

[Anonymous No.10751380]

>>10748358
The universe has always existed, firstly - space and time are uncreated. Secondly, consciousness is the necessary ground of existence itself, and you yourself as consciousness are therefore that very ground. You and I and everyone else are literally finite instantiations of eternity, playing out a role. There is no "time" without consciousness. We have never skipped a moment of existence, as far as I'm concerned. In every waking moment of our existence, we could ask the question "why is there something instead of nothing", ignorant to the fact that the "something" we refer to is not merely the external environment we live under, but is literally our very own consciousness itself. The problem is mainly memory - the fact that we don't recall anything prior to birth, which leads people to assume that we were "nonexistent". We are all Brahman, the One - the highest principle from which everything has emanated. I also believe that a group of higher-dimensional entities, like the kinds people see on DMT, created both our physical universe and the biological lifeforms that live here. "Nothing" cannot "be", by nature - and we ourselves, being in Being, certainly can never become "nothing" either. And epistemologically, the only reason we know of concepts like Infinity and Eternity, which are not empirical nor derivable from empirical experience or even reason, is because we literally are that ourselves, in our most fundamental nature. Don't think on that too much - it'll only drive you insane. Knowing that you've literally been here forever, and always will be.

[Anonymous No.10751406]

>>10748358
Nigga we be existin forever, itz de basik logic. B-but Christians have said that about God? No, my nigga everyrthing just exist and fuck logikz and shiet, don't question science you fucking anti-semite cattle bigot.

[Anonymous No.10751547]

>>10748689
>>10748377
>>10748547
>>10748963
Same brainlet nonanswers that always come up to this. Asking why there is something rather than nothing is a valid question but likely will never be answered and just has to be accepted as a brute fact

[Anonymous No.10751658]

>>10751547
OP didn’t ask why there is something rather than nothing, OP asked how something came from nothing (presupposing the existence of nothing)

[Anonymous No.10751666]

>>10749190
Unfortunately, a cosmic anthropocentric masculine personality, and a human male representative of him on Earth, is exactly what Christians believe in. Christianity, though it may have helped formally develop the scientific industries of today, has simultaneously prevented them from reaching the level of philosophical profundity they could have otherwise come to, and ultimately need to in order to bring their microcosmic findings into a picture of reality as a whole.

The One is real, and we are all it. It's not a cosmic personality, it's an impersonal principle containing the source of all creation.

[Anonymous No.10751751]

>>10751547
asking 'why' is a meaningless question, though. It's on the same level of asking why the color blue is blue.

[Anonymous No.10751758]

>>10748358
Prove “nothing” ever existed.

[Anonymous No.10751763]

>>10751666
no Christian believes that God has biological male characteristics. The Bible sometimes even refers to God as like a mother. It’s just a translation to get the message across. God is like a father to us so we call him Father

[Anonymous No.10751781]

>>10748358
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

>Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backwards in time towards the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might otherwise have been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the Universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state Universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state Universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time or space

[Anonymous No.10752379]

>>10751547
>valid question
>no answer
It can't be both homeboy.

[Anonymous No.10752772]

>>10751781
An example of modern nonsense within the sciences, which if repeated enough, may come to appear "sensible" to a human mind. In actuality, it does not make sense. If there "was no time" before the Big Bang, then there's nothing even being spoken of as not existing either, since all negation requires an item to be there to be negated. Also, the concept of a "first moment in time" is a logical contradiction, since "first" is defined by "that which had nothing before itself", but if we're speaking about temporality itself, then there's no concept of "before" in the first place, making the statement "first moment in time" i.e "moment which had none before it" a statement of nonsense, since "before" does not mean anything, and therefore neither does "first".

Time is infinite, and so is space. The Big Bang is an example of a modern fairytale within the sciences, in my humble view.

[Anonymous No.10752796]

>>10752772
>Arguing against a theory purely with semantics

[Anonymous No.10752825]

>>10748792
But where are the laws, and how do they exist?

[Anonymous No.10752856]

>>10749148
>>10749301
The way anon express it is quite silly, but taken the right way, it's very true. Nothingness can only be understood by and as the absence of all things. Nothingness, being nothing, has no presence, but is the very absence of presence. Nothingness is the absence of being. Whatever we say about nothingness cannot actually be said about nothingness, but is really a statement about the limits of other things. We only can see and recognize absence at all when something ends, when something which had presence is no longer present. Seeing that all things come to an end, that all things which have presence eventually do not have presence; and seeing that all things have a beginning, that before anything was present it first lacked presence; out of utility we conceive of nothingness, a unified lack of all being. Of course, if it lacks being, it can neither be unified or un-unified; it can have no properties at all. There are no contents of the null set, and yet there remains the null set. It is not something which exists, but only something which we express out of expressing the otherwise inexpressible. It is not simply that true and absolute nothingness is beyond reason, but rather that it must, by definition be absent of all qualities and traits, which means reason also. To truly understand what is meant by something coming from nothing, you first have to understand the fullness of what is meant by nothingness.

[Anonymous No.10753131]

>>10748689
kek

[Anonymous No.10753154]

>>10752796
Not semantics, but logic.

[Anonymous No.10753157]

>>10751763
The God of Christ, perhaps. The Old Testament deity seems much less so.

[Anonymous No.10753935]

>>10748358
because whenever you imagine "nothing" you always use the analogies that you know about your experience with "nothing". All creations always begin in the world of ideas and in other things that have "inspiration potential", but not visible in the world, therefore there is no thing, and it is only through the creation of the thing that it becomes, so nothing becomes synonymous with "not sensing a specific thing or things in the way that one wants them to be sensed". If you understand that nothing is meaningless in the abstract sense, then your question in a way becomes dissolved. Now, however there are other ways that you can think of "nothing", one idea is to think that something is always bounded by its definition, so that things are collections of definitions (though these collections might be arbitrary and dependent on perspective but anyway). As such, you can say that things that are freer are less defined, and thus one can think of nothing, as the most abstract of concepts, the least defined, that which has no intention or definition, and in this sense nothing is undefined, and thçis means that all can be included within its scope, such that our reality is bound to be included within that which is most free. Nonetheless, that's just one way to reformulate "nothing", it does not mean that this is the right way of doing so, especially since things are only "bound" because we conceptualize them as such, when in fact, reality might just be some formless entity

[Anonymous No.10753946]

>>10748358
It didnt

[Anonymous No.10754041]

>>10748358
Nested empty sets that then become math. Reality is math. When we say "the actual universe" or this or that is "actually" the case, it is indexical and not of contrast between what exists and does not exist in absolute terms (but sometimes it might be since we are pretty trapped/bounded in our "local" mathematical structures).

[Anonymous No.10754251]

>>10748358
Because we live in a simulation which was created from nothing.
We can't even begin to conceptualize what actual reality is like, let alone how it began.
Assuming there even is a beginning.

[Anonymous No.10755619]

>>10748358

[Anonymous No.10756339]

>>10748358
Why do you assume nothing is not an entity within itself? Why do you assume nothingness doesn't have an origin that goes beyond the seeming presence of absence? Why do you assume the only property of nothingness is emptiness? What is true emptiness, and what properties does it possess that can be utilized on a physical scape?

[Anonymous No.10756353]

in the beginning the thread of reality was entirely straight and motionless, then it began to warp and move

[Anonymous No.10756361]

>>10756353
So we transitioned from 2D to 3D? Or 3D to 4D?

[Anonymous No.10756558]

How does something turn into nothing? I'm scared of dying bros. Not because I think there will be nothing but because I think there really is an afterlife but I have no idea if it will be good or bad. It could be fucking anything.

[Anonymous No.10756565]

>>10756558
"You’re living in a metaphysical universe of which you constitute an instance. The metaphysical universe is eternal. Hence, provided that you do not sever yourself from it, you are eternal. I hope this is clear enough for you."

[Anonymous No.10756578]

>>10756339
So if you're saying nothingness is an entity, then will the absence of that entity, nothingness, also be an entity called the absence of nothingness? Can the absence of that entity also be called an entity, the absence of the absence of nothingness? The

[Anonymous No.10756582]

>>10756565
fuck off chris go back to quora.in

[Anonymous No.10756635]

>>10748406
No. Logic is born out of despair.

[Anonymous No.10757082]

>>10748358
Before asking "how", first ask "if".

[Anonymous No.10757100]

The Big Bang only implies the Big Bang happened, it makes no attempts to explain what caused it, what came before, etc. That's a mystery other people can try to figure out.

[Anonymous No.10757107]

God dammit I want to be omniscient so bad

[Anonymous No.10757130]

>>10752856
look man here's some piece of advice: improve your writing skills.

[Anonymous No.10757136]

>>10748782
But Wittgenstein had a dufferent opinion later after the Tractatus. But a good tip for a good read nontheless.

[Anonymous No.10757788]

>>10748358
https://youtu.be/usJ5gbGhhlA
>probably wont even listen to the video
>will probably dismiss it because "new age hippie" philosophy
>further dismissal: cause alan watts

[Anonymous No.10757796]

>>10748782
Lol fucking brainlet answer.
> read "name drops a single philosopher from a early period of thought for that philosopher"
>wow, youre so right dude
Maybe stop being a condescending faggot. And like the other anon said, maybe you should read more.

[Anonymous No.10757800]

We currently understand that singularities are a bizarre 1 dimensional thing that can happen. What appeared as nothing was a singularity

[Anonymous No.10757826]

>>10757130
I understood him. Maybe the problem isnt with the way he writes...

[Anonymous No.10757832]

>>10752856
Have you read Nagarjunas Mūlamadhyamakakārikā? The description you have described of Nothingness is very similar to that of the concept of Sunyata.

[Anonymous No.10758247]

>>10757826
maybe, but he could have gotten his idea through 2 or 3 lines of text. The way it currently is, it just reads like intellectual masturbation. Outside academia, people will laugh at him for writing like that.

[Anonymous No.10758392]

>>10758247
Most people outside of academia are stupid.

[Anonymous No.10758402]

>>10758392
Tbqh, people in academia will also laugh at him for that. Have you ever tried to publish in a serious journal? Objectivity is fucking key

[Anonymous No.10758750]

>>10752856
What is a vacuum in relation to the absence of intractable existence?

[Anonymous No.10758763]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.10758776]

>>10748358
The problem with this question is that it assumes that "nothing" must be a default state and gives no reason as to why. Why should we expect nothingness to be the "normal" and "something" to be special?

[Anonymous No.10759264]

>>10748868
You mean "How" not "Why".
How did the universe come into existence?
"Why" indicates a purpose and there isn't a purpose to the universe as far as we know, though the religious believe that there is.
However believing =/= knowing.
"Why" is a question that doesn't needs to have an answer. "How" is the valid question.

[Anonymous No.10759279]

>>10749137
Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.

― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

[Anonymous No.10759294]

>>10748363
but what was there before that?

[Anonymous No.10759296]

>>10748602
And what are all these words that you are using? Who said they had any real meanings other than what we attach to them. We don't even know what nothing or everything means. They are just abstract words.

[Anonymous No.10759302]

>>10749027
Because it is depressing not being able to understand shit. The more I learn the more I understand I don't know shit and I suspect everyone is like that. All knowledge is relative. I can learn A or B then forget then re-learn. But what's the point if we don't even understand where we started and what all of this means. I kept having those thoughts and got so depressed I dropped out of the uni.

[Anonymous No.10759303]

>>10749137
Define darkness. Is it an absence of light? Do you need to introduce light just to explain darkness? That sounds so wrong it makes me feel suicidal.

[Anonymous No.10759316]

>>10759303
Yes, but we wouldn't have called it darkness if light never existed.
What you're doing is like asking "what would be breathe if there was no oxygen?"
The universe would be so different that we wouldn't use these concepts and terminologies.

[Anonymous No.10759326]

>>10748615

>He dosen't take christian principle of redemption in the context of the expulsion of humanity from the "garden of eden".

[Anonymous No.10759339]

>>10759302
Facts aren't relative, the amount of facts you can gather in a lifetime only differs per person.
It's up to you to aqcuire as much facts as you can.
>But what's the point if we don't even understand where we started
No, what matters is what you do with the knowledge you've obtained.
You can become a doctor and save countless lives or you can become a teacher and educate people.
What happened in the past doesn't have to be a limiter on your future.
You're being distracted from the big picture.
Erase your doubts and fears, and keep your mind clear

[Anonymous No.10759343]

>>10759326
dignity and intelligence*

[Anonymous No.10760554]

>>10758402
A lot of people in academia are stupid too lol.
But I know what you mean, Ive nevee tried to publish in a journal but Im familiar with the kind of writing that is taught in philosophy, atleast in respect to my school - which is why I never really sought to publish in a journal to begin with. Its very robotic and rigid.

[Anonymous No.10760584]

>>10759343
based weinberg