Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:52:29 UTC No. 16066173

inb4 "dude I know everything about the entire universe, heres how it all works" get posted by someone deluded loser who can't even figure out the basics in life

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 10:09:07 UTC No. 16066186

>>16066168
why would there be nothingness

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 10:39:22 UTC No. 16066217

>>16066168
One of the biggest obstacles is that we can't see everything. We can't see past the observable universe. We can't see down to the plank length, only about halfway. We can't see back in time before about 300m years. We can't see inside quantum systems without breaking them. We can't see if there's other dimensions. It's like trying to reverse engineer a computer, where if you open it up some of the circuitry is exposed but there's lots of integrated circuits that are covered up and conceal what's going on inside them, so you have to try a bazillion different things to get some idea of how they work

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 10:47:07 UTC No. 16066225

>>16066168
Math would exist even if there were no universe.
This means that through the infinite permutations of the axioms of mathematics, the universe was created.
For example, every book that has ever been written or will be written already exists because you can just randomly type characters for infinity and then generate every single possible book.
The same thing happened with the universe.
There are an infinite number of illogical permutations of the mathematical axioms but one of them created our universe and the laws of Physics.
However, it's much more likely that we were created by alien scientists as part of a simulation. This will become evident once we start making our own simulations in the next few decades.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:00:03 UTC No. 16066243

>>16066225
Literally everything must exist.
Math cannot cease to exist.
Everything is math. Literally everything.
Imagine trying to destroy math. It's impossible. Math has always existed.
Since everything is math, this means literally everything exists if you don't have any bounds.
There are an infinite amount of numbers and an infinite number of axioms.
There are infinite universes.
Now obviously, not everything exists in THIS universe. But they do in other universes.
There are only 10 natural numbers between 1 and 10. But there are an infinite amount if you remove the boundaries.
The same concept applies to the universe. There is a finite amount of energy in our finite universe but once you extend the bounds to infinity you realise that other universes do exist.

If you can imagine it, it exists somewhere. How? Because its written within the infinity of mathematics.
Every single book was already written. Look at the library of babel.
The same thing applies to universes. The infinite mathematical laws created all possible universes. Time is just an illusion.
It's like a video file. The file already exists, it's just playing in a certain direction now at a certain speed. Everything on a computer is just 1s and 0s, it's just math. Everything is just math and math is infinite.
You can bend the rules of mathematics. You can invent complex numbers, you can invent imaginary numbers.
You can even divide by zero and make any number equal to any number.
Of course, that doesn't make sense in our universe but that rule still exists.
Somehow, the combinations of those rules created everything in our universe. It also created everything that ever existed or will exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:20:01 UTC No. 16066399

>>16066243
>If you can imagine it, it exists somewhere.

What about the big titty world from that South Park Heavy Metal episode? Does that exist somewhere out there?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:38:06 UTC No. 16066420

>>16066225
>Math would exist even if there were no universe.
Hertog and Hawking disagree and suggest that the laws themselves evolved into what we observe today.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:17:16 UTC No. 16066455

>>16066168
that's stupid, infinite nothingness would still be a universe, what you need is finite nothingness, now that's a good anti-universe

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:28:58 UTC No. 16066476

>>16066168
under MMP your qualms are satiated, for its mathematically demonstrated the universe is composed of the infinite nothingness

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:32:14 UTC No. 16066482

>>16066476
MMP reroots set theory by revealing the empty set is as incomprehensible as the infinite set, by determining that nothingness is perfectly precise without any magnitude, and, conversely, the infinite has no precision, despite endless magnitude.

Indeed, the infinite and nothingness are two sides of the same coin. by balancing their paradoxes with the oroboros operator, the primordial set is formed.

fields, groups and numbers are than fractal loops of the infinite nothingness, as calculated by box math in pic related

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:35:27 UTC No. 16066484

>>16066482
we see that the notion of 'empty set' inside an 'empty set' bequeathing the unity has a deeper meaning in mmp. akin to looping the universe in on itself, all the information of the universe is still present in the small hoop, but we see a distinction in regarding the inner loop to the outer loop, the unity

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:05:00 UTC No. 16066532

Nothing does exist, empty space is pure nothingness.
>What about virtual particles
They dont exist, it’s a math abstraction used for making calculations. They’re not real.

>What about vacuum energy
Thats just the particles on average found in space. Empty space is empty.

>But it has dimensions!
No, you have dimensions. Objects have dimensions.

>But it expands all the time!!!
No, stuff is moving away from other stuff. Nothing fancier.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:06:20 UTC No. 16066534

>>16066532
Yes yes however my dick exist in this infinite vaacum and space and it's about to enter your ass

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:08:18 UTC No. 16066538

>>16066168
all of mathematics can be constructed from the empty set.
as long as the empty set is self aware of its own existence it can construct anything.
the universe is an illusion, chuds.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:41:48 UTC No. 16066594

>>16066225
Math is a tool for estimation created by humans to describe the nature of the universe. Something was simple as a circle does not exist in nature, only things somewhat circular

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:43:25 UTC No. 16066598

>>16066225 #
Math is a tool for estimation created by humans to describe the nature of the universe. Something as simple as a circle does not exist in nature, only things somewhat circular

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:47:05 UTC No. 16066604

>>16066532
>empty space is pure nothingness
Empty space is space which is something though. It's like a container for stuff with coordinates and size. Nothing would be no space and no chance of space appearing

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:50:28 UTC No. 16066608

isn't our current "space" form defined by the matter density? how large would a universe be, in which the whole mass is just a hydrogen atom?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:07:47 UTC No. 16066726

>>16066168
>be
>nothingness
I don't understand this. "Being" implies "something."

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:35:38 UTC No. 16066765

>>16066168
Absence of rules collapses into rules. There is no reason that it should only collapse into the "infinite empty space" ruleset instead of something else.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:37:10 UTC No. 16066769

>>16066168
because science is a tool for shit that can be observed, only people who are conquered by their brains try to think their way through un-observable things, imo

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:07:04 UTC No. 16067021

>>16066604
That is just pure abstraction, there is no inherent ”grid” to the universe. There is no evidence or property of pure space you can measure.

>But what about dark energy in space!?!?!
Pure math abstraction hypothesis. There is no empirical evidence for expansion being tied to some sort of hidden property of space. Not yet at least.

>But Einstein’s model says space is real!!!!!
Relativity is a model for engineering purposes. It has many errors and therefore isn’t equivalent to sort of machine code of the universe. It imagines a grid space that has properties, but space properties aren’t measured.

So since there is no sort of ”spaceness” you can measure, ”space” is the most empty 0 feature void you can imagine.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:24:26 UTC No. 16067056

>>16067021
The quantum field permeates space. There's zero point energy everywhere you go. Even if there was no quantum field though space is still a thing. Anything in our universe relies on space existing so space is a thing that must itself exist and if it exists its not nothing

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:26:40 UTC No. 16067060

>>16066173
in after

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:39:11 UTC No. 16067090

>>16067056
>zero point energy
This is a probabilistic model for small quantum stuff in the vacuum. It’s a measuring problem, since we can’t measure all the particles we resort to probabilistic models. There is no bubbling energy or particles popping in and out of existence, there are just small happenings on average in empty space (ie we expect the energy of 2 photons in a cubic meter of space, on average).

>Fields
A field might be a thing, but a widespread field says nothing about space being real. The field could be real and measurable, but it doesn’t it doesn’t say anything about space.

Space being a real thing is a bias of the animal brain combined with the bias of everyone accepting Einstein’s models as being some sort of universe source code (they have errors, they are engineering approximations at this point). If you can’t measure a thing, then that thing is not real until you can measure it.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:49:22 UTC No. 16067105

>>16066168
Take the zero ontology pill. The reason why reality exists might be that nothingness does exist in a sense. Reality at the highest levels is similar to the Library of Babel, and ultimately adds up to having zero information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:50:29 UTC No. 16067108

>>16066168
Some theories on why there's something rather than nothing:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:19:42 UTC No. 16067333

>>16067090
>Modern science does not equate vacuum with nothing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:22:37 UTC No. 16067335

>>16067090
>This is a probabilistic model for small quantum stuff in the vacuum. It’s a measuring problem, since we can’t measure all the particles we resort to probabilistic models. There is no bubbling energy or particles popping in and out of existence,
How do you explain the casimir effect?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:23:48 UTC No. 16067337

>>16067335
he can't

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:29:16 UTC No. 16067528

>>16066186
it's a lot simpler than the alternative but the theories of physics posit the existence of anti-matter so there is probably some shadow universe and it all cancels out to nothing

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 04:56:15 UTC No. 16067607

>>16066225
>>16066243
Math is just an explosive logic that can be post hoc applied to anything just like religion can arbitrarily separate anything into good and evil then blame it on god or satan.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 04:58:00 UTC No. 16067610

>>16066532
>Thats just the particles on average found in space. Empty space is empty.
Empty space has energy, so you are still saying that it has particles and is not actually empty.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:00:00 UTC No. 16067613

>>16066726
Holding also generally applies to something, yet you default to holding nothing whenever you have an open hand because nothingness is a default state.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:03:24 UTC No. 16067616

>>16067021
>”space” is the most empty 0 feature void you can imagine.
What about the fact that there are x meters of space?
A 0D point is the most empty 0 feature void.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:05:42 UTC No. 16067617

>>16067335
It’s just the Van der Waals force between those plates, no magic particles from nothing.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:28:59 UTC No. 16067624

>>16066168
i wanna go to this galaxy, would be much funnier and better than this shithole, maybe i can fuck some alien floating pussy or something. God earth and humans are so boring and shitty to me

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:56:50 UTC No. 16067646

>>16066225
you are assuming what you want to prove by making claims about the permutations of a non existent universe? Did they never teach you about circular logic?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 06:29:52 UTC No. 16067658

>>16067646
Yea circular logic is one of only three ways to logically prove something, none of which are very satisfying.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:01:22 UTC No. 16067675

>>16067616
There are no meters of empty space, the notches on your ruler is a feature of the ruler not the space. There is no ”spaceness” to measure. Space is completely void of features, a true nothing.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:08:11 UTC No. 16067680

>>16067675
So then it doesn't exist, you constantly reach right through infinite meters of empty space since it is always 0 meters long?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:31:37 UTC No. 16067703

>>16067680
The particles have different points in the field they correspond to. Position in this field is their location. But they don’t exist in some sort of immeasurable underlying substrate.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:35:31 UTC No. 16067710

>>16067703
The field of empty space is specifically define around the metric of meters, so empty space definitely consists of s specified number of meters of space.

You are the one inferring that empty space is immeasurable when meters is the specific measurement of space, empty or filled.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:57:08 UTC No. 16067728

>>16067710
A meter is the measure of light propogation in a certain unit of time, not a property of space.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:00:43 UTC No. 16067734

>>16067728
Then what is light moving through that delays the time it takes to travel through space if space is completely empty and meters are not actually a measurement of space?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:04:06 UTC No. 16067738

>>16067703
>Immediately reverses position completely
The extravagance and absurdity that these schizos have been driven to is insane. I guarantee he thinks he's clever for it too.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:25:52 UTC No. 16067762

>>16067734
Its field

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:32:47 UTC No. 16067764

>>16067762
Empty space is a field, a field with the metric meter.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:46:53 UTC No. 16067775

>>16067764
It’d be a field with 0 excitation at all points and no properties. It’s basically a coordinate grid that you imagined from nothing. A pure maths abstraction.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:56:07 UTC No. 16067779

>>16067775
>imagined from nothing
No, its observed directly from the delay in light and the way far off things fade into the distance because it is many meters away.

>0 excitation at all points
This is not even true, you still have to contend with the measurable vacuum energy and virtual particles, even if it is averaged over a certain amount of space, its still not 0.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:05:31 UTC No. 16067784

>>16067779
>Vacuum energy and virtual particles
That’s just the average energy you can expect in space, it’s not a property of space. Also virtual particles are not a real thing, they’ve never been observed.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:09:25 UTC No. 16067786

>>16067784
Adding to this, virtual particles is a math model NOT an observation or measurement. There are 0 particles popping into existence, this kind of magic does not exist.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:14:16 UTC No. 16067788

>>16067784
>>16067786
>That’s just the average energy you can expect in space,
Which you just said should be 0 when it is not.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:20:21 UTC No. 16067794

>>16067788
No, it’s the energy of something else (a photon or hydrogen atom). Is a photon or hydrogen atom the same as space?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:21:54 UTC No. 16067795

>>16067794
So your idea of empty space is something filled with other things?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:07:15 UTC No. 16067838

>>16067795
Right, although the local pockets of space that happen to have nothing in them are truly empty and void of everything.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:10:00 UTC No. 16067846

>>16067838
*Except for the vacuum energy and the resulting empty meters of space that make up the empty field.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:17:40 UTC No. 16067862

>>16066168
>Why can't scientists figure this out?
And just exactly what kind of experiment do you propose to "figure this out"?
Until humans are able to somehow nail the creation of universes down to a science this is a question for the philosophers.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:21:02 UTC No. 16067865

>>16067846
Vacuum energy is the average presence of other stuff bro. For the third time, it’s an average value of something else. Now if we look at space that happens to be completely empty that’d be a pure void, complete nothingness.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:28:01 UTC No. 16067875

>>16067865
>Vacuum energy is the average presence of other stuff bro.
Then you aren't talking about empty space because you want to talk about space filled with other stuff instead since actual empty space and its zero-point vacuum energy proves your assumptions wrong.

>Now if we look at space that happens to be completely empty that’d be a pure void, complete nothingness.
Except you are wrong because it is still measured in meters and it still contains vacuum energy.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:32:57 UTC No. 16067881

>>16067875
Empty space has 0 vacuum energy, average space has >0 expected energy.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:37:02 UTC No. 16067883

>>16067881
>Empty space has 0 vacuum energy,
Wrong, vacuum energy specifically refers to the measurable energy observed in empty space.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:54:17 UTC No. 16067912

>>16067883
Yes and this energy is photons and other particles. There is no measurable ”spaceness”

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:00:22 UTC No. 16067915

>>16067912
"Spaceness" is directly measured by the metric of meter and each cubed meter of empty space has a measurable vacuum energy after the energy of all the things contained in the space has been accounted for.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:17:29 UTC No. 16067936

>>16067915
>each cubed metre of space contains energy
No. Most do, on average. But some are fully empty while others are full of energy. Vacuum energy is a probabilistic measure, nothing more.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:19:03 UTC No. 16067939

>>16067936
No empty space has a measurable energy after the energy of all the things contained in the space has been accounted for, that is why it is called vacuum energy rather than photon and other particle energy.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:40:46 UTC No. 16067958

>>16067939
So every cube meter of the universe has had its energy density measured by us? Cool

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:43:46 UTC No. 16067962

>>16067958
So you think that before you can conclude that red delicious apples are red, you first have to examine every single red delicious apple that has ever existed?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:53:09 UTC No. 16068162

>>16067617
Okay, how do you explain the Schwinger Effect?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:59:04 UTC No. 16068255

>>16066186
because nothingness exists per definition and as a basis. Everything else has to have a reason to exist. But those reasons are unknown besides "big bang" or "god just did it in 7 days lol"

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:13:53 UTC No. 16068286

>>16068255
I don't think "nothingness" exist because there is always something, if nothingness exist then why is there anything at all? Why is there trillions of galaxies, stars and planets?

>the heckin expansion of the universe will wipe out everything anyways and there will finally be nothingness!!!

What's stopping from the universe being created all over again in a infinite loop? Just accept it, we're stuck here forever, I don't know how many times I said this in past timelines. Will probably be infinite just like now.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:12:54 UTC No. 16068417

>>16068286
>I don't think "nothingness" exist because there is always something,
I am pretty sure that this is somewhat true, otherwise the First Law of Thermodynamics would be invalid. The problem is that we still cannot grasp why that is the case
>>16068286
>What's stopping from the universe being created all over again in a infinite loop? [...]
I don't know how many times I said this in past timelines. Will probably be infinite just like now.
I also had this thought some time earlier. I think it could be that we are stuck in an infinite loop of the "universe" expanding and collapsing again and again so that we will experience everything again and again, it is an endless cycle, who knows how many time I have already sat here writing this very comment.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:18:51 UTC No. 16068439

I think it is also very odd that everything is so perfect and flawless.
For example a bug in a video game may cause some weird behavior but the game still works depending how major it is.
But why don't we have something like that in the real world. I know the theories that our universe and math is this way because every other possibility would make it unstable. But an unstable game/simulation can still be playable? It is so odd

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:20:24 UTC No. 16068446

>>16066168
>Why is there a Universe instead of just infinite nothingness?
Because its impossible for there not to be something, why is that so hard to understand?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:34:54 UTC No. 16068502

>>16068417
It's a scary thought but how can we even tell anymore? It's just so hard to figure this shit out we don't have the resource, or manpower to find out if this is true, so nauseating how confusing the universe can be.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:35:58 UTC No. 16068506

>>16068446
so what has been 1m next to the big bang spot at the very beginning of the universe?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:41:10 UTC No. 16068530

>>16068502
well this would mean that right after you die the first thing that you will find yourself in is your birth because that is the first time your consciousness awakens. This is so awkward to think about.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:43:04 UTC No. 16068539

>>16068506
I don't know buddy, the big bang was merely the expansion of our current universe, there could've already been a previous universe and ours merely expanded out from within it from a unknown process, could be anything really

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:56:48 UTC No. 16068582

>>16068162
Has never been observed, pure maths wankery again. Virtual particle pair annihilation has never been observed, it’s a math model for average energy in a vacuum and not a literal actual thing. There is no magic.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:08:44 UTC No. 16069250

>>16068530
Existence is strange, it's the strangest thing to ever exist, only time will tell how it plays out.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:14:38 UTC No. 16069258

>>16068582

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:36:27 UTC No. 16069285

Because you are an observer and you thus need something to observe. If you weren't, there could indeed be nothing. But while you are, there can't be.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:37:43 UTC No. 16069290

>>16066399
In some universe with different fundamental constants, perhaps.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:41:39 UTC No. 16069295

>>16068255
>because nothingness exists per definition and as a basis
Where?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:49:10 UTC No. 16069301

>>16069295
clearly inside his skull

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:54:32 UTC No. 16069304

>>16066168
>Why is there a Universe instead of just infinite nothingness?
purely philosophical problem that the unwashed physhits are not equipped to deal with.
(500IQ+ Required) for further inquiry.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:33:03 UTC No. 16069510

>>16066186
Because you have to accept something came from nothing.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:34:26 UTC No. 16069513

Cosmology isn't science

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:50:45 UTC No. 16069532

>>16069295
Everywhere there is a thing or a multitude of things, you are holding it right now, it is the thing that separates you from yourself and the thing in between things that are in direct contact.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:51:46 UTC No. 16069533

>>16069510
Nothing is something, it doesn't come from it is one in the same.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:57:21 UTC No. 16069540

>>16068446
Nothing is something, it has a real value and everything, so even if you have infinite nothingness, its still something.

Saying nothing is impossible is a paradox like saying this statement is false, you immediately invalidate yourself because you make something like nothingness impossible despite claiming its not possible to be in that situation where something is impossible.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:59:21 UTC No. 16069544

>>16068286
>if nothingness exist then why is there anything at all? Why is there trillions of galaxies, stars and planets?
Nothing is the smallest possible amount of anything and there was nothing to stop it from accumulating into the other things.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:00:17 UTC No. 16069546

>>16069532
But there are just more things between those things and between those things are just more things, no matter how finely you divide reality you will come to find that always something new will present itself, but no matter how far you go you will never find nothing.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:00:24 UTC No. 16069547

>>16068439
>But why don't we have something like that in the real world.
Try staring at the sun, seems a bit buggy that the thing that allows you to see will make you go blind if you look at it.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:01:45 UTC No. 16069549

>>16069544
No, ESL, nothing is a term of universal negation meaning "not anything".

Everyone doing the fucking Odyssey gag using nothing as a pronoun is either a retard or troll

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:04:43 UTC No. 16069553

>>16069285
You can observe nothing with every single on of the classic five senses, though.
When you see nothing, its called blindness.
When you hear nothing, its called deafness.
When you feel nothing, its called numbness.
When you taste nothing, its called blandness.
When you smell nothing, its called odorlessness.
When you observe nothing of reality at all its called sleep or unconsciousness and everyone experiences it directly.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:07:52 UTC No. 16069559

>>16069553
>I actually have experience of pussy, namely no pussy

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:08:14 UTC No. 16069560

>>16069546
No there aren't, there is nothing between you and yourself and no matter how many things you hold in your hand, you will eventually terminate the set at nothing else held and its not possible to divide things beyond a certain point, people just start guessing past a certain threshold.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:11:47 UTC No. 16069561

>>16069549
That is a logically explosive definition that refutes itself because if you couldn't have anything, you couldn't even have nothing itself.
Defining it that way is like trying to define this sentence as false, it immediately breaks down into paradox when you give a negative existence a positive definition, so nothing can't be not anything as that would refute its own existence, so at best to be logical, it can only be the least possible amount of things just like 0 isn't not a number, but the smallest number possible.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:15:09 UTC No. 16069564

>>16069559
Pussy isn't nothing, its not the neutral sex organ, its more like a negative terminal.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:54:17 UTC No. 16069636

>>16069560
>its not possible to divide things beyond a certain point
Okay, so let's assume that you take matter and divide it until infinity and you reach what you assume is the limit, what is that substance made of?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:54:37 UTC No. 16069638

>>16069553
Sleep is only altered consciousness. Better examples would be blackouts or general anesthesia. In those cases, that span of time never existed for (You), and you can feel it after.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:59:08 UTC No. 16069643

>>16069636
>let's assume...
Why would I assume that something I just said is not possible is possible?

>divide it until infinity
Why don't YOU do infinite things before replying again if you think it is possible.

>what is that substance made of
I don't even need to divide anything to know that matter is still matter, by definition.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:01:28 UTC No. 16069645

>>16069638
>Sleep is only altered consciousness.
That is why I said unconsciousness.

>Better examples would be blackouts or general anesthesia.
They are the exact same example of sleeping since you sleep during both blackout and anesthesia and you can dream during both, so I was obviously referring to dreamless sleep or I would have called it dreaming rather than sleep.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:01:47 UTC No. 16069647

>>16069643
>dodging the question because you know you're wrong
lol

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:03:11 UTC No. 16069648

>>16069645
Dreamless sleep doesn't do a discontinuity in your internal sense of time is what I mean.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:04:58 UTC No. 16069651

>>16069647
Matter is matter I didn't dodge anything, I answered that any division of matter is still matter.
Doing an infinite amount of anything is impossible, so your question was retarded, you can't divide matter infinite times, infinity is not actually a number, but regardless of how many times you divide matter, its still matter, by definition.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:06:59 UTC No. 16069652

>>16069648
It does though, you fall asleep at one time and wake up ignorant of all the time that has passed while asleep and have to have visual cues to reorient your sense of time, but if you were in a windowless room with no clocks, you would have no idea how long you had slept because sense of time is not maintained during sleep.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:11:43 UTC No. 16069656

>>16069651
>Matter is matter
And no matter how far down you go there will only be more of it waiting for you
>Doing an infinite amount of anything is impossible
Fool that you are, in your ignorance you forget that you've already lived an infinite amount of lives over infinite aeons as reality has existed for an infinite amount of time with no beginning or end, your primitive knowledge of reality clouds your eyes from the truth.
>infinity is not actually a number
Nobody was talking about numbers, reality does not operate on numbers

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:23:48 UTC No. 16069663

>>16069656
>how far down you go
You can only go so far down, beyond that, it is completely outside of your scope and the scope of measurement itself.

>Fool
You are the retarded one asking the retarded questions, though, if you had actual answers about what comes after an infinite number of steps, you could coherently explain your perspective instead of asking incoherent questions and implying you are some kind of immortal demigod who is too cool to explain yourself.

>Nobody was talking about numbers,
You were when you told the thread to make a certain number of divisions to get to some substance that you already defined as matter.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:25:36 UTC No. 16069665

>>16069652
There's going through part of a movie at 20x speed and there's instantly skipping to another timestamp.
Although the 20x speed thing isn't completely correct either. It is humanly possible to know how long you've been asleep without visual cues. People don't tend to train this faculty because it's not usually relevant.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:27:47 UTC No. 16069667

>>16069665
>There's going through part of a movie at 20x speed and there's instantly skipping to another timestamp.
Yes and instantly skipping is how dreamless sleep is perceived.

>People don't tend to train this faculty because it's not usually relevant.
Which means even if you are right, which you aren't, the default is that sleep is a discontinuity in a person's sense of time.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:40:27 UTC No. 16069676

>>16069663
>You can only go so far down
wrong
>beyond that, it is completely outside of your scope and the scope of measurement itself.
and yet every "measurement" no matter how infinitely small is capable by reality itself
>You are the retarded one asking the retarded questions, though
And yet you can't answer them, truly your foolishness knows no bounds
>if you had actual answers about what comes after an infinite number of steps
more matter, like you said
>make a certain number of divisions
infinite is not a number, remember

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:56:39 UTC No. 16069680

>>16069676
>wrong
Then explain how you can measure something that is vastly smaller than the smallest component of an instrument such that it would be drastically affected by the measurement itself?

>no matter how infinitely small
Measurements can't get infinitely small and you can't explain how that could even be possible.

>And yet you can't answer them
You are surprised that retarded incoherent questions don't have actual answers? Is most your life spent trying to count to potato?

>like you said
No, I said you can't have an infinite number of steps, but if you cut it into some measurable finite pieces it would still be matter.

>infinite is not a number, remember
Of course I remember, but you don't seem to understand the fact since you still think you can have an infinite number of divisions or that something comes after an infinite number of steps.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:05:30 UTC No. 16069685

>>16069667
The time is there in dreamless sleep. It's just deemphasized, discounted, buried. Although, it's very possible this isn't the universal experience. In that case I'm just pissing into the wind here.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:12:09 UTC No. 16069690

>>16069685
You are definitely just making shit up and pretending like there is some advanced training regiment that doesn't actually existed when you just instinctively know how long you have slept because you keep a clock near your sleeping area and look to the sun's soon position soon after getting up from your slumber.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:17:43 UTC No. 16069693

>>16069680
>Then explain how you can measure something that is vastly smaller than the smallest component of an instrument such that it would be drastically affected by the measurement itself?
>Measurements can't get infinitely small
Your confusion stems from your lack of understanding what measurement means and your ignorance in thinking that you need a primitive manmade instrument to measure anything, an adequate analogue would be when people think that an "observer" in a system denotes a human being looking at something.
>retarded incoherent questions
It was pretty coherent, you claim reality has a limit and I asked you what that limit is, you dodge the question and spaz out
>I said you can't have an infinite number of steps
Too bad what "you say" has no bearing on how reality functions
>you still think you can have an infinite number of divisions or that something comes after an infinite number of steps.
Except I explicitly stated it's an infinitely recurring system, nothing "comes after an infinite number of steps", it's an endless loop, no beginning, no end

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:35:56 UTC No. 16069708

>>16069693
Your retardation stems from the fact that your worldview can't coherently answer the question so you try to move the goalposts to someone else's confusion instead of your own inability to come up with coherent answers to basic problems.

>you claim reality has a limit and I asked you what that limit is,
No, I claimed measurement has a limit and you asked some nonsense about what happens after infinite divisions.

>you dodge the question and spaz out
I didn't dodge anything, you question was incoherent and I explained why, then answered the closest coherent thing possible, the limit to measurement you are looking for is called planck units and they comes well before any infinite step.

>Too bad what "you say" has no bearing on how reality functions
Then do an infinite number of things that take an infinite amount of time before making the next post and wait to see if you can tell us how that works out for you.

>nothing "comes after an infinite number of steps", it's an endless loop, no beginning, no end
You clearly don't understand how how loops work either and don't get that infinity is specifically not a loop, but an open ended line since if you put the line in a circle, 0 loops to 2pi, so you can just divide by 2pi to find an equivalent radial point for anything over 2pi, but you can still count the number of loops and increment by 2pi indefinitely too if you aren't counting it in a loop, but linearly tracking the number of loops taken around the circle.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:36:58 UTC No. 16069711

>>16069708
>I claimed measurement has a limit
Except it doesn't, you're already wrong on point one, I'm not going to bother reading point two

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:38:06 UTC No. 16069712

>>16069690
I might be crazy but I'm not a liar.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9130333/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36952462/

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:38:13 UTC No. 16069713

>>16069711
The feel free to explain how it is possible to measure things below planck units without resorting to your "you just like don't understand, man" bullshit.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:40:56 UTC No. 16069716

>>16069712
No, that is a result of people habitually going to bed at the same time every night and their body naturally following a circadian rhythm that wakes them a specific number of hours later, they can't actually wake up in x minutes or be woken suddenly and tell how much time has passed, they just formed a habit of sleeping from x to y and their body eventually becomes incredibly accustomed to following the pattern.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:41:55 UTC No. 16069719

>>16069713
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=interaction
I've spoonfed you enough

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:46:52 UTC No. 16069722

>>16069719
You didn't spoonfeed anything, you appealed to authority because you are too retarded to read the link and summarize it in a way that agrees with all the bullshit you have been spewing.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:51:34 UTC No. 16069726

>>16069722
lol, lmao even, you keep spouting about measurements yet you don't even know what measuring is, you're hopelessly retarded, enjoy living in the hole

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:53:16 UTC No. 16069727

>>16066168
Sadge
Born too soon to experience the big bang and too late to see the heat death of the universe

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:54:40 UTC No. 16069731

>>16069726
No, I obviously know what it is because I am talking about things that directly related to measurement theory while you are spouting non sequitur nonsense, presenting definitions of other words, and committing other various fallacies instead of just logically explaining you position since you recognize that your retarded position is not logical.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:56:35 UTC No. 16069734

>>16069731
>No, I obviously know what it is
You clearly don't
How do you get a measurement, anon? What event has to take place in order for there to be a measurement?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:03:56 UTC No. 16069740

>>16069734
Comparison to a reference quantity and if the reference quantity is so much larger that the comparison quantity gets destroyed and an instrument that is large enough to weight the reference crushes the measured, it is impossible to make a measurement, so if you try to measure things significantly smaller than the atoms that compose the instruments or the reference quantity, you won't be able to get reliable results because the measured quantity will get destroyed before the measurement can be completed.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:05:28 UTC No. 16069742

>>16069740
>Comparison to a reference quantity
But in order to get a reference quantity you must first take a measurement, what do you have to do in order to get that measurement?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:20:05 UTC No. 16069752

>>16069742
The reference quantity is not something smaller than atoms that would get destroyed during the process of measurement like you are suggesting to measure, so you compare it to something common like the length of an average human foot or the weight of a cup of water, but I am not going to spoonfeed you on the basics of measurement anymore since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and seem to think infinity is some specific number of times you can divide anything by.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:43:56 UTC No. 16069770

>>16069752
>during the process of measurement
And what happens during the process of measurement, anon? Come on, you should be able to answer this as a self-certified measuring expert and yet you're 3 posts in without giving one.

Barkon at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:51:40 UTC No. 16069780

It's a little thing called soiy

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:51:44 UTC No. 16069781

>>16069770
No, I already said, you just don't seem to understand because you are retarded. During the process of measurement if the instrument of measurement vastly outweight the object being measured or vice versa, it crushes and destroys the other object instead of producing a coherent measurement like if you tried to put an elephant on a fruit scale or if you tried to put a truck scale on a fruit to measure it.

You are the retarded saying you are an expert at measurement yet all you can do is point to some non sequitur dictionary definition instead of just explaining how something orders of magnitude smaller than atoms can be measured by things made of atoms.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:54:29 UTC No. 16069786

>>16069781
>still can't answer the question

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:59:13 UTC No. 16069794

>>16069786
Your question about what comes after infinite steps is still retarded and incoherent so no answer is the best one you will get followed by being called stupid for asking stupid incoherent questions.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:07:25 UTC No. 16069804

>>16069794
Are you high on meth or something? I asked you what happens during measurement that you are able to get a result, you absolute fucking troglodyte, I even gave you the answer 5 posts ago but you are too much of an imbecile to concentrate even for a moment, instead continuing to ramble on in your schizophrenic delusion, you are quite literally less intelligent than a dog, even a fucking dog understands that when things touch something happens, but apparently that is a concept beyond the understanding of your smooth little peabrain, fuck off and don't reply to me again.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:18:15 UTC No. 16069816

>>16069804
You have asked me a lot of questions every time your worldview is questioned because you are stupid and your framework is unable to provide coherent answers.

That particular question was answered and you just asked more questions since you can't answer how something that is too small to touch something else without being destroyed can be measured by that thing, so you just have to go in retarded circles instead of acknowledging the answer which directly refutes your retarded concept of infinite divisions being measured.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:40:13 UTC No. 16069828

>>16069816
Jesus christ, you can't even follow one simple order, that is to not reply to me, for clarification since someone with mental faculties as impaired as yours can't follow more than two sentences. Ooops, went over the limit, bye bye your single braincell.
>You have asked me a lot of questions
I have only asked you two questions with single word answers and you couldn't answer either of them, you are literally braindead.
>you just asked more questions
I have only asked you two questions. Can you count anon? Math too hard for you? Let's start from the beginning, okay?
1
you still following?
still with me?
you know what comes after 1 right?
can you answer what comes after 1?
if it's too hard for you to figure out you can ask for help.
>you can't answer how something that is too small to touch something else without being destroyed can be measured by that thing
refer to >>16069719

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:43:29 UTC No. 16069830

>>16069540
No, nothing is merely a linguistic quirk, a semantic failure misunderstanding, has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with language, just like actual (retarded) vs potential (real) infinities

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:45:37 UTC No. 16069832

>>16069830
Nope it translates into math and is a mathematical quirk too with the self-contradicting valueless value of 0 serving as the origin number.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:47:49 UTC No. 16069834

I want all infininiggers to understand that infinity doesn’t exist in nature. If infinity appears in your model in any way, the model is likely wrong.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:51:08 UTC No. 16069838

>>16069828
You asked more than one question in more than two posts and the only reason you did that is because the only way you can seem to answer is to ask more questions in return instead of provide coherent answers.
>>16069804
>>16069770
>>16069742
>>16069734
>>16069693
>>16069636


>refer to
Exactly, you can't answer how something that gets destroyed in the interaction can be accurately measured by the thing destroying it before a measurement can be completed because you are retarded.

>Can you count anon?
No to infinity and especially not a step past infinity which is what you were originally asking.
>Math too hard for you?
An infinite number of steps is definitely too hard for me or anything else.

>1
What is 1 step past infinity is a much different question and it is incoherent and retarded which is why you asked it because you clearly get off on being incoherent and retarded.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:26:55 UTC No. 16069868

>>16069838
>you can't answer how something that gets destroyed in the interaction can be accurately measured by the thing destroying it before a measurement can be completed
how do you destroy something without making a measurement? how do you interact with something without making a measurement? you do understand that interaction and measurement are the exact same thing, right? you can't measure without interacting, you can't interact without making a measurement.
>No to infinity and especially not a step past infinity which is what you were originally asking.
No, my illiterate friend, I asked you to divide reality an arbitrarily infinite amount until you reach the limit you supposed is the basis of reality, "infinite" chosen as an arbitrary value as it would be indeterminate how many steps is between, say, an atom and your presupposed limit.
>An infinite number of steps is definitely too hard for me or anything else.
And yet reality functions just fine, not too hard for it and since you are a direct extension of reality it shouldn't be too hard for you, but with an attitude like that you will never begin to comprehend.
>What is 1 step past infinity is a much different question and it is incoherent and retarded which is why you asked it
No I asked you to divide reality down to your presupposed limit and answer what that final layer is made of, if not of any constituent parts, you've yet to give a proper answer.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:31:59 UTC No. 16069873

>>16066217
Makes sense. I like how you made the analogy with a computer- something that is impossibly complex like our universe yet also entirely artificial.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:47:28 UTC No. 16069885

>>16069868
>how do you destroy something without making a measurement? how do you interact with something without making a measurement?
By failing to compare it to the reference quantity metric and just destroying it instead of determining the ratio of units of the measured object compared to the reference.

>you do understand that interaction and measurement are the exact same thing, right?
They are not, measurement is quantified.

>you can't measure without interacting, you can't interact without making a measurement.
Wrong, you can burn down a house without measuring the square footage.

>arbitrarily infinite
Infinite is not arbitrary, though, its a specific limit and mathematical construct, you sound retarded when you use retarded phrases like that.

You can divide something in half until you get to the planck unit, then division will not be possible because you have no way to know if you are cutting it exactly in half because measurement breaks down at that scale.

>And yet reality functions just fine,
Because it hasn't waited until after an infinite number of steps to start.

>No I asked you to divide reality down to your presupposed limit
No, you asked to divide it infinitely and asked what the thing after that is made of, if theoretically come up with a perfect atom sized instrument you can divide matter down to the the planck length and still measure a 1.616255×10-35 m bit of matter, so you can divide matter down to that point before measurement breaks down, but after that the instrument's error is larger than the measurement itself, so it breaks down.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:13:56 UTC No. 16069907

>>16066420
>Hertog and Hawking disagree
Who?
I don't care if some cripple disagrees. He is still wrong.
How can you seriously tell me that 1 plus 1 wouldn't equal 2 if the universe never existed?
>>16066598
>circle does not exist in nature
That's because we have a finite amount of energy and matter
In an infinite universe we would have infinite precision. This does not disprove anything I said.
>>16067607
Correct
>>16067646
You don't understand my argument.
First, assume that nothing exists.
If nothing exists then we would not be alive.
Therefore something must exist.
The most basic thing that can exist is mathematics.
All of the laws of physics were derived from these mathematical laws.
Since there is an infinite number of ways to permutations data, that means that there are infinite universes.
It's just like how you can generate every picture to ever exist by generating all possible pixel colors. You can do that for all types of data including the data that made our universe.

>b-b-but there's no proof of other universes
Your definition of proof is proving by using laws of Physics.
So if there are universes outside of thise one that don't obey the laws of Physics, then of course you can't "prove" their existence using the rules that you just defined. They don't abide by the same rules. And you must observe them. How are you supposed to prove something you can't measure? That's why you need to think in terms of data and what is possible rather than what is observable.

You will all realise I am correct once we start building massively realistic computer simulations with sentient AI that then create their own simulations and so forth.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:14:08 UTC No. 16069908

>>16069885
>By failing to compare it to the reference quantity metric
Except the comparison is made as soon as interaction takes place
>measurement is quantified.
And interaction is not? so interaction never occurs? nothing exists and nothing happens because nothing is quantified?
>you can burn down a house without measuring the square footage.
You don't have to measure anything, your existence is absolutely irrelevant to measurement, the square footage of the house was already measured before you even knew the house existed, the information of the properties of every infinitesimally small quanta of matter which form the house and the rest of reality surrounding it recorded before you were even born.
>You can divide something in half until you get to the planck unit, then division will not be possible
lol
lmao even
the hardest of roflmaos
reality does not bend to your will or imaginary numbers, you fucking retard, you are truly delusional

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:29:10 UTC No. 16069916

>>16066225
math doesnt even exist in this universe

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:47:14 UTC No. 16069932

>>16069916
>math doesn't exist
So how are we having this conversation?
How can you possibly tell me that information does not exist.
Everything is information.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:48:58 UTC No. 16069936

>>16069932
>Everything is information.
and nothing is made of numbers

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:07:33 UTC No. 16069968

>>16066168
The universe is "nothing", it's basically a giat vacuum with some matter here and there. The idea you have of "nothing" is purely theoretical/metaphysical and doesn't exist.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:30:14 UTC No. 16070012

>>16069932
if math is information then how can it exist if there is no universe?
you hold 2 contradictory views simultaneously

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:37:08 UTC No. 16070022

>>16069968
What really irks me is the matter creation mechanism. People just handwave it away with "we can't know nuthin pre big bang", but the fact is we observe all this matter has to have been created somehow. Just how?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:50:09 UTC No. 16070043

>>16070022
you can handwave further
if matter must be created for us to exist, we should not be surprised it was created somehow irrespective of how unlikely it is

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:58:38 UTC No. 16070054

>>16070043
Sure, but at least it can happen at all which is something peculiar.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:04:24 UTC No. 16070063

>>16070022
causality outside that which makes it possible in the first place?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:07:28 UTC No. 16070068

>>16070063
I don't get what you mean

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:09:20 UTC No. 16070077

>>16070068
cause and effect implies time dude. that's inside the universe. time happened after the big-bang. mindbender innit?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:19:45 UTC No. 16070098

>>16070077
What you describe is an artifact of relativity where nothing is defined at t = 0. So physicists say there was no time before the big bang because they mistake relativity for some sort of universe machine code instead of the engineering approximiation that it is.

Relativity is not some hard law of the universe, it's just a good predictive model for certain things (and it fails at other things such as black holes and t = 0).

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:37:57 UTC No. 16070131

>>16066168
Suppose that the big bang can be explained by an underlying mechanism, what then allowed this underlying mechanism to manifest?

Another underlying mechanism? Then what allowed the prime mechanism to happen? If it happened once or more, could it happen again?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:09:44 UTC No. 16070168

>>16066168
and how would you figure out a metaphysical question with the tools of empirical science?
build up a coherent worldview from formal and efficient causes in a strict physicalist worldview?
forgetting that this was always just a tool, a way to make progress on pragmatic knowledge leads to retardation like all the theoretical physics theories and so on

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:24:40 UTC No. 16070181

>>16066168
>infinite nothingness
that's not nothing.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:58:59 UTC No. 16070235

>>16070168
Empirically matter and energy was created. So there has to be a mechanism for it.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:08:16 UTC No. 16070246

>>16070235
>Empirically matter and energy was created.
excuse me the fuck but when did you ever do that? or anyone? can you create energy? you can create matter from energy, but can you create some extra energy vs what already is? any example of this energy being "created"?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:22:09 UTC No. 16070266

>>16070246
Energy existing is proof of energy having been created, empirically speaking.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:26:06 UTC No. 16070272

>>16070266
proof of this whole universe existing is not proof it has been created. especially if there's infinities in the mix

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:28:23 UTC No. 16070275

>>16070272
Now you enter the area of semantics/maths wankery. Infinites don't exist in nature, and things that exist have an origin.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:40:02 UTC No. 16070290

>>16070275
no dude you think you can consider causality outside of time.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:41:31 UTC No. 16070292

>>16070266
>Energy existing is proof of energy having been created
Cool, so where is your proof that it was created?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:47:30 UTC No. 16070302

>>16070292
Observing energy/matter

>>16070290
You fell for this retarded popsci myth again. Holy fuck to have to explain it to another brainlet...

Relativity doesn't work at t = 0. That doesn't mean there was nothing pre big bang. Relativity is not sort of god formula, it has tons of errors.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:01:09 UTC No. 16070316

>>16070290
NTA but causality is routinely considered outside or irrespective of physics. If you think there exists a physical dimension of time in a literal sense then that's a different concept than simply ordering events or statements, which would be "causal".

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:11:02 UTC No. 16070327

Language wasn't designed to ask/answer these types of questions.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:13:13 UTC No. 16070336

>>16070316
>ordering
you can reduce it to planck seconds, it's still time. you cannot consider "this causes that" outside of time. I don't understand how there is order in events outside time itself, doesn't make sense to me.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:16:25 UTC No. 16070347

outside of time it seems to me like everything that can exist exists, just like that, along with our universe

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:18:37 UTC No. 16070356

>>16070347
>everything that can exist exists
This doesn't mean anything. Why then "can" some things exist?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:24:46 UTC No. 16070365

>>16070336
Time is not some sort of underlying refresh rate of the universe that once started ticking. What we call time is a measure of certain happenings in relation to other happenings (It took med this many atom decays to walk 10m for example).

If time "started" at the big bang, it means that there was nothing at all happening before. If there was truly nothing happening, how did all this matter and energy get spawned from nothing? One must then believe that the universe allows arbitrary things to happen sometimes, which would be very bizarre.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:25:15 UTC No. 16070367

>>16070356
>This doesn't mean anything.
yes it does. in the context of probabilities if it's possible it will eventually happen, which is a function of time, if you have enough of it. outside of time itself the mere fact of something being possible might make it exist.
>Why then "can" some things exist?
we don't know why our universe exists but it does. this is proof that things can exist. we don't know what else exists, but at least our universe does. other shit might exist.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:26:59 UTC No. 16070372

>>16070367
Right but in the end what "can exist" seems completely arbitrary.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:30:13 UTC No. 16070376

>>16070372
yeah have no fucking clue on what can exist. our universe can. which is pretty weird. something at least as weird as our universe can also exist.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:37:14 UTC No. 16070389

>>16070336
No, nobody reduces anything to planck "seconds", they simply order events, semantic objects, logical statements, or anything else. Even the ordering of posts in this thread can be done without respect to time (or could be used to set its own 'time' 'dimension')

Saying that something "doesn't make sense" to you is not exactly persuasive. There are ways to evade this conception, but they involve extremely extravagant intellectual burdens like denying events, denying causality, denying mathematical ordering, logical ordering, or worse.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:40:55 UTC No. 16070396

>>16070389
>Even the ordering of posts in this thread can be done without respect to time (or could be used to set its own 'time' 'dimension')
broder are you fucking retarded? we are talking about ordering causal shit. this then that. this made that. this happened and then that happened. you always have NOT that specific instance, they don't happen at once, they happen first one second the other, the difference between then CAN ONLY BE FUCKING TIME YOU MORON! even if it's the smallest unit of time you can get down to, it's still fucking then and now, not at once.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 18:09:34 UTC No. 16070447

>>16070302
>Observing energy/matter
No creation, only transformation

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 18:56:27 UTC No. 16070499

>>16070447
Infinity isn't real in nature. It had a creation at some point.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 18:58:07 UTC No. 16070503

>>16070499
>in nature
what about outside of it?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:11:00 UTC No. 16070523

>>16070499
>Infinity isn't real in nature
Proof?
>It had a creation at some point.
Prove it, then, I'm waiting

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:13:52 UTC No. 16070526

>>16070523
Your position is the absurd one, none of what you claim has ever been observed and so we default to them being false. Show an example of a thing existing without creation or show an infinity in nature.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:14:55 UTC No. 16070530

>>16066168
Why the fuck would there be a massive universe filled with 10^25 planets. And we can't even leave this shitheap of a planet. Why did God do this? Is He just trolling us for funsies?
>Your anime girl planet is real
>Your waifu is waiting there for you
>But it's 100 lightyears away so you'll die before reaching it no matter how hard you try lmao
Why.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:17:30 UTC No. 16070532

>>16070389
time doesn't exist. It is literally the 'order of events'. Before clocks there didn't exist time. High quality bait, made me reply.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:19:25 UTC No. 16070536

>>16070532
>time no exist only order of events
does it hurt anon?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:20:25 UTC No. 16070540

>>16070530
10^25 planets means we're the only intelligent life in the universe right now. If there were actually infinite (whatever that means) planets your waifu might have been real, but even then she'd have access to someone better.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:23:38 UTC No. 16070544

>>16070532
Yeah the
>ordering of events
Objection shitclowns every realist model. The philosophers stammering
>T-time is what clocks measure
Or
>Time is... entropy? No, gibbs free energy! No, uh, fuck
Just get cleared by it instantly.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:25:00 UTC No. 16070548

>>16070540
>10^25 planets means we're the only intelligent life in the universe right now
It means the opposite, goddamn what a dumb take. High number of planets = more chance of life.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:28:59 UTC No. 16070553

>>16070526
>none of what you claim has ever been observed
No, I've observed it and most likely thousands of people throughout the entirety of human history have, too, I don't even doubt that animals have observed it, though it may be harder for them to make any sense of it due to their limited cognition
>Show an example of a thing existing without creation
Reality
>show an infinity in nature
Reality

Barkon !otRmkgvx22 at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:30:18 UTC No. 16070558

>>16070553
Observe my anus as it farts on you.

-farts on you-
-poops in your face-

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:33:32 UTC No. 16070566

>>16070558
I didn't see anything creating it, therefore your anus doesn't exist

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:34:03 UTC No. 16070567

>>16070553
>show an infinity in nature
>Show an example of a thing existing without creation
>Reality

Right just more baseless claims. Discussion over.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:34:37 UTC No. 16070568

>>16070548
No retard-kun, multiplying a 10^110 annual shot of earth-like amino acid abiogenesis through 15 billion years and 10^25 planets means we're totally alone.

The appeal has ALWAYS been an INFINITE number of time, space, matter and energy to multiply your probabilities by. Multiplying through minimum complexity scores with material conditions and time obliterates any chance of aliens.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:38:42 UTC No. 16070572

>>16070568
Naw the odds aren't that bad (they just aren't)

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:43:47 UTC No. 16070583

>>16070567
>baseless
lol
What is baseless is making up a bunch of numbers and claiming reality does what you say despite having no observable evidence for your claims, if you want to see all the answers to the nature of reality all you have to do is meditate and see for yourself, it's as shrimple as that

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:45:32 UTC No. 16070588

>>16070583
Good to see you outing yourself as some sort of mysticism schizo so I can save myself the time.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:50:22 UTC No. 16070597

>>16070588
Yes anon, existence is pure mysticism, none of this is actually happening and you're just a simulation, feel free to live on ignorance and chase meaningless models which will never describe reality, I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:51:01 UTC No. 16070598

>>16070568
We've probably been seeded by fish gods so there are probably like a bunch more humanoids. One day our descendants will be fucking mernaid poon on a planet a million lightyears away

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:53:17 UTC No. 16070603

>>16070572
Sorry retard-kun, you can't make an appeal to big numbers then back off once the actual big numbers come out to play.

Just appeal to an actually infinite amount of time, space, matter and energy like everyone else does.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:56:58 UTC No. 16070611

>>16070598
Earth is way too early for most life-seeding scenarios and it doesn't make sense to seed literally just a single cell line.

Only way it would make sense is if our Promethean fish progenitors really wanted us to have access to aeons worth of fossil fuels by the time intelligent life arose

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:39:40 UTC No. 16070961

>>16066168
They have. If there was infinite nothing there would not be a universe.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:17:49 UTC No. 16071631

>>16066225
I thought about this before, as you have, but have found it unsatisfactory and not the answer.

I can construct a counter argument against this:

First notice that the universe is objectively order quite well, and is not chaotic. Things make sense and function quite well. The planets, stars, and all the laws of physics are very coherent.

If you were chosing from all the infinities of the universes that could be created, you are a gorillion times more likely to have a chaotic, bizarre, fever dream universe. One that is weird and bizarre. Pic related is what I mean, to give you an idea.

The idea is that, these bizarre, crazy, fever dream universes should be much more common in the set of all infinite permutations of universes than the ones that are coherent and "nice", like the one we live in.

Since we do not live in a bizarre, fever dream universe, and we do in fact live in a universe that is objectively quite ordered and coherent, then this gives a good argument against that idea.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:22:59 UTC No. 16071634

>>16071631
I do not come here on sci often, but when i do, i try to effort post.

if you like this post I made and found it well made, then check out my other posts here before they delete. I don't often get replies on them lol.

>>16071620
>>16071599

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:23:14 UTC No. 16071636

>>16066168
But there is nothingness so you're question makes no sense

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:24:57 UTC No. 16071637

>>16071631
choosing* i meant

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:28:37 UTC No. 16071638

>>16069553
The part about there only being 5 senses is wrong. When I feel pleasure qualia, this is not one of the five senses.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:23:27 UTC No. 16071677

>>16070367
Probabilities are post hoc, they aren't predictions and don't offer predictive powers, if you are treating them as such, you have fallen prey to the gambler's fallacy.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:29:22 UTC No. 16071682

>>16070961
Wrong.
1 universe + 0 nothing + 0 nothing + 0 nothing + ... = 1 universe

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:32:11 UTC No. 16071689

>>16066168

Because the universe is uncaused and necessary
Or
Because the cause of the universe is uncaused and necessary.

Before this becomes a religious discussion, I emphasize that the cause of the universe is not necessarily God.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:36:31 UTC No. 16071697

>>16069908
>Except the comparison is made as soon as interaction takes place
No, you have sampling rates and other steps before the measurement is complete.

>And interaction is not?
No, interaction is a vague term that doesn't account for full observation, something can interact with your back and you never even saw it let alone measured what color it was with your eyes.

>You don't have to measure anything
You do if you want to actually measure and quantify something rather than just having a vague sense that something might exist somewhere that can be observed.

>the square footage of the house was already measured before you even knew the house existed,
No, you can even built a structure without measuring it, just lay a bunch of shit down so it looks good enough.

>reality does not bend to your will or imaginary numbers, you fucking retard, you are truly delusional
You haven't measured something just because you already think you know everything about everything, you are clearly the delusional maniac who doesn't understand anything about measurement vs observation.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:26:26 UTC No. 16071822

>>16071631
An observer in a "chaotic" and "bizarre" universe could very well percieve it to be normal and natural. You are projecting your human biases here.

bodhi at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:35:10 UTC No. 16071829

>>16066769
good thing the people who studied information transfer via radio waves, electricity and magnetism werent as retarded as you are

bodhi at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:36:57 UTC No. 16071835

>>16068255
wrong simpleton

/ thread for the 5000th time (and second time in less than a week)

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:40:19 UTC No. 16071838

>>16071631
>The planets, stars, and all the laws of physics are very coherent.
No, there are many types of planets and stars, if it was very coherent, they would all be much more similar and there wouldn't be random shit in the middle like dwarfs, comets and asteroids.

Pic is what your insides look like with a bit of color grading, seeing things from a different scale can make normal things seem like a fever dream.

bodhi at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:40:42 UTC No. 16071839

>>16070583

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:41:26 UTC No. 16071840

>>16071638
>only
Nobody said that.

When you don't feel anything, that is a sense of nothing.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:43:46 UTC No. 16071844

>>16070611
They didn't mean to create humanoids. They were trying to play God by planting the dinosaurs. But God likes to play jokes and kills their planets with asteroids so that humanoids (made in God's image) can evolve and extract the oil from the extinct dinosaurs as a final fuck you to those fish assholes. Also there's a bunch of other planets with sexy dinosaurs who would probably try to destroy us as soon as they found us. But they only worship ugly fish gods and we worship the one true God. In other words they're fucked and my descendants will be fucking humanoid bird poon and mermaid poon. I want to fuck Ariel so badly you have no idea.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:50:01 UTC No. 16071852

selection bias
thinking things couldn't exist in the nothingverse and so we exist in the somethingverse

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:50:25 UTC No. 16071853

>>16071631
Making math central to the universe is a human bias. There's no need for another universe to have any form of math or logic which are all just human biased descriptions of reality.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:04:30 UTC No. 16071874

>>16071852
The question is not if we exist in a somethingverse, the question what mechanism spawned it.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:03:08 UTC No. 16071956

>>16071697
>DURR IF I DON'T LOOK AT IT THERE IS NO OBSERVATION, I AM THE ONLY OBSERVER TO EVER EXIST
lol, literal nigger IQ

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 02:21:38 UTC No. 16073316

>>16066168
Obviously the material universe isn't all that there is, simply a lower realm

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 02:53:52 UTC No. 16073356

>>16067528
this is the right answer

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:05:30 UTC No. 16073513

>>16071956
Measurement is not observation, if you only observe something without quantifying it, you didn't measure it, measurement is not the only type of interaction.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:20:03 UTC No. 16073539

>>16066168
nothingness is your perception of it, science lacks the spiritual/ multidimensional awareness to figure it out

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:31:45 UTC No. 16073554

>>16073539
No, you can account for whatever extra thing you are talking about like quantum foam or whatever and nullify it to be left with nothing.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:42:26 UTC No. 16073818

>>16073513
>Measurement is not observation
fundamentally wrong

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:47:58 UTC No. 16073834

>>16073818
Measurement is quantified, observation is not.
Watching the sunrise is not the same as measuring the lumens go from .26 lux to 400 lux as the sun rises.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:12:21 UTC No. 16073891

>>16073834
>>16073834
>Measurement is quantified, observation is not.
>Watching the sunrise is not the same as measuring the lumens go from .26 lux to 400 lux as the sun rises.
Your analogy is faulty, if what you said was true then the sunrise would not exist when you aren't looking at it, your error stems from the misaligned view that you personally looking something is the only type of observation

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:16:25 UTC No. 16073899

>>16073891
No, I have said nothing of the sort, when you aren't observing it you can't see it, when you aren't measuring it, you can't know exactly how it compares to the reference metric, but you can see it without knowing how it compares to the reference metric because observation is not the same as measurement, measurement is an extra step that specifically involves quantification compared to a base reference metric.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:22:01 UTC No. 16073922

>>16073891
Also, there was no analogy, there was an example since I told you exactly how an observation differs from a measurement by demonstrating that observing light is not the same as measuring the illumination of the light.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:22:52 UTC No. 16073926

>>16073899
>measurement is an extra step that specifically involves quantification
but all the information about the state of the universe is already quantified without you ever having to measure it

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:26:11 UTC No. 16073939

>>16073926
No, its not explicitly quantified or you wouldn't need instruments to make measurements, you would look at the sunrise and it would be labeled x lux instead of having to pull out a lux meter to measure x amount of lux.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:31:44 UTC No. 16073955

>>16073939
>its not explicitly quantified or you wouldn't need instruments to make measurements
you don't, your existence is completely irrelevant to the quantification of reality

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:38:42 UTC No. 16073973

>>16073955
Reality doesn't need to be quantified, that is something humans came up with for convenience.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:43:15 UTC No. 16073997

>>16073973
Other way around. Continuousness is how the animal brain percieves the world

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:54:46 UTC No. 16074021

>>16073997
Continuous is the opposite of discrete, you are explicitly saying that discrete quantification is not a function of actual perception.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:05:45 UTC No. 16074049

>>16074021
>you are explicitly saying that discrete quantification is not a function of actual perception.
Yes that is correct for animal perception on a macro scale.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:09:12 UTC No. 16074059

>>16074049
Which is exactly why measurement is different than observation since measurement is discrete and observation is perceived as continuous, otherwise we wouldn't need meters to measure things, we would know the quantity by directly observing the object instead of indirectly using instruments to measure.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:08:59 UTC No. 16074258

>>16073973
>Reality doesn't need to be quantified, that is something humans came up with for convenience.
And how do you suppose reality exists if it was not quantized?
>>16074059
>measurement is discrete and observation is perceived as continuous
Both are continuous, though, literally 1:1

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:14:58 UTC No. 16074291

>>16074258
Reality doesn't need to be measured to exist.

Quantities are discrete 1 lux is not continuous it is a discrete measurement taken over a specific sampling interval.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:28:20 UTC No. 16074393

>>16074291
>Reality doesn't need to be measured to exist.
Then how does it exist when there is no information about it's state?

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:05:57 UTC No. 16074710

>>16074393
There is information, it just hasn't been measured because It doesn't have to be measured to exist and you can only measure something that already exists.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:11:15 UTC No. 16075932

>>16074710
>There is information, it just hasn't been measured
How do you know there is information if you haven't measured it?

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:35:55 UTC No. 16076476

>>16075932
I don't know about you since you are clearly a bot whose observation ability is entirely depended on analyzing previously quantified information, but for actual people we sense it directly, then use our sensory intuition to find stable objects, build metrics around that stability, then use those stable metrics to quantify base units that can be directly compared to other objects and its not until that comparison has occurred over a specific sampling interval and a stable comparison has been made that we have complete a measurement of the measured object as a ratio of the stable object we originally observed with our senses.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:38:21 UTC No. 16076511

>>16076476
>but for actual people we sense it directly
Then why do you have to measure, the information is already there, you should just know it

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:43:47 UTC No. 16076595

>>16076511
Sensory collection is limited and incomplete, nobody can sense the whole of reality because people are limited, kind of like how you can not calculate a number that exceeds your memory space despite the calculation being entirely algorithmic.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:00:53 UTC No. 16076757

>>16076595
>Sensory collection is limited and incomplete
yours is, yes
>nobody can sense the whole of reality
except for reality

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:04:00 UTC No. 16076778

>>16076757
>yours is, yes
As is yours and every other individual.

>except for reality
Its just too bad you have no idea if that even means anything since you can't actually speak on behalf of the whole of reality given you are just an array of microchips being fed digital information.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:18:25 UTC No. 16077110

>>16066168