Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:18:58 UTC No. 16067792

>>16067783
>a potential mechanism
The laws governing the universe are subject to change. You presume an unchanging principle without coming out as a christian. Lame.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:26:55 UTC No. 16067797

>>16067783
i enjoy the theory that energy is a result of two dimensions colliding together and the big bang was the point of contact.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:38:14 UTC No. 16067804

>>16067783
>We know that it did
No we don't
You don't even know anything about after
Why do you think before is answerable, if there is an after and before

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:42:20 UTC No. 16067808

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 Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:53:29 UTC No. 16067819

>>16067783
this picture is literally me IRL fml i look like shit

bodhi at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:01:18 UTC No. 16067829

>>16067797
>brane theory
cringe

bodhi at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:02:46 UTC No. 16067834

>>16067808
why are you so angry anon?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:09:53 UTC No. 16067845

>>16067792
It has to be something like this. The laws vary and sometimes result in matter/energy creation

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:11:26 UTC No. 16067851

>>16067783
You are asking some big question there, frogbuddy, I don't think you could handle the answers to those queations.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:11:27 UTC No. 16067852

>>16067783
Nobody actually knows.
Cosmofags will tell you they have it down, but they are just making guesses based on known physics here on Earth.
At the end of the day science concerns purely with reproducibility and predictability. What cannot be reproduced or predicted cannot be known to science.
So unless somebody find a way to create new universes or observe the creation of a universe there is no way to know for sure scientifically the answer to your question.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:28:13 UTC No. 16067876

>>16067783
The total energy of the Universe is zero

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:32:00 UTC No. 16067879

>>16067783
inflation & gravity
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=33m

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:07:01 UTC No. 16068034

>>16067783
we've been over this, God farted but accidentally sharted.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:08:43 UTC No. 16068036

>>16067783
the easier and much more likely solution is that none of it is real and your are the victim of a cunning ruse.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:17:17 UTC No. 16068047

>>16067845
What are laws though? Anons talk about laws as if they are supernatural entities but all we see is that things interact consistently. How do things know the rules?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:56:56 UTC No. 16068805

Any proper model needs to be compatible with the giant energy spawn at the big bang imho.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:59:21 UTC No. 16068810

"dude I totally know everything about the entire universe, heres how it all works"

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:30:46 UTC No. 16068841

>>16067783
We don't know and we will never know because it's not measurable or definable in any way with our tools/consciousness, you can know the answer, but you can never describe it in any human language because the knowledge is fundamental

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:34:02 UTC No. 16068848

>>16068047
>>16068805
am I getting retarded or did a huge bunch of posts got deleted?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:53:12 UTC No. 16068873

>>16067834
because it's genetics

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:58:48 UTC No. 16068964

>>16068047
>What are laws though?
They are consistent patterns observed so far that has not yet been broken (at least in officially recorded lab conditions)
>How do things know the rules?
We know them through observations and experimentations.
One of the axiomatic assumption of science is that there are eternal immutable rules (natural causes) out there. As for whether the laws we observe now are true eternal immutable rules or temporary limitations subject to other factors is a matter of contention in philosophy, as examplified by the Problem of Induction.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:15:59 UTC No. 16068988

>>16068964
>there are eternal immutable rules (natural causes) out there
The question is where this axiom comes from because
>laws are consistent patterns observed
is false: laws / patterns are not objects of observation. Laws / patterns are useful ideas about what we observe yet scientists pretend that these useful ideas really exist like anything else we can see, hear, smell, taste and feel.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:19:33 UTC No. 16068992

>>16067792
This is probably the case, but it's also a cop out that invalidates fundamental assumptions of Science - namely that the laws which govern the universe are stable, rational, and comprehensible to Humanity. If perpetual motion machines were possible yesterday, but impossible today for no real reason; then that's a major blow to what we consider to be objective reality.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:30:11 UTC No. 16069017

all the shit in this universe is procedurally generated change my mind

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:31:14 UTC No. 16069019

>>16068992
The laws just have to locally stable for a decent period of time for science to be valid for us. We already think the four fundamental forces were one unified force before, so why not some sort of interaction that spawns energy from dark energy or other unknown? I mean, something like that must’ve happened.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:34:05 UTC No. 16069030

>>16069019
Once you introduce "the laws of the universe can change", you introduce "we can change the laws of the universe" woo. Science can only exist in a universe WITHOUT changing laws, otherwise the perpetual motion machinefags rush in with their "discovery".

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:38:19 UTC No. 16069043

>>16069030
does the Hubble "constant" count as law of this universe?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:39:17 UTC No. 16069046

>>16067783
You're a fucking frogposter. You aren't even intelligent enough to understand the mathematics, let alone delve into ontological discussions.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:41:30 UTC No. 16069049

>>16068992
>This is probably the case, but it's also a cop out that invalidates fundamental assumptions of Science...
...as presented by the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins to gullible Anons. Any scientist who actually does science instead of just talking about it has known this for a long time now. There's a lot of consistency but not literally always everywhere for all things hence the current debates in physics. Hawking and Herzog have written about this for example.

>major blow to what we consider to be objective reality.
Not in a way that validates /x/. Panta rhei: a river stays the same by changing.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:42:21 UTC No. 16069053

>>16069030
>Once you introduce "the laws of the universe can change", you introduce "we can change the laws of the universe
And you could if you had the ability to do so
> Science can only exist in a universe WITHOUT changing laws
No, science can only exist where there is someone/something to define science

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:54:42 UTC No. 16069070

>>16068988
>yet scientists pretend that these useful ideas really exist
They, or what they approximate, obviously do exist, or else the objects of observation wouldn't follow these "ideas" so precise and consistently.
The only question is whether their existence is eternal, or temporary and subject to other factors.

And even if I were to indulge your /x/ proclivity, you are not going to break any physics until certain level spiritual enlightenment is reached; that would be one of these "other factors".

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:00:32 UTC No. 16069082

>>16069070
I’m not an xtard but current models are engineering approximations and not some type of universe source code. Both QM and relativity predict some flat out wrong shit so they can’t be the math the universe follows.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:14:59 UTC No. 16069114

>>16069082
>Both QM and relativity predict some flat out wrong shit so they can’t be the math the universe follows.
All science are approximations you do know that right? If a model is descriptive enough that it's right vast majority of the times then it's good to go.
Unless you got an even better model hidding in your pocket somewhere QM and GR are the best we have right now.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:16:29 UTC No. 16069119

>>16069070
>And even if I were to indulge your /x/ proclivity
I don't have such proclivity as stated here:
>>16069049
>Not in a way that validates /x/.

I'm pointing out that you have such proclivity by asserting that math is not in your head but out there. Read again:
>math is not in your head but out there
This is the definition of schizo. Math is your God. Math is your governing entity. Math is your Platonic ideal outside Plato's Cave. You can't be a down-to-earth anti-/x/ scientist and have such schizo beliefs.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:18:58 UTC No. 16069124

>>16069114
>THERE'S DARK ENERGY ALL AROUND US
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT REAL?
>JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE IT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT REAL YOU FUCKING ANTISEMITIC CHUD!!!
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU BELIEVE IN UNICORNS YOU 5TH CENTURY PISSCEL?
>UNICORNS AREN'T REAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE THEM IN ANY WAY!!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:23:04 UTC No. 16069129

>>16069124
Listen up you

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:58:03 UTC No. 16070052

>>16069119
>scientists can't think that math is platonically real
very low IQ take

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:50:16 UTC No. 16070895

>>16067783
My favorite theory is Sir Roger Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology.
picrel

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:50:47 UTC No. 16070897

>>16070895
also picrel

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:54:19 UTC No. 16070900

>>16070895
is it always the same? like the very same identical play?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:55:57 UTC No. 16070903

>>16070900
I wouldn't think so. In fact, in this theory the background microwave radiation seen right after the big bang would be the mass/energy distribution of the earlier dying universe or aeon.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:57:04 UTC No. 16070905

>>16070903
could we encode stuff in it for future us in next cycle?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:31:14 UTC No. 16070948

>>16070905
It'd probably be impossibly hard for a single shitty message

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:36:58 UTC No. 16070958

>>16070948
if it's possible "we" already did it. as much as is possible.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:47:20 UTC No. 16070973

>>16068964
>>16069070
China is already building cities like this and sci seethes

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:49:19 UTC No. 16070974

>>16070973

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:00:02 UTC No. 16071001

>>16070973
>>16070974
I prefer having breathable air and drinkable water, thanks.
Also you need to go back.