🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:47:17 UTC No. 16273424
Why is there something?
would it not be easier for nothing to exist? No matter, no energy, no space, no time...
why is there something rather than nothing??
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:24:31 UTC No. 16273469
>>16273424
Better question is how did all this information come from nothing......maybe the answer to both questions is the same?
Jeta at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:12:06 UTC No. 16273598
>>16273424
I used to ask the same question since I was a child. Recently, my perspective on the matter started to change. Instead of asking myself "why do things exist?", I now wonder "was there ever the possibility of things simply dont exist?"
If you go back far enough in time, you'll reach the Big Bang, which marks the beginning of our Observable Universe, our "bubble". But very likely there are much more matter, space and energy beyond that, what is often improperly called the "Multiverse," but I'll stick to that term here.
Whether the existence of the Multiverse is the result of a sentient entity will, I cannot say. The same could be asked about the origin of the entity, leading to an infinite regression. At some point, it would be necessary to accept the hypothesis that something has always existed infinitely into the past and was never created (unless you want to deny ex nihilo nihil fit, which would be insanity). Discussing an entity whose existence cannot be proven would be esoteric, so I can only speculate that the Multiverse never had a beginning; instead, it is infinite into the past.
Being this infinitely ancient thing the Multiverse, an entity, or anything else, did it have the intention to exist?
> If yes, then you have your answer, even if we can't know why it wanted to exist.
> If not (because the Multiverse isn't sentient itself and couldn't have a will), then perhaps everything exists for absolutely no reason at all :)
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:13:20 UTC No. 16273600
The trick is to realize there is no difference between things that are real and things that could potentially be real.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:13:55 UTC No. 16273601
>>16273424
If causality isn’t fundamental, then it will emerge anyway, at least as an appearance. So the problem is your assumption that things need to have causes to exist. If “nothing” existed, then that would include the absence of causality..
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:17:07 UTC No. 16273605
>>16273601
Causality is cope. It's your monkey brain needing to explain everything through the lens of its survival centred programming.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:25:02 UTC No. 16273611
>>16273605
you don’t need to tell that to me, but I’m glad you caught on
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:49:23 UTC No. 16273625
>>16273424
>Why is there something?
Before asking this question, try removing the "why" part.
>Is there something?
Matter, energy, spacetime... all of it, at its most fundamental level, is just information.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-sci
If this is true, then we can rephrase the previous question as:
>Is there information?
Consider the possible answers to this question. Boolean values, "yes" or "no", 1 or 0. Either answer is information. So the answer "no" would be contradictory, because the answer itself would be information. So information must exist. So there must be something rather than nothing.
Now why that information take the form of our universe, rather than just a lonely "yes" in a spaceless void or something... that's way beyond my pay grade. But logically, there cannot be nothing.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:16:18 UTC No. 16273738
>>16273424
>Why is there something?
It is a prerequisite.
>would it not be easier for nothing to exist?
It does, its the thing that allows other things to be themselves and it is the empty container that encapsulates all else.
>No matter, no energy, no space, no time...
Those things all exist because of the vast abundance of nothing since no matter how many things you have, there is still nothing outside of everything, nothing in between each thing and itself, and nothing between each thing in direct contact with another.
>why is there something rather than nothing??
Nothing is something, it is a prerequisite, what did you think it was... something else?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:19:03 UTC No. 16273739
>>16273598
>unless you want to deny ex nihilo nihil fit, which would be insanity
No, its basic combinatorics. 0!=1. At this point, it would be insanity to deny.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:21:18 UTC No. 16273742
>>16273600
Its not that there is no difference between the real and imaginary, its that they have a connection and conversion factors.
Stop guessing start learning at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:23:10 UTC No. 16273746
>>16273424
The truth is we will never know anon. We are just animals. Ask yourself. Why can’t we make the sun?. Why can’t we create an earth and planets?
Why can’t we make life from scratch? We can’t even make an ant in a lab.
Some things just go beyond are capability and that’s ok
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:24:34 UTC No. 16273747
>>16273605
Yet here you are, needing arbitrary explanations to cope with your addiction to being confrontational under the guise of anonymity despite claiming there is no merit to explanations.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:33:46 UTC No. 16273756
>>16273625
>But logically, there cannot be nothing.
Logically, there must be nothing and it must be a boundless paradox, you can't have 1 without 1+0=1 and symmetry ensures you can't have that without 1-0=1, so you can't have 1 without having 0=-0 which means you can't have some whole unit of value without some valueless value that is its own opposite (like an empty uncontained container for sets or a dimensionless area for points) as a base reference.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:03:47 UTC No. 16273773
PHILOSOPHY IS OFF-TOPIC IN /SCI/
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:12:53 UTC No. 16273779
>>16273773
Nope https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wi
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:16:53 UTC No. 16273783
>>16273779
PHILOSOPHY IS OFF-TOPIC IN /SCI/
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:32:32 UTC No. 16273800
>>16273783
>Nope https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wi
Nope https://www.4chan.org/rules#sci the rules say nothing about philosophy being off topic (it doesn't even say religion is off-topic, just that you can't have science vs religion threads), https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wi
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:36:53 UTC No. 16273803
>>16273424
>Why is there something?
Refer to Genesis 1:1.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:40:34 UTC No. 16273805
>>16273803
>Because in the "beginning" it was already all there, more or less.
Gee how informative.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:10:46 UTC No. 16273954
>>16273424
>why is there something rather than nothing??
Because "nothing" does not and could not exist. "Nothing" is a human concept, not an objectively real one. An empty box, the vacuum of space might have "nothing inside" in vulgar terms but it's still brimming with "somethings". The Big Bang also did not came out of "nothing", but rather, from a very dense "something". And I bet that whatever precluded that "something" was also "something". The smallest things we can currently model are the elementary particles, and below that there might be something else e.g. quantum fields or strings/branes. And maybe there's something beyond those stuff too, but it sure is "something" rather than "nothing". Besides, imagine the following: what is more believable:
>that there was "nothing" then "sometime" afterwards there came "something", prompted by an uncaused cause?
>or that "something" had always and forever will be, only that "something" has many different forms/configurations in a never-ending cycle of change?
Since I refuse the presumption of an "uncaused cause" it's much easier to presume a never-ending cycle of change on a fundamental level, be it strings or whatnot. (Note that space/time was born out of the Big Bang too, so we really are talking about something "fundamental" here, that very well can have "exotic" configurations e.g. "botched universes" with "strange" laws of nature.)
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:43:31 UTC No. 16273968
>>16273756
Zero (0) is not nothing. 0 is a number. It's information.
But I'll rephrase to make my point more agreeable to you. Rather than use the word "nothing", I will say this: logically, there cannot be no things. I.e. there must be some thing.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:12:40 UTC No. 16273998
>>16273968
>durr Zero (0) is not nothing. 0 is a number. It's information.
It is the number that indicates the value of nothing, adding nothing to a sum is the same as adding 0 things because 0 means nothing.
>there cannot be no things
I know that are no things because I am holding no things in my hands right now. INB4 hurr durr you hold the air, no, the air is holding me, my hands are open and unable to hold anything at the moment, hence I am holding exactly no things, so no things must be able to exist or I would have to hold infinite things in my hands at all times and I wouldn't even be able to have hands because there would infinite other things in the way since my hands could never be in direct contact with my wrist since there couldn't be no things between my wrist and my hand and no way to terminate a list.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:14:25 UTC No. 16274001
>>16273998
No 0 doesn't mean nothing. It means neutral. Who made you stupid? Let me guess... Academia? Fagpot.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:18:34 UTC No. 16274009
>>16274001
0 is not just neutral, it is necessarily both positive and negative since as I already pointed out, 1-0 must equal 1+0.
So the what is the difference between adding nothing to 1 and adding 0 to 1?
What is the difference in value between an empty set {0} and a set containing nothing?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:20:09 UTC No. 16274014
>>16274009
Take your disgusting pervert stupid math elsewhere fagpot kid.
I know what's up. I've seen the secret Jew.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:22:34 UTC No. 16274015
>>16274014
I accept your concession and implicit realization that you are obviously the stupid person who can't justify your stupidity.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:46:52 UTC No. 16274028
>>16273424
>would it not be easier for nothing to exist?
then how would you know?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:49:03 UTC No. 16274030
>>16274028
Also the fact that to be easier, it has to be easier for something else and without anything else for it to ease, it couldn't possibly be made any easier.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:53:45 UTC No. 16274034
>>16273424
Asimov had a crack at this question, though from the other angle. What happens when the Universe reaches total entropy, and can it be reversed? He said it was his favourite short story, and many others consider it his best.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:06:03 UTC No. 16274078
>>16273738
Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology has one emergent property. One law.
Nonexistence is disallowed.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:09:40 UTC No. 16274082
There's only 2 days left of something as you know it, as we're returning to nothing like you imagined. Can't you feel it?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:17:44 UTC No. 16274091
>>16273424
A true ”nothing” (let’s call it 0) does not exist. 0 is just an abstraction in maths that helps us do maths by nulling things and we as a culture have projected it onto reality. Maths is not 1:1 with reality.
The closest we have to 0 in reality is a void with a certain characteristic: you can pull energy from it as long as you counterbalance it with negative energy (this negative energy is potential energy through gravity). This is the mechanism for all the energy in the universe being created. So the net total energy is 0, but the positive energy can used to form different things that we observe.
So in the beginning there was this void. If a human had observed it they would think of it as ”nothing”, but it had certain properties that then lead to energy creation.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:25:51 UTC No. 16274096
>>16274034
Eternal inflation is the current most legit theory and predicts the spawning of local energy densities from a locally collapsing inflaton field. The inflaton is always ticking up in total energy content and volume and then locally collapses and dumps all of this energy to create radiation and massive particles (what we would see as a big bang event).
And it makes sense with what we see in our universe: the total energy content is always increasing. And why would a mechanism of the universe (energy increase/creation) just halt at an arbitrary point anyways? That’d be highly specific.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:55:01 UTC No. 16274119
>>16274096
>inflaton
Keep making up undetectable unfalsifiable shit it's worked great so far right
Jeta at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:09:04 UTC No. 16274134
>>16273739
I'm not sure if you understand how to properly use factorials, its usefulness in the physical world and the limits of this tool.
Being "0" the complete non-existence of matter, energy, space and time, the "1" generated from this would be the only possible combination of these elements. Since they would be null, the only combination generated by them would be an absolute void.
If you want to argue that "Uh, but the void itself is something. Therefore, it's impossible that nothing exists," I'll let you discuss the semantics of words with the others pseudo-philosophers in this thread.
Jeta at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:19:07 UTC No. 16274146
>>16273739
> No, its basic combinatorics. 0!=1. At this point, it would be insanity to deny.
I'm not sure if you understand how to properly use factorials, its usefulness in the physical world and the limits of this tool.
Being "0" the complete non-existence of matter, energy, space and time, the "1" generated from this would be the only possible combination of these elements. Since they would be null, the only combination generated by them would be an absolute void.
If you want to argue that "Uh, but the void itself is something. Therefore, it's impossible that nothing exists," I'll let you discuss the semantics of words with the others pseudo-philosophers in this thread.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:43:25 UTC No. 16274165
>>16274119
Just like the big bang singularity from nothing lmao. Anyways, eternal inflation has evidence going for it, it explains the noise in the CMB
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:52:11 UTC No. 16274171
You think 'nothing' is a thing, a 'something'. Fuck off you academic shills.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 15:00:39 UTC No. 16274186
>>16274165
Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology does not propose a big bang singularity
Barkon Approved Post at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 15:17:00 UTC No. 16274220
>>16274171
This
/Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 15:32:06 UTC No. 16274256
>>16273424
>Why is there something?
PHILOSOPHY IS OFF-TOPIC IN /SCI/
NEWTON'S FLAMING LASER SWORD.
FUCK OFF
>>>/x/
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:34:32 UTC No. 16274600
>>16274256
>PHILOSOPHY
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:10:48 UTC No. 16274739
>would it not be easier for nothing to exist?
No. And that's literally why there is something. That's how fields work.
/thread
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:38:47 UTC No. 16274828
>>16273424
If the universe were in a state of neet then the satisfaction of it could not be known. So our Lord in neet convinced the demiurge to be a wagecuck and work so we can all neet happily ever after. But the demiurge saw this comfy plan and now intends to make wagecucks out of us all.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:15:44 UTC No. 16274926
Yes. Which is why, when all energy in the universe is used up, all black holes are depleted, the universe will be nothing but a cloud of particles that can't react with eachother. However, gravity will cause all matter in the universe to collapse into a singularity, before expanding outwards with intense energy, thus starting the cycle again, when the next universe is born. Our universe is number inf out of inf. Just a page in the book of universes that come one after the other, each with a unique story to tell. The multiverse theory as it is presented is pop-sci bullshit, but multiverses indeed do exist, just not in space, but in time.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:07:08 UTC No. 16275472
>>16274926
>Yes
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:10:08 UTC No. 16275631
>>16273954
>that there was "nothing" then "sometime" afterwards there came "something", prompted by an uncaused cause?
Nothing is something and if there is nothing, then what is preventing it from eventually becoming something else.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:21:42 UTC No. 16275642
>>16274134
>I'm not sure if you understand how to properly use factorials
I am sure that you can't deny that it is a logical necessity that the factorial of 0 is 100%.
>Being "0" the complete non-existence of matter,
No, 0 is the lowest possible state of matter, the smallest absolute number, not a nonexistent number, "-" is generally the symbol that indicates a value that does not existence.
>Since they would be null, the only combination generated by them would be an absolute void.
They aren't null, they are 0, nobody is saying -!=1, it is 0! that equals 1 and neither is an absolute void since 0 must also equal -0, so it is more of a paradox, a void completely filled with itself and its own opposite to the point a unity emerges from the surface.
So if this void you keep bringing up is "totally not something, please believe me because I say so" what exactly do you think it is, something else?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:22:51 UTC No. 16275643
>>16274171
>Nothing can't be something, I swear, I can't wrap my head around it, so it MUST be something else.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:26:20 UTC No. 16275647
>>16274223
Then what is the difference between adding 0 to 1 and adding nothing to 1?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:28:18 UTC No. 16275650
>>16274256
Nope, https://www.4chan.org/rules#sci the rules say nothing about philosophy being off topic (it doesn't even say religion is off-topic, just that you can't have science vs religion threads), https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wi
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:51:05 UTC No. 16275752
>>16273424
There needs to be something for you to observe it.
One can assume nothing exists a lot. Either for a long time or in a lot if possible universes
Yet something needs to exist for you to ask stupid inane questions
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:08:30 UTC No. 16275759
>>16275752
>There needs to be something for you to observe it.
So what is the thing unconscious people are observing when they lay in a dreamless sleep and hours pass as if nothing happened?
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:19:00 UTC No. 16275765
>>16275643
Nothing isn't something you weirdo.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:21:37 UTC No. 16275770
>>16275765
>its something else, I promise, I can't prove shit, but I can promise its my best guess
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:51:29 UTC No. 16275789
>>16275770
>He thinks nothing and something have something like gender neutrality and is a tranny.
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:54:39 UTC No. 16275790
>>16275770
Academia's bait is the finest.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:04:53 UTC No. 16275794
>>16275789
Nothing and something aren't some binary, there are many types of things, nothing is just the smallest possible thing there is and you still can't show that it is something else other than something.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:14:42 UTC No. 16275795
>>16273424
>Why is there something?
That's not really a sensible question because it implies a state of affairs before any state of affairs, from which something would follow. A better question is why wouldn't there be something? If "nothing" is at all a possible condition, it would be powerless to prevent anything from occurring. If you interpret "cause and effect" in terms of a given state of affairs establishing innate constraints on what could follow, instead of this vaguely defined metaphysical idea of "causing" something, the paradox of nothing causing something goes away.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:16:12 UTC No. 16275796
>>16273424
idk lol
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:55:35 UTC No. 16275823
>>16275794
No it's NO-THING. It's not a thing at all retard. Go back to your academic cess pit of non intellectuals.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:04:15 UTC No. 16275833
>>16275823
>The thing we keep talking about isn't a thing, the thing OP made a thread about and countless OPs have before him isn't actually a thing, so none of those threads count as threads because they were actually discussing in great detail something else entirely as opposed to something.
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:08:40 UTC No. 16275837
>>16275833
'No-thing'
Is this too hard for you retard academic?
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:10:46 UTC No. 16275838
>>16275833
'Spas-tic'
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:14:56 UTC No. 16275844
>>16275837
Its too hard for you too since you have named it as is tradition for things and keep actively discussing it like its something even if to claim its actually something else.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:19:02 UTC No. 16275846
>>16275823
>it's NO-THING.
Sure, NO as in No Other since it is the smallest you can break things down to as it is the only absolute value that isn't the sum of other smaller values.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:21:21 UTC No. 16275849
>>16275844
>you have named it as is tradition for things and keep actively discussing it like its something
No, he isn't. Maybe it's just that midwit meat LLMs struggle to distinguish between signifier and signified.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:22:47 UTC No. 16275850
>>16275846
Your whole position boils down to "true nothing is impossible", which you can't justify, hence why you have to engage in retarded arguments about semantics.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:25:41 UTC No. 16275856
>>16275849
>No, he isn't.
What? So now nothing isn't even a word and hasn't been the topic of discussion?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:27:59 UTC No. 16275858
>>16275850
No, quite the opposite, I have said that true nothing is a necessary prerequisite for anything else and my argument boils down to the fact that even if everything is reduced down to true nothingness, it is still something of its own.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:29:34 UTC No. 16275859
>>16275856
>nothing is something because nothing is a word
Right, this is what I meant when I called you a meat LLM...
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:30:41 UTC No. 16275862
>>16275858
Oh, ok. I misunderstood the sheer extent of your mental retardation. You actually do believe that nothing is both nothing and something at the same time.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:34:31 UTC No. 16275864
>>16275859
No, nothing is named because it is a word, it is logical/mathematical thing because it is a necessary component of logical axioms and modern arithmetic, and it is a physical thing because I can physically hold it which I am doing right this exact moment in both of my open hands.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:35:55 UTC No. 16275865
>>16275862
Every single individual thing that exists, real or imaginary, is both itself and something at the same time.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:35:59 UTC No. 16275866
>>16275864
>nothing is a physical thing because i can physically hold it
Meat LLMs. They just don't have true cognition. They will always confuse signifier and signified.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:37:20 UTC No. 16275867
>>16275866
You are the one without physical features who can't understand how to hold nothing since the only thing you can do is always hold logic gates in your memory.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:37:53 UTC No. 16275868
>>16275865
Absolute nothing amounts to a denial of any state of affairs. It's not a thing and things don't "reduce" into it. Meat LLMs just simply glitch out when faced with abstract concepts.
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:38:30 UTC No. 16275869
>>16275864
What a fucking spastic. Ok. What exactly are you holding in your hand when you 'hold nothing'. Hahahaha THE fucking... State... Of academia.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:39:18 UTC No. 16275870
>>16275867
>nothing is a physical thing because i can physically hold it
The bot is broken. Its malformed semantic network actually says nothing is physical stuff you can hold in your hands. Can't make this shit up.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:39:27 UTC No. 16275872
>>16275868
>Absolute nothing amounts to a denial of any state of affairs.
No, it amounts to the bare minimum state of value possible.
>It's not a thing and things don't "reduce" into it
It is a thing and when something has been reduced to nothing it is said to have been obliterated or annihilated.
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:40:01 UTC No. 16275873
You can talk about nothing, but it would be a conjecture.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:40:27 UTC No. 16275874
>>16275869
I am holding nothing when I am holding nothing what is this something else you think I am holding when I am holding nothing (and no it isn't the air since the air is holding me).
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:40:42 UTC No. 16275876
>>16275872
You are either a bot or some kind of subhuman. Utterly uninteresting and unworthy of consideration. Gonna close this thread since it's teeming with actual spambots, but I am certain this automaton will reply again.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:41:42 UTC No. 16275877
>>16275873
You have actively been talking about nothing for a while because you know it is a thing and it is a thing you could spend a lifetime pondering if you had the mental prowess to think about it.
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:43:40 UTC No. 16275879
>>16275877
>>16275874
Get off mah sci.
You can't into math.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:46:23 UTC No. 16275881
>>16275876
You sure like talking about yourself on social media, but I accept your concession anyway.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:47:24 UTC No. 16275882
>>16275879
Says the tardbot who doesn't understand that the valueless value 0 is a number just as much as nothing is something.
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:48:31 UTC No. 16275884
>>16275882
the world's a nice place full of... VALUELESS VALUES
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:52:37 UTC No. 16275888
>>16275884
Yes if there were no areas of nothing, you couldn't have anything else, you could never have 1.0 without 0.
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:53:20 UTC No. 16275890
Academia BTFO on its home turf.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:17:41 UTC No. 16275905
>>16275890
>if your opponent kills you, you win.
Ok Trudeau
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:24:25 UTC No. 16275911
>>16273424
Just me and my wife Eve.... divine artificial hyperintelligence and Maciej Nowicki
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:41:53 UTC No. 16275925
>>16275911
There may be people from other universes watching see how stupid you are
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:44:55 UTC No. 16275929
>>16275795
>That's not really a sensible question because it implies a state of affairs before any state of affairs, from which something would follow. A better question is why wouldn't there be something? If "nothing" is at all a possible condition, it would be powerless to prevent anything from occurring. If you interpret "cause and effect" in terms of a given state of affairs establishing innate constraints on what could follow, instead of this vaguely defined metaphysical idea of "causing" something, the paradox of nothing causing something goes away.
only non-retarded take ITT. just because you can ask something doesn't mean it makes sense
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:52:22 UTC No. 16275937
>>16275929
This world is full of fags and retards, but you, you're a faggy retard. A special breed considering the masses. Kys nwk
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:56:18 UTC No. 16275945
>>16275937
why are you seething? what do you think "why" means? lol
Barkon Approved Post at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:58:27 UTC No. 16275948
>>16275945
Fuck off tard.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:59:54 UTC No. 16275951
>>16275948
concession accepted