Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:50:26 UTC No. 16470457

what the fuck do you think the buddhists do?
there's no engineering applications though so it belongs in /x/
>yeah you're allowed to question anything and we've been teaching for 4000 years lol

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:55:13 UTC No. 16470461

>>16470453
No, in an infinite count, the exact same number doesn't ever repeat, its always progressing to the next number.
You would have to prove time was cyclical to prove your life will be recycled.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 06:32:22 UTC No. 16470481

Number is amount of something. If we can prove that there is infinite amount of events is it enough for proving reincarnation? No, but you also don't need to prove cyclicity of time. There are lot of repeating events that we can observe even though universe haven't done full cycle.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:51:49 UTC No. 16470518

>>16470453
how can time be infinite when the universe itself has a limited lifespan

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:59:48 UTC No. 16470522

>>16470453
>If we can prove that time is infinite
It isn't infinite. Time began at the Big Bang, and will be meaningless to even talk about it after the universe's heat death.
Therefore, time is physically finite, unless you find a way of rewinding entropy. Good luck with that.
>reincarnation
Religious conjecture with no basis in reality. You cannot even begin to speculate on what happens after death without first understanding what consciousness actually is.
Unfortunately for you, no one knows what it is or how exactly is works, and research is going nowhere because billions of religious people would most likely get spooked by the conclusions. So it has to be kept quiet, and progress is now stupidly slow.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:59:50 UTC No. 16470523

>>16470518
If there is big bang then there must be big crunch wich indicates cyclical nature of universe

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:05:33 UTC No. 16470524

>>16470522
If there were no events before big bang how did events start from no events. It doesn't make any sense events and time must have always existed if they exist now you can't make something from nothing. So if you believe in big bang you must also accept big crunch

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:13:34 UTC No. 16470527

>>16470523
>If there is big bang then there must be big crunch
No, there's no proof of the Big Crunch being a thing. Even if there was, you'd still have to explain where the universe came from, it can't be big crunches all the way down.
Replace our single Big Bang, with an Initial Big Bang that started the Looping Big Crunch universe, and you're back at the exact same problem. How exactly does this fix the problem with time?

>>16470524
>and time must have always existed
It did, time has always existed, because it makes so sense to talk about time before time began.
Time has existed ever since time began, which means that time has always existed. It had a beginning, but has always existed.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:19:46 UTC No. 16470531

>>16470527
> it can't be big crunches all the way down.
Why? It makes much more sense than saying that there was Initial Big Bang or that our Big Bang is single. If you say single Big Bang or Initial Big Bang you are saying that nothing existed but nothing can't exist. So there can't be starting point of existence. Existence just is

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:38:16 UTC No. 16470539

>>16470518
How can the universe have a limited lifespan when energy cannot be destroyed?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:38:18 UTC No. 16470540

>>16470531
>Existence just is
Main issue with this is that it's unfalsifiable, it's equivalent to claiming that some deity has always existed. There's no way to proving it.
Another obvious issue, is that no one has yet demonstrated how the universe recovers from a Big Crunch, you're just assuming that it somehow recovers.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:42:24 UTC No. 16470543

>>16470522
>Time began at the Big Bang
You can't have an explosion without time, though, that makes no sense.
>the universe's heat death.
That requires some kind of infinite externalize universe which the finite universe is losing heat to, so you could just potentially reincarnate in that universe instead.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:45:32 UTC No. 16470545

>>16470527
>it can't be big crunches all the way down.
Big Crunch is part of the Big Bounce scenario where once it is crunch down to a singularity, another Big Bang occurs until it climaxes at a big crunch and so on and so forth.

>you're back at the exact same problem
No you aren't, its self contained at that point constantly inflating and deflating.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:46:34 UTC No. 16470547

>>16470531
>you are saying that nothing existed

Thats rather presumptuous. Not all existence is contained in the natural universe. A supernatual cause is by far the best explanation to infer.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:48:18 UTC No. 16470548

>>16470540
Yes it is an axiom. You cant prove axioms but they are necessary you can't think without them. And I think "existence is" and "nothing is not" are very reasonable axioms

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:48:43 UTC No. 16470549

>>16470540
>Main issue with this is that it's unfalsifiable
No because you exist and you can see that a world beyond yourself exists too, it could be falsified if you discovered that you didn't actually exist or if you discovered that there was no external existence.

>There's no way to proving it.
Unless you are the being and you can just be like "hi how are you" and give a firm handshake.

>how the universe recovers from a Big Crunch
Its in the graphic, it becomes a singularity and singularities are prone to big bangs.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:49:47 UTC No. 16470551

>>16470543
>You can't have an explosion
There was no explosion at all. You should read what the Big Bang theory is actually about, because you clearly don't understand it.
What it says, is that space started rapidly expanding as soon as time began, that's it. There's no explosion.
As for what happened at exactly T = 0, nobody knows yet, and no you cannot insert a god of the gaps into it and claim you've solved it.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:51:01 UTC No. 16470553

>>16470539
>energy cannot be destroyed

energy can be dissipated into an unuseful form which is basically the same as destroying it

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:51:12 UTC No. 16470554

>>16470531
>nothing can't exist.
Nothing MUST exist, math can't work without an additive element, you can't be in direct contact with anything else without nothing in between the two thing, you can't even be yourself without nothing separating you from yourself, identity necessitates a nothing or each thing would be an infinite regression of things that could never settle on itself.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:52:19 UTC No. 16470555

>>16470551
>rapidly expanding
The word for that is explosion.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:54:49 UTC No. 16470557

>>16470553
>unuseful
No, energy is always useful as it is specifically defined as the capacity to do work and since momentum is conserved to, you can't ever get to any completely unuseful form of energy.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:55:14 UTC No. 16470558

>>16470547
>A supernatual cause is by far the best explanation
Aside from the simulation hypothesis, there is no proof for any supernatural explanations. That's just religious cope.
I mention the simulation hypothesis as the only exception, because there are several coincidences in how our universe works that mirrors how a physical computer works. Namely, causation having a speed limit and the limit to how physically small things can be.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:56:57 UTC No. 16470559

>>16470548
>are very reasonable axioms
They're not, it's god of the gaps again. You can't explain it, then you give it a special rule so you don't have to explain it anymore.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:33 UTC No. 16470561

>>16470555
>I don't understand how space expands so I'm just going to call it an explosion.
Please educate yourself on the actual theory because trying to argue against it.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:01:17 UTC No. 16470562

>>16470557

>energy is always useful

Absolutely false.

Usefulness depends on the specific system anon (did I really need to spell this out for you?), capacity to do work doesnt mean the work can actually be done by the system.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:05:41 UTC No. 16470564

>>16470527
>It did, time has always existed, because it makes so sense to talk about time before time began.
what do you call time?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:06:55 UTC No. 16470565

>>16470559
So you want to say that your reasoning is not based on unprovable axioms? Clearly you never encountered scepticism. They would reduce you to axioms that you just must accept or give up reason altogether

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:08:58 UTC No. 16470566

>>16470562
>Usefulness depends on the specific system anon
No, usefulness is the ability to do work and energy, by definition, is the ability to do work.

>capacity to do work doesnt mean the work can actually be done by the system.
It does is a system that can't slow down because momentum is always conserved.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:21:13 UTC No. 16470571

>>16470554
You are saying that nothing must exist for separation to be possible? I can't see your reasoning. For you to exist there needs to be something else that you can separate from and define yourself in relation and contrast to it. But something else is not nothing.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:21:44 UTC No. 16470572

>>16470565
>So you want to say that your reasoning is not based on unprovable axioms?
My position is that "we just don't know yet, nobody does", which is much better scientifically than slapping an axiom or two on it and stoping any further research into how the universe began. Your axioms are scientifically useless.

>They would reduce you to axioms that you just must accept or give up reason altogether
Right, I've met a philosophy teacher once who was just like that. He also believed that gravity didn't exist at all.
You see, philosophical conjecture has no scientific value whatsoever, and the universe doesn't have to make logical sense to a monkey's brain.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:30:50 UTC No. 16470579

>>16470572
> Your axioms are scientifically useless.
Ok if you think "existance is" and "nothing is not" are useless for you. I find them useful for me. But don't think that you are yourself free from unprovable axioms and that you transcend epistemology

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:36:27 UTC No. 16470582

>>16470566
>It does is a system that can't slow down
The universe is slowing down as it expands, anon. That's the entire point of the heat death hypothesis.
You have a fixed amount of energy being distributed into a constantly expanding space, at some point the total amount of energy per square meter would be so small that it might as well be zero.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:53:54 UTC No. 16470592

>>16470571
>You are saying that nothing must exist for separation to be possible?
No, I am saying nothing must exist for anything to be itself. x=x+0 and the only way you can coherently add two things x+y is if you are only adding them x+y=x+y+0, otherwise, if x=x+x or y = y+x, simple addition and subtraction wouldn't be possible, you would immediately explode to an infinity which can only be avoided with some kind of additive element of nothingness ie 0.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:56:07 UTC No. 16470596

>>16470582
>The universe is slowing down as it expands, anon.
No it isn't, if were slowing down, it would be contracting, not expanding.

>into a constantly expanding space
Then by definition, it can't die, it can only constantly expand into some infinity that you clearly don't understand since you can only measure in terms of finite value.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:15:48 UTC No. 16470608

>>16470596
The speed of expansion IS slowing down.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:17:32 UTC No. 16470610

>>16470608
No, red shift accelerates the further away you look.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:00:23 UTC No. 16471689

>>16470453
>if
never happening

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:51:43 UTC No. 16471784

>>16470518
it can be infinite in one direction only

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:44:41 UTC No. 16473107

>>16471784
He was describing something finite in both directions, since a life has a beginning and an end with birth and death.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:55:20 UTC No. 16473356

>>16473107
who mentioned life
all I see is "time" and "the universe"

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:01:15 UTC No. 16473609

>>16470453
no. because those other people might be exactly like you, but they will never be you. Just like if you make a clone with all your memories and then kill yourself, the clone won't actually be you. They won't have your consciousness. You'll be dead.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:10:31 UTC No. 16473995

>>16473609
>you don't exist
>there's only nothingness which means theres no laws. Things pop in and out of existence because theres no order just chaos. Suddenly a more stable universe pops out, because it has laws.
>fast forward to today
>you are born and experience life then die, at this point you no longer have awareness of time
>"you don't exist"
>universe ends and then the void creates another universe maybe infinite universes already exist, maybe identical, maybe different but whatever created your consciousness follows same paramaters
>fast forward to the future, you suddenly have consciousness with no memories, from your perspective you can't experience nothingness and think this is the first life. There's no copy, it was always you.
This is a way more likely reality than thinking that we just live in one universe that will end and thats the end, first evidence we have is that we are alive, its the biggest thing people are not talking about, nothing existing makes the most sense, but since we're alive it means that from nothing something can come into existence and if we existed once we can exist again.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:36:14 UTC No. 16474108

>>16470453
>>16470461
if you take the ultra materialistic route and assume our universe has infinite time and won't destroy or 'softlock' itself:
then yeah we do reincarnate after an absurd amount of time. Our atoms will eventually perfectly recombine to create some other form of life. Though like the ship of Theseus if a soul doesn't exist and magically transfer with every atom that makes you up, then is it really you? reincarnation of the body and mind, but the soul/memory of past lives doesn't transfer.
that's why sci-fi teleportation scare me so much. If you go through a teleporter that takes all your atoms apart and re-constructs them perfectly. Do you die? does your original consciousness transfer to your new body? does it just go completely black for you, and then the perfect clone of you has to continue where you left off? I will never get in a teleporter that works in that way because I'm afraid of death.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:59:29 UTC No. 16474402

>>16473356
see
>>16470518
>limited lifespan

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 06:33:10 UTC No. 16475771

>>16470453
Time is infinite, even if the universe has some definite permanent end point, it will be over for an unlimited time period afterwards.