Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:20:29 UTC No. 16472255

>>16472234
>turtles all the way up and down
What causes turtles all the way up and down?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:46:19 UTC No. 16472282

>>16472255
Another turtle.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:58:47 UTC No. 16472303

>>16472282
And what caused that turtle?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:04:52 UTC No. 16472313

>>16472234
Actually nothing exists

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:05:55 UTC No. 16472381

>>16472313
Nothing matters?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:25:39 UTC No. 16472405

>>16472303
Another turtle.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:39:36 UTC No. 16472426

it's a turtle donut

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qda-xzg-Flo

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:44:01 UTC No. 16472430

Why is /sci/ 50% people asking questions no one has the answer to?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:17:25 UTC No. 16472462

>>16472405
And that?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:55:57 UTC No. 16472512

>>16472462
Unknown.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:01:25 UTC No. 16472524

>>16472512
we only need a bigger particel accelerator

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 02:05:21 UTC No. 16472731

>>16472234

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:09:35 UTC No. 16472833

>>16472234
the turtles end at some point.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:15:22 UTC No. 16472844

>>16472430
Because science is more philosophical than the science nerds would like to think

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:55:12 UTC No. 16472914

>>16472381
to meeeeeeeeee

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:29:20 UTC No. 16473030

>>16472313
Yea, but so do turtles, nothing is what is in between each turtle and itself.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:30:38 UTC No. 16473032

>>16472430
What would be the point of science if people could only ask about things that already had known answers?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:31:39 UTC No. 16473034

>>16472833
Yea, each turtle ends at the next turtle.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:32:40 UTC No. 16473035

>>16472512
Don't turtles lay eggs?
What about a turtle egg?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:48:41 UTC No. 16473046

The universe is self creating. the first cause was a non-resolved self paradox, from there other causes came about.
reality exists, so it has to contain it self and generate it self somehow.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:31:34 UTC No. 16473330

>>16473046
This. A causeless existence is just retarded. It's a chain of turtles, and chains are meant to meet. It's self-fulfilling, self-causing. It feeds itself.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:05:17 UTC No. 16473484

>>16472234
>is it truly turtles all the way up and down with no end in sight?
The ends are not in sight. How can we possibly know whether there are more turtles?

>>16473046
>>16473330
>Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest
Nope. Just admit you don't know.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:07:44 UTC No. 16473488

>>16473484
It’s a miracle for a prime universe to just spontaneously exist in full sophisticated form, with no lead up to it. There is always going to be a background to the foreground.

The only things that are truly causeless are the purest simplicities, essences, like basest math/quantification. Existence as it is.

You then have to assume it does itself.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:23:46 UTC No. 16473502

>>16473488
The concept of simplicity is a human invention and highly contextual. It doesn't matter how "simple" a concept you can explain existence with, it's still something and therefore not free.
>you then have to assume
No I don't.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:27:10 UTC No. 16473569

>>16473502
>The concept of simplicity is a human invention
Uhhhh- there is nothing more simple or pure, than math, at the root.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” — Einstein

Overcomplicating shit is partially what is ruining science right now.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:38:07 UTC No. 16473577

>>16472234
Those turtles are critically endangered and native to Southeast Asia, some soulless chinkoid probably glued them together for the picture then left them to die or ate them.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:38:32 UTC No. 16473578

>>16473569
Science is complex because reality is complex. The assumption that reality is "simple" (actually that it conformed to mathematical concepts that were well-established by previous generations) was previously thought to be useful but is now being done away with; not only because we can no longer reduce observations to "simple" laws, but because such reduction doesn't have much predictive power at higher levels even when it is possible.
Math is an arbitrary mapping of constructed cognitive patterns onto observed reality. It didn't exist in our brains prior to us inventing it, and it sure as hell doesn't exist anywhere else. If it seems simple or fundamental, it's because you internalized it at a young age.
All this to say, if you want science to be simple again, simply teach QFT in elementary schools.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:00:36 UTC No. 16473607

>>16473578
>Science is complex because reality is complex
Sure, but you’re retarded if you think it’s all complex. There are absolutely baser and baser simplicities. Not sure why you are typing out so much to disagree with something so… simple…

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:02:17 UTC No. 16473612

>>16473578
>he thinks math is invented, not discovered
No. Quantification, the motion of planets, etc, precedes human evolution. Math is just the shape/quantification existence is going to take. You can’t actually separate it from existence, anything.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:05:54 UTC No. 16473618

>>16473607
Not sure what makes you think it's all simple. I'm assuming it's 20th century memetic detritus. "I just know it is" would be a symptom of that. Maybe you can explain.

>>16473612
>Quantification, the motion of planets, etc
Approximations. Heuristics. Invented to approximate things that are far more complex than they appear, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. You prove my point.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:15:18 UTC No. 16473636

>>16473618
The fact that there’s than one planet out there is just affirming that math/quantity is predating the perceptive, fleshy brain.

D’oh! Keep thinking math is “invented”.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:27:22 UTC No. 16473660

>>16473636
more than*

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:30:43 UTC No. 16473663

>>16473578
Math isn’t not real. It does determine how reality manifests. It’s why the snowflake has six sides.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:33:55 UTC No. 16473744

>>16472234
All of the above.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:40:19 UTC No. 16474868

A fully formed universe wouldn’t just spontaneously appear. The

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:41:21 UTC No. 16474870

I’m not sure where the ‘The’ came from.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:11:40 UTC No. 16474963

For something to appear spontaneously also requires a cause, but this is prior to the first step of being able to occur spontaneously.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:36:11 UTC No. 16475204

Turtle chain. More like a net.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 06:24:04 UTC No. 16475763

>>16474963
No, functional spontaneity is an inherent property of nothingness via 0!=1 which makes nothing, not only something, but also the smallest possible amount of everything else too.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:22:43 UTC No. 16475857

>>16475763
No, ordinary nothingness doesn't have spontaneity. Nothing is not something.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:30:00 UTC No. 16475860

>>16475857
>No, ordinary nothingness doesn't have spontaneity.
Yes it does it can spontaneously be 0 or -0 without any functional application that yield a unity.
>Nothing is not something.
It is itself, the additive element, it is not only something, it is something that is a multitude of things.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:34:56 UTC No. 16475862

>>16475860
That's wrong retard.

I wonder what the state of this argument for the universe spontaneously 'appearing' will be further down the line. It already looks like unintelligent mess from the party that desperately seeks to keep that argument is up; something along the lines of 'nothing is something, it doesn't need a cause to become spontaneous, for it is already something."

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:40:57 UTC No. 16475863

>>16475862
Spontaneous combustion requires self-heat, this is an example of something spontaneous requiring a cause.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:59:59 UTC No. 16475867

>>16475862
>That's wrong retard.
Its not though which is why you can't explain how its wrong, because its not, 0=-0 because 0+0=0 and 0-0=0.

>unintelligent mess
Its not though, you computer knows exactly how to handle 0-0 (protip: it is the exact same result as 0+0).

>something along the lines of 'nothing is something,
Mathematical fact since x+y=x for y=0, so adding nothing is the same as adding some variable equal to 0.

>it doesn't need a cause to become spontaneous, for it is already something.
Its spontaneity is caused by its own inherent properties which it has because it is something.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:02:23 UTC No. 16475869

>>16475867
Hahahaha you're so dumb kyad. Kys now. Academia's are so stupid lol.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:05:12 UTC No. 16475870

>>16475869
I accept your concession, better luck trying to support a failed point next time.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:08:31 UTC No. 16475873

>>16475870
Lol you're the one who thinks nothing is something.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:19:23 UTC No. 16475879

>>16475873
Kek, You are the one talking about something while claiming its not on a math board that specifically uses mathematics that assigns an exact numerical value to the value of nothing.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:25:12 UTC No. 16475881

>>16475879
Lol I'm not claiming to be an academidumb I'm claiming to have at least some common sense and intelligence. Nothing ain't something chump. And universes don't just appear with no cause. Kys.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:26:04 UTC No. 16475882

So you guys are fucking lame and dumb.

Why does effect need a cause?

Why do you distinguish between cause and effect, at all?

Relational patterns. They’re reasonable to distinguish between, and happen naturally, as our brain’s not attached to our feet, unless through the body, and the flow of blood.

So, when we separate reality from itself to find its distinct elements, we commit a fallacy in reasoning by confusing our modeling of reality with reality itself, in that just because a river flows into an ocean, does not mean they’re not the same body of water.

You can apply that with anything.

Now, when we talk about an “uncaused effect”, what can do is essentially reframe the concept as an “uncaused cause” and have it mean the exact same thing, though you see the underlying paradox within such a statement.

Uncaused cause.

Seemingly contradictory nonsense, but actually a self-consistent paradox.

Why do you need a cause to have itself?

Consider causality. Why can’t something be “self-caused”?

One, it is a matter of terminology that confuses us.

(Cont.)

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:26:57 UTC No. 16475884

>>16475882
That's dumb. I won't be reading the continuation

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:28:54 UTC No. 16475887

>>16475884
Don’t then.

Care to explain what make it’s dumb instead of being a pissy little faggot about it?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:29:34 UTC No. 16475888

What caused the universe to occur? Probably a great vortex created by a species from a different dimension. People who debate causelessness are the same people who say we cannot know and guesses don't count. They're the same people who parasite our society with true insults and nonsense.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:31:18 UTC No. 16475891

>>16475887
Your view would make guesses as to what caused the big bang debatable for their literal semantics because you don't think causes exist. You'd avoid any debate concerning what caused the universe to be with 'it doesn't have a cause', completely stilling progression on the topic with your parasiticidal sub mind.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:32:58 UTC No. 16475892

>>16475887
You don't understand what causes are and how things are caused by other things. You show clear stupidity by the fact when something as simple as a cause is brought up, you derail conversation with 'no causes'.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:37:01 UTC No. 16475896

The topic and other things caused these responses. I'd be arguing for more causes than less causes

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:38:43 UTC No. 16475899

>>16475888
So, let’s say that the universe began like we thought, with an infinitely dense and hot point of energy that began expanding exponentially with no boundary conditions but its own 13-dimensional manifold.

This would cause the universe to speed up in expansion ad infinitum, until it either ripped itself apart into nothingness again; or reached a point where the energy expenditure required for expansion reached a maximum threshold and began to contract into itself again.

This can, theoretically, be an eternally oscillating system that warps the fabric of space time so that it’s centralized in a zero-point energy field, so that the dimension of time has distinct starting point.

It just flows into itself again.

I can continue if no one wants to be a fucking nigger about it.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:39:43 UTC No. 16475900

>>16475881
Then why do you keep talking about it, retard?

>no cause
There is a cause, the inherent properties of nothing 0!=1.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:41:24 UTC No. 16475902

>>16475899
has no*’distinct starting point

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:47:44 UTC No. 16475905

>>16475891
>>16475892

Alright, douchebags.

Just to be an idealistic, semantic dick about it, imagine nothing for me really quickly.

I’ll give you time.

…

Can’t do it, can you?

Because a black void, or a vacuum, is still something, not nothing itself.

Nothing doesn’t exist.

Nothing can’t exist, by definition.

So, reality was always here.

When you ask “what happened before the Big Bang?” you come off as a slack-jawed retard because you’re essentially asking what happened before the beginning of fucking time.

Nothing did, you stupid fucks.

Nothing existed past that fucking point.

It’s senseless to ponder, because the singularity is beyond traditional notions of causality.

Eat a fucking dick, turbo-niggers.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:57:47 UTC No. 16475911

>>16475884
Good thing you commented on it, nobody else would know what to do without you here bragging about being functionally illiterate.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:00:41 UTC No. 16475913

>>16475899
>into nothingness again
>again
According to your initial conditions, there was never a nothingness to begin with, it was a hot dense point of energy, so what do you mean by again?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:01:41 UTC No. 16475916

>>16475905
>imagine nothing for me really quickly.
I don't need to imagine it, I can see it with my own two feet, it is an empirical experience best summarize by a dreamless sleep.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:03:39 UTC No. 16475917

>>16475913
Big Bounce

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:04:42 UTC No. 16475919

>>16475917
There is no nothingness in the big bounce theory, there is just a universal thing that continually expands and contracts.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:09:03 UTC No. 16475924

ITT: parasites try to create more social perversity to add to the cesspit that is our social society.

The universe doesn't spawn without a force to cause spawning.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:10:01 UTC No. 16475925

>>16475924
The what spawned the force that caused the universe?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:11:01 UTC No. 16475928

>>16475925
A being from a different dimension, and things go back to the paradox at the beginning of time that led to the first cause.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:13:03 UTC No. 16475933

>>16475928
How can their be a first cause if everything has to have a cause? Why can a different universe have a cause without a force to cause spawning, but not this one?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:16:04 UTC No. 16475935

>>16475933
This is the nature of causality, it begins at the beginning which is due to a paradox.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:16:11 UTC No. 16475936

>>16475916
Then it’s just a theoretical concept that’s still bound to some form of extant reality, not true nothingness

>>16475919
There isn’t one, necessarily, unless you consider the boundary of what we are expanding into.
So, which big bang was the big bad one, if the universe is a constant oscillation within a geometric field of super-essential nothingness?

Well, it has to “start” at some point, which is why the concept of a prime mover was a thing, therefore existed outside of space and time, so I imagine the initial point was a particular type of singularity distinct from the ones following, in that it was not bound by space and time when it “first” came into existence, because space and time had yet to exist before it began expanding into itself like a balloon of dark energy.

Derp.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:20:49 UTC No. 16475938

>>16475936
Derp

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:20:59 UTC No. 16475939

>>16475935
>it begins at the beginning
Which means that the beginning of the universe is the beginning, not the end of something else.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:23:07 UTC No. 16475941

>>16475939
The universe is too advanced to be the first existent. Before multiple stars, comes one star. Before a gigantic expanding space, comes a small simple space.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:23:29 UTC No. 16475942

>>16475936
>Then it’s just a theoretical concept
No, it is empirical, I actually 100% see nothing with my own two feet, what do your feet see?

>not true nothingness
True nothingness is both 0 and 1-1, though, its the exact same value.

>unless you consider the boundary of what we are expanding into.
What about the thing in between the universe and itself?
>Well, it has to “start” at some point
Where does a circle HAVE to start?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:24:46 UTC No. 16475944

>>16475942
You assume a circle appearing out of nothing as per usual. How does the circle come to be?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:24:59 UTC No. 16475945

>>16475941
>The universe is too advanced to be the first existent
No, the advancement was due to the progressive expansion, it didn't start out the way it is now.
You are basically saying that a human is too big for a woman to give birth to, not considering that humans start as babies rather than matured humans.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:25:56 UTC No. 16475946

>>16475945
Didn't read.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:26:18 UTC No. 16475947

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
This ends up becoming more of a religious question. It is unknown if it is even possible to answer this question using science.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:27:15 UTC No. 16475949

>>16475946
Don't care, if it takes you that much effort to read and understand two lines of text, your childish input is inconsequential.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:27:43 UTC No. 16475950

>>16475947
You're no scientist if you give up at the unknown. You can't think. You're a sub mind. That's a problem with this world actually.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:28:16 UTC No. 16475951

>>16475947
No, it is definitional, nothing is something, it has a semantic definition and an exact numerical value.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:29:11 UTC No. 16475952

This thread is ruined by the amount of parasites in it. And they are in every thread with their digressive points of views and impure true insults.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:30:07 UTC No. 16475955

>>16475952
Thanks for your retarded opinion, retard, if it hurts your precious feelings so much, just close the thread.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:30:14 UTC No. 16475956

>>16475950
I never said we should stop at the unknown. But for now, that’s where we are regarding this particular question.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:31:35 UTC No. 16475957

>>16475956
>Makes claim
>Does the opposite

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:32:36 UTC No. 16475960

mouf

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:52:28 UTC No. 16475974

>>16475957
You wanted me to make a guess? I suppose our reality may have been initiated by some non-contingent entity that is completely unbound and uninhibited by the laws of nature as we understand them. Perhaps there exists some ‘higher’ eternal reality where causality doesn’t apply. This is starting to sound like religion again. But if spacetime is an emergent property of our universe, then perhaps there exists realities with entirely different properties altogether. Our minds, conditioned by this reality, fail to intuitively understand any such hypothetical alternative reality. But maybe one day our science and mathematics could put together a good description of such a thing and how it fits in with our picture of reality.

Is any of this actually possible at all? I don’t know. I’d love to hear better ideas. This is possibly the ‘biggest’ question we face.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:54:21 UTC No. 16475975

>>16475974
Shut up fag. Getting all smart assy up in ere nig-guh. No-one understands your drivel. Try speaking simply.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:24:38 UTC No. 16475990

>>16475975
You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
Try speaking like an actual person.