🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Feb 2025 20:51:01 UTC No. 16577785
>what are people made out of?
>oh, they're made out of atoms
>ok then, what are atoms made out of?
>well, they're made out of protons and electrons
>what are protons made out of?
>quarks
>what are quarks and electrons made out of
>quantum fields
>what are quantum fields made out of?
>idk
so you don't know what people are made out of, and you will never find out because you're moving the goalpoint.
I can't wait till 2500 when we still don't know what matter is made of. good job scientists
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 03:38:18 UTC No. 16578120
There's string theory though
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 03:48:40 UTC No. 16578125
>>16578120
what are the strings made out of
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 04:08:53 UTC No. 16578136
>>16577785
I always thought the simplicity of transformers showed natures true elegance.
But what's a winding? Is 16:7 what picrel is saying?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 06:21:50 UTC No. 16578182
>>16577785
Go be a nigger somewhere else.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 11:35:37 UTC No. 16578323
>>16578125 the rope your mother chokes herself with
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 11:51:09 UTC No. 16578327
>>16577785
It's Holons all the way down.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:10:30 UTC No. 16578339
>>16577785
particles are not made of fields
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:11:38 UTC No. 16578342
>>16578339
fields means operator fields
this is like saying a particle is made of operator. Its as stupid as saying a particle is made of equation or of some other mathematical object
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:33:13 UTC No. 16578351
>>16577785
>you're moving the goalpoint
You're the one who keeps moving the goalpost. You keep asking questions and receiving answers, but you aren't actually interested in anything besides wasting other people's time. Maybe it's 'trolling', maybe genuine stupidity. Who cares?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Feb 2025 13:57:02 UTC No. 16578384
>>16578351
I guarantee you it's stupidity.
There's no shortage of it on this board.
DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 00:04:23 UTC No. 16579011
>>16578125
kek
the one mirror sees itsself at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 19:45:37 UTC No. 16579631
>>16578125
>what are the strings made out of
0s & 1s. Information. There is no physical basis to reality at the quantum level. It's all 0 &1. This is proof that this"reality" is a virtual construct. In the real universe, a level above this, atomsare little round hard indivisible balls that fit together in different ways like legos r to create the real reality. Here in the matrix, we're just info that these real balls of reality exchange with each other.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 20:54:20 UTC No. 16579706
>>16579631
ok, what are 0s and 1s made out of? what is the matrix made out of?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 20:57:59 UTC No. 16579711
>>16577785
What would a satisfactory answer look like to you?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:01:27 UTC No. 16579761
>>16579706
It's just information. As well as entropy increasing. Everything came from a singularity, a lot of energy was put into the universe as a system, things became complex as we can see and experience right now, but at some point when entropy goes towards infinity, everything will be just a vast void of molecules. Maybe it will then form another singularity.
I firmly believe we live in a reversible universe
Stop guessing start learning at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:01:48 UTC No. 16579802
>>16579761
>everything came from a singularity
People keep yapping this nonsense with no proof. And there's no way it can ever be proved
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:51:45 UTC No. 16580521
>>16577785
People can only ever explain stuff to a point. If I told you what it is made out of in a more fundamental level you can always ask what that is made out of. No matter how much light you shed on the matter of things the darkness around it keeps growing with it. As you answer one question, 10 more arise.
Humans are pro at questioning nature to its core but we will always hit a wall. Listen to alan watts if you want the whole dilemma better discribed.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:52:07 UTC No. 16580724
>>16577785
>what is a bad faith line of questioning made of?
>oh, it's a series of questions decided in advance to be unsatisfiable
>ok then, what are questions made of?
>well, they're made up of phrases
>what are phrases made out of?
>words
>what are words made out of?
>phonemes
>what are phonemes made up of?
>people
>what are people made out of?
>idk
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:24:28 UTC No. 16580747
>>16577785
what is 1 divided by 2, op?
how many times can you keep dividing by 2?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 03:01:34 UTC No. 16582098
I think we live in a universe that regresses infinitely and there's no actual fundamental building block, it's turtles all the way down.
At a point where the structures become unmeasurable, this question stops being scientific and is of little relevance. At that point it's metaphysics.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 03:06:22 UTC No. 16582102
>>16577785
Relational ontology isn't subject to this critique.
https://old.reddit.com/r/NarrativeD
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 03:13:54 UTC No. 16582110
>>16577785
Infinite Regress Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infin
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:26:34 UTC No. 16583008
>>16577785
pfft, easy, at the bottom are the god's uncreated energies
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 22:54:46 UTC No. 16583136
>>16577785
There was a time when the question "what are physical objects made of?" presupposed an answer in terms of elements so basic that all there was to understand about them, on a conceptual level, was their indivisibility, and their nature could be grasped intuitively through the familiar quality of tangibility (which was assumed to encapsulate what it means for something to be corporeal). Such elements would have been sufficient to appease both the scientific curiosity and garden-variety ontological curiosity, so one could meaningfully claim to know what the world is made of. Modern physics killed this idea, by showing that particles are further divisible and describable in terms that aren't tangible but seem purely abstract, like fields and probability distributions. This created a rift between the physical model and our fundamental intuitions about physicality and existence. The result is that it's no longer clear what it means to say that something "physically exists", let alone what the world is made of in a proper sense, since the basic elements aren't suggestive of any "physical substance" and have no familiar qualities. In that sense you're right: nobody knows what anything is made of, and that's even before we get into issues like the mind and perceptions.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 02:33:26 UTC No. 16583321
>>16577785
If the goal of your inquiry is the very fabric of existence, science likely will never satisfy you anon. Unironically, look into metaphysics and start with the Greeks. That's about as satisfying as you'll likely get. The goal of science is to understand the objective and observable, and there's no real way to ever "prove" we've hit the bedrock of existence, so to speak. Nor do scientists tend to care that we can't. You're looking for answers that the scientific method isn't designed to concern itself with and then criticizing science for not answering your questions, why are you surprised when you are let down by the response?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:26:58 UTC No. 16583537
>>16583321
>You're looking for answers that the scientific method isn't designed to concern itself with and then criticizing science for not answering your questions, why are you surprised when you are let down by the response?
OP is right to call them out. They constantly pretend to know things that they cant know.