>>16763192
Why not?

>>16763192
real answer: nobody knows.
the universe is essentially a brute fact, it can't be explained according to the logic and knowledge available to us. that's why it's called a metaphysical question.

prove that there is something

>>16763262
I think, therefore you suck.

Anthropic principle?

>>16763192
Locally, it makes sense to think that by default things don't exist or happen, and that they need a special cause or reason to exist. Smaller the slice of the universe/existence we are talking about, the less there's "room" for different kind of stuff to exist within that slice compared to everything that could hypothetically exist or happen. But the more we increase the scale, the weaker this heuristic becomes. It's unlikely there are unicorns on Earth - they would've been doing a really good job at hiding if they did - but what about the whole universe? If the universe is large enough - unfathomably, mind-boggingly large, perhaps infinite - should it really be the default assumption that unicorns don't exist somewhere? After all some physicists speculate the universe is so large it could contain copies so Earth, so why no similar but not equivalent planets that contain horses with horns? Also all kind of crazy "unlikely" things would be expected to happen due to sheer scale.

Now what happens if we increase the scale to "everything that exists anywhere, including any possible multiverses"? Should non-existence really be the default here? What's on the grandest scale - rather than any particular small corner of existence - the principle that determines whether something exists or not? If it's some arbitrary contingent law without justification, then we might as well accept existence itself requiring no justification. The other alternative that things automatically exist if they are logically possible. Otherwise they don't. The universe exists simply because there's no law of logic preventing it from existing.

>>16763200
>Why not?
https://youtu.be/CTFtOOh47oo

File: 1754872664231600.png (34 KB, 4273x2939)

34 KB PNG

>>16763192
it can only logically be explained by creationism. /sci/ CANNOT refute this:
https://youtube.com/shorts/nARz673L7BQ?si=G6grTg9grajKk7in

>>16763675
This is not a good rationale. To embed the universe in some contingency on non-laws is just invoking nothing in other terms.

>>16763192
Why would there be nothing rather than something?

>>16763203
real answer: because random shieet

>>16763192
because otherwise neither would exist

File: universeorigin7.jpg (2.92 MB, 1020x7200)

2.92 MB JPG

>>16763192
Zero Ontology is correct. Reality is like the Library of Babel, so nothing in some sense does exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU
Shorter version:
https://qualiacomputing.com/2015/11/18/why-does-anything-exist/

>>16763192
Just is.

>>16763192
>rather than
Nothing is something, you should be asking why are there other things in addition to nothing, and if you did, the answer would be that nothing is the smallest possible amount of any other thing and every single thing.

>>16763203
Arithmetic Logic based on historical knowledge and practical mathematical experience tells us exactly how a function of nothing yields the value of everything, though, 0!=100%.

File: dystopia.jpg (173 KB, 879x487)

173 KB JPG

>>16764045
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgp2rXP9zjs&t=1430s

>>16764128
Nothing is the something with 0 other dependencies, as the additive identity, it is the most foundational thing there possibly is as the smallest possible amount of anything and everything which is why define anything else, x to be x+0.

>>16764429
So basically, nothing is the thing that leaves something unchanged when added to it? If nothing can only be defined by its relationship to something, doesn't that mean that nothing can't exist on its own and requires something to exist beforehand? Is it possible to write a definition of nothing that doesn't rely on the existence of something?

>>16763192
you wouldnt be able to ask this question if there was nothing

we might exist during the only period of time where things exist

>>16764433
>If nothing can only be defined by its relationship to something
It is something, it is defined by its relationship to itself primarily, if you go in order, 0 is the original x, so if x=x+0, 0 also equal 0+0(+0+0+...).

>Is it possible to write a definition of nothing that doesn't rely on the existence of something?
No because it is something, if you are creating a definition, you are, by definition, creating a definition for something because nothing is something, the most fundamental thing, the smallest possible unit of anything and everything.

>>16764434
There is nothing, it is completely necessary to ask anything in the form sentences, in fact, you need both positive and negative nothing to make words and sentence since there is a negative nothingness between each letter in a word (ie the letters are directly connected) while there is a positive nothingness in between each word in a sentence (ie there is a big blank empty space between words).

>>16764440
But that only works if you treat nothing as something, and nothing isn't something, it's nothing by definition. It's "something" in the sense that we can conceptualise it as an idea, but then that's not nothing, that's the idea of nothing, which is something.

0 isn't nothing either, it's a number that represents nothing, and all numbers are something. The concept of 0 also came after the concept of 1, which implies that 1 is actually more fundamental than 0: you can have a number system without 0, but you can't have one without some number representing an actual quantity of something.

>>16764448
>nothing isn't something
Except that it is.

>but then that's not nothing
Yes it is.

>that's the idea of nothing
Yes that is what things are — ideas that can be physically and empirically measured and nothing can be named, conceptualized, measure, and sensed with every sensory organ.

>0 isn't nothing either, it's a number that represents nothing
Yes 0 is the numerical measurement of the thing called nothing, how exactly could it be representing something that isn't something?

>which implies that 1 is actually more fundamental than 0:
No, things that are easier to measure are less fundamental which is why we measured apples long before atoms.

>you can't have one without some number representing an actual quantity of something.
One can't possibly be a stable value on its own without being one plus exactly nothing else.

>>16763192
Because we’re experiencing it. If we weren’t, then poof, nothing.
More than likely some omnipotent creator is playing a sick joke on us.

>>16764453
>Except that it is.
It isn't, something is the opposite of nothing, and something can't be equal to its own opposite. Light isn't dark, red isn't blue and up isn't down.

>>16764453
>No, things that are easier to measure are less fundamental which is why we measured apples long before atoms.
Apples and atoms are both something, things that can be observed, measured and defined. Nothing can't be observed, measured or defined on its own at all, and in fact it's significantly harder to measure something that doesn't exist than something that does.

>One can't possibly be a stable value on its own without being one plus exactly nothing else.
If you have one apple, and you lack an understanding of the number zero, you still have one apple. The apple's existence doesn't require you to observe that if you add zero apples to what you already have then you still have one apple.

>>16764468
>something can't be equal to its own opposite.
It can when that something is the most fundamental quantity since 0 is, by definition, its own opposite number, 0=-0, given adding nothing is exactly the same as removing nothing.

>Light isn't dark
Absolute darkness is the lowest possible intensity of light just like absolute 0 heat is the lowest possible level of heat.

>Apples and atoms are both something
And so is nothing, but apples were measured/quantified before atoms despite apples being composed of atoms since the macro phenomenon is generally easier to understand, conceptualize, and measure, than the micro phenomenon.

>Nothing can't be observed, measured or defined on its own at all
I already did that for x=0, though.
x>0 is what can't be defined without referencing 0 since x=x+0 for all x.

>in fact it's significantly harder to measure something that doesn't exist than something that does.
Yet, nothing is pretty easy to measure, it is the default of any scale, it is what you will read if you just turn on the scale without measuring something else besides nothing and you have to ensure that the scale is measuring nothing or your measurements of other things will be off by a factor of whatever is displayed instead of nothing.

>If you have one apple, and you lack an understanding of the number zero, you still have one apple.
Yet you will be entirely confused if you eat the only apple and don't have any remaining and your respite will just be to claim that apples don't exist anymore since you can't see any right now.

>>16764485
>It can when that something is the most fundamental quantity since 0 is, by definition, its own opposite number, 0=-0, given adding nothing is exactly the same as removing nothing.
I didn't use "opposite" to mean "additive inverse", I used "opposite" to mean "thing that is completely unlike the original thing". In this sense, the opposite of zero would more likely be infinity, not zero, and zero is definitely not infinity.

>Absolute darkness is the lowest possible intensity of light just like absolute 0 heat is the lowest possible level of heat.
I used "dark" to mean "a low level of light" and "light" to mean "a high level of light" (I probably should've used the word "bright"), and you can't say a low level of something is the same as a high level of something, because "low" isn't "high".

Also, what's the opposite of absolute 0? It can't just be absolute 0 again, that makes no sense. Since it's the lowest possible level of heat, its opposite must be the highest possible level of heat: ie. infinity degrees, as there is no theoretical maximum for how hot something can get.

>Yet you will be entirely confused if you eat the only apple and don't have any remaining and your respite will just be to claim that apples don't exist anymore since you can't see any right now.
Will I, though? I'm pretty sure apples have existed for much longer than the concept of the number zero has, and I'm also pretty sure that most people who ate an apple prior to the discovery of zero didn't react the way you described.

The problem is that OP asked an ontological question and you're approaching it like a mathematical one: math doesn't describe philosophical concepts, it describes observed relationships between real quantities, and nothing doesn't actually exist in reality, everything that can be observed is something.

>>16764506
>"thing that is completely unlike the original thing".
That isn't what opposite means though, it means diametrically opposed and adding 0 is diametrically opposed to removing 0, but it is still the same thing because 0 is its own opposite number.

>In this sense, the opposite of zero would more likely be infinity
Nope not by your definition since 0 is already an infinity of itself, so they aren't completely unlike each other.

>I used "dark" to mean "a low level of light"
So you proved yourself wrong since by that definition light when low is dark.

>what's the opposite of absolute 0? It can't just be absolute 0 again, that makes no sense.
It is the only thing that makes logical, arithmetic sense, you aren't using logic though, you are using whimsy folksy sayings instead of the rigorous logical definitions of things.

>Will I, though?
Yes, if 0 is replaced by not existing like you claim and you have 0 apples, that means apples don't exist to you by your definitions.

> math doesn't describe philosophical concepts,
It quantifies nothingness since it was specifically designed to describes philosophical concepts of value and magnitude in an objective way.

>nothing doesn't actually exist in reality
It definitely empirically exists since every sense has a description of sensing nothing, you, like everyone else, can see it with your own two ears.

>>16763192
God created the universe because he is a lonely incel and we are his cope.

>>16764517
>That isn't what opposite means though, it means diametrically opposed
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
>opposite
>adjective
>"completely different"

>0 is already an infinity of itself
You can add zero to itself an infinite number of times and still end up with zero, but that doesn't make it the same as infinity. Zero cannot be equal to infinity as zero is a number and infinity is not.

>you aren't using logic though, you are using whimsy folksy sayings instead of the rigorous logical definitions of things.
Ontology doesn't use logic and is just "whimsy folksy sayings", cool.

>Yes, if 0 is replaced by not existing like you claim and you have 0 apples, that means apples don't exist to you by your definitions.
In my example, I didn't say zero didn't exist, I said:
>If you have one apple, and you lack an understanding of the number zero, you still have one apple.
Not knowing that zero exists isn't the same as zero not existing, zero exists regardless of whether you know about it or not.

Again, you can't use math to answer philosophical questions, zero isn't nothing and you can't draw a false equivalence between the two.

To sum up:
>nothing can't be defined on its own without relying on the existence of something (eg. "a lack of apples" relies on the existence of apples, "absolute zero" relies on the existence of temperature)
>something can be defined by itself without relying on the existence of nothing

Therefore, "something" is fundamental and "nothing" is not. To answer OP's question, then:

>Why is there something rather than nothing
Because the opposite (there's that word again), there being nothing rather than something, is a logical impossibility.

File: LHCb-result-1_0.png (1.83 MB, 2302x1082)

1.83 MB PNG

>>16763192

CP Violation has been officially detected in Baryons. This means there's a fundamental CP asymmetry. It is still not enough, but were getting there. CP symmetry implies that the laws of physics should remain unchanged if charges are swapped with their corresponding anticharges (charge conjugation, C) and their spatial coordinates are inverted (parity transformation, P). However, experiments have shown that CP symmetry is not perfectly conserved, which may help explain the observed matter dominance.

By providing the first direct evidence of direct CP violation in baryon decays and beauty meson decays to charmonium, the LHCb results open new avenues for testing the SM and searching for physics beyond it. Further studies at LHCb will explore whether the observed CP violation aligns with Standard Model predictions or points toward new interactions and particles. This result will also influence searches for lepton-flavour violation, tests of CP symmetry in other baryons, and analyses of exotic decay channels.

>>16764045
Bullshit, it's a Santa Claus tier of explanation.

>>16763192
Life (aka something) is simply the universe's mistake, an accidental glitch in otherwise orderly physical processes and/or the universe's excrement, an accidental byproduct of physical and chemical processes.

Stars burn cleanly, planets orbit predictably, chemistry follows rules. On extremely rare locations these mechanics break down and produce energy-wasting, self-replicating anomalies that consume resources and create suffering. Life is nothing more than cosmic errors that the universe would correct if it could.


The fundamental puzzle remains: why does this malfunction persist in otherwise perfectly ordered, lifeless space?

>>16764537
>From the whimsy folksy sayings book:
Your idea of opposite can't possibly be since everything is part of the universe and has that in common.

>doesn't make it the same as infinity. Zero cannot be equal to infinity
Nobody said it was exactly equally the same, just that zero and infinity have something in common given that zero is an infinite sum of zeros, so they can't be opposites by your impossible standards.

>Ontology doesn't use logic and is just "whimsy folksy sayings"
No, you don't use ontology nor logic, you are just grabbing the most vague definition that isn't grounded in reason from a book, not of ontological proofs, but of whimsy folk language.

>In my example, I didn't say zero didn't exist
Your example was to prove that nothing can't possibly exist as you claimed before.

>zero exists regardless of whether you know about it
As does nothing, even if a thing is self-annihilating and something biologically complex can't possibly directly sense it other than through the implications of its absence, it still exists and results in direct effects.

>you can't use math to answer philosophical questions
I can, even if you don't understand the philosophical implications of math, it is not beyond everyone, you are identifying your own limitations.

>zero isn't nothing and you can't draw a false equivalence
Except it is nothing and there is a direct logical equivalence that proves so x+0=x=x-0, so adding 0 to x is the exact same as adding nothing which is the exact same as removing 0 which is the exact same as removing nothing.

>nothing can't be defined on its own without relying on the existence of something
Wrong, this has been covered, 0=0+0+0...

>something can be defined by itself without relying on the existence of nothing
Wrong, 1 isn't fully defined as a stable unit until establishing 1=1+0.

>"something" is fundamental and "nothing" is not.
Wrong, based on x+0=0, the only resulting equation with a single fundamental base value is at x=0.

File: hank.jpg (33 KB, 600x606)

33 KB JPG

>>16767249
>no the dictionary isn't a valid source of the definitions of words
>only I may define what words do and don't mean
Really, anon

>>16767262
>>no the dictionary isn't a valid source of the definitions of words
Dictionaries need not be, and most often are not, logically rational, they are a source on whimsy folksy sayings, not on rational philosophical logic.

>only I may define what words do and don't mean
No, only logical definitions can be used to build things like math and ontological philosophy which is why its only the logical definition aspects of nothing that are considered in the mathematical definition of 0, not the folksy nonsense you are trying to attach just to make it an impossibility because you don't understand the concept rationally and you want to conflate arbitrary haphazard dictionary definitions with well reasoned ontological logic.

>>16767262
>only I may define what words do and don't mean
>t. the anon who discards countless other dictionary definitions for the one Cambridge entry vague enough to reinforce your nonsense

>>16767271
You know how numbers are defined using language and words aren't defined using math? Consider that for a while and you might learn something.

>>16767274
>>>/lit
We are discussing math and science here, if you want to spout off your whimsy folk knowledge that is completely ignorant of logic and math consider that there is a better board for that.

File: 4chan argument.jpg (60 KB, 320x312)

60 KB JPG

>>16767275
The entirety of human knowledge outside of pure math can't be discarded by calling it "whimsy folk sayings" over and over again. You honestly sound like a flat earther at this point, they also think that calling gravity, air pressure and other scientific concepts "magic" will cause them to stop making sense. It just doesn't work like that.

>inb4 "no such thing as knowledge outside of math"

>>16767282
The entirety of math can't be discarded because you found a definition that doesn't agree.

>You honestly sound like a flat earther at this point,
No, you are the one discarding the logical definition to use definitions that don't make sense can can't actually build a system of logic and math around, you are the regressive nonsensical one in this discussion which is why you keep reverting to seething and can't actually address that x=x+0, so adding nothing is exactly the same as adding 0 because they are the exact same value while providing retarded alternative definitions that you say prove that the thing you are specifically defining can't even possibly exist.

You are the one attaching magical qualities to 0 using language outside of the scope of logic and math to try to make it disappear completely while falsely citing ontology when the book you referenced had no such standards of philosophical ontology in its defining process.

>inb4 "no such thing as knowledge outside of math"
Math is a field of logic, its not actually knowledge if it isn't logical, its just information, if your definitions of value are not logical and can't be used by a system of math, they are not ontological, they are folksy nonsense, you might as well say there can't be nothing at the foundation because of turtles all the way down.

>>16767288
Your argument hinges on the idea that if someone who doesn't know about the number zero eats an apple then they forget that apples exist, and I'm the one being nonsensical?

>can't actually address that x=x+0
The idea that "x=x+0" is a whimsy folk saying and I refuse to acknowledge its validity. Rewrite your argument without using it or any similar ideas, please.

>>16767290
No, that is the implication of your nonsensical counterargument that nothing can't possibly exist, my argument is that nothing is definitely something and it can be empirically experienced through each and every sense, quantified with math, and measured with metric instruments because it is the foundational metric and the smallest possible amount of anything and everything.

>The idea that "x=x+0" is a whimsy folk saying
Its not though, it is rigorous logic that has be sensed, identified, and measured, you can't even make posts without the computer you are using implementing it as digital logic, its not just one of the many definitions in one of many random dictionaries that could easily be discarded, it is a foundational necessity to build logic and math upon and if if goes away so does the ability to do math and make your irrational shitposts.

>>16763675
I'm not reading all of that shit

>>16763192
God was lonely so he created the universe we live in.

>>16767282
the only real knowledge in this realm comes directly from my mind. Prove me wrong

>>16767415
Since you can't prove it yourself and are specifically asking for outside validation, you are clearly wrong.

>>16763192
Well if there was nothing then we never would've known it.

>>16767397
who created the universe he lives in?

Before something and nothing, there was that which was divided into "something" and "nothing", which can be neither something nor nothing!

And before "before", there was that which was divided into "before", "now" and "after", which was none of those three things.

What is that which was divided at the thinnest points into the concepts we use? God? Word?

>>16763675
I liked your post, buddy.

>>16763192
Idiot. There is no beholder when there is nothing. So there ought to be something.
OP is a nigger suffering from ego illusion.

>>16763192
Why should nothing be the default rather than something? Have you ever seen nothing? I would revert the question and ask why nothing gets the special pleading/double standard kind of treatment.

>>16764243
>because otherwise neither would exist
this is the answer. in order to have something you must first be capable of having nothing. our universe (or multiverse if you subscribe to that) could only form if nothing existed first.

the real kicker though is that nothingness doesn't exist as some physical thing...but it's still required in order for something (our universe) to exist. it's the logical foundation on which the universe is built. the canvas which contains the painting that is our universe. ...and yet...it doesn't exist... how the fuck does that work? who knows?

>>16767755
>nothing existed first
>first
This implies that nothing isn't really nothing, as it's subject to the passage of time. But time isn't actually some kind of spooky omni-clock, it's just how mass-bearing objects encode information. Things without mass such as photons have no valid rest frame and thus have no "point of view" to meaningfully structure things in time and space. The idea that A came and caused B which led to etc etc isn't really applicable to "the universe" because the universe isn't a single discrete physical object.

>>16763192
Nothing doesn't exist, it's a hypothetical.

>>16763192
idk desu senpai

>>16767748
>Have you ever seen nothing?
Yes, nothing can be experienced with every sense, people who always see only nothing are are called blind, everyone else sees nothing with every other body part except their eyes.

>>16767696
>Before something and nothing, there was that which was divided into "something" and "nothing",
Nope, nothing is something and it can be dividing into infinite increments of only itself and nothing else since 0=0+0+0+...

>>16767755
>the real kicker though is that nothingness doesn't exist as some physical thing.
Wrong, the only way two physical bodies can come in direct contact is if the physical thing called nothing and only nothing is between them. You can hear the implication of this when you clap your hands and produce sound from that nothingness because the force has to resonate through all of the surrounding space to ensure balance (maintaining overall change at a net sum of nothing).

>>16767764
>This implies that nothing isn't really nothing, as it's subject to the passage of time.
No, first doesn't necessarily mean first in time, if you consider an eternal house, the foundation is still first because it is the first component that is necessary to place the other component upon, even if the entire house spontaneously generates whole, the foundation is still the most fundamental first part of the house.

>the universe isn't a single discrete physical object.
The laws of thermodynamics wouldn't apply if it was open at all points instead of one singular closed physical interconnected system.

>>16767805
No, its empirical, every sense has a word for sensing nothing — blinding, silence, numbness, blandness, and odorless. Its also quantifiable and measurable since we have discovered a specific number that is exactly equivalent to nothing and nearly every scale of measurement starts with that number.

People don't understand "nothing". That is the problem. The real answer is that "nothing" is impossible.

Try to think what nothing would be like, then realize that if you come up with something, you're wrong. And then try again till you too realize it's impossible.

>>16768618
Try to read the thread before you post and see that your initial stupidity based on poor assumptions was already invoked by someone else and thoroughly debunked, the post above yours tells you exactly how to sense nothing with any arbitrary sense of your choice.

>>16768632
in your dreams retard. kys

>>16768668
Yes I guess it was just a dream to expect mongoloids with zero attention span like you to actually read a thread before contributing the same retardation that has already been addressed over and over.

>>16763192
so you see, there was a jew 2000 years ago...

>>16768674
You're the guy literally likening not having eyes on your knees to pure nothingness while calling others stupid? Dunning-kruger shitpig.

>>16768679
Then what exactly do you see with your knees if not pure nothingness?

>>16768683
lmao

retard

>>16768685
You see a retard in with your knees instead of nothing? Do you spend so much time on your knees that they are they shiny enough to reflect your face or something, is that what is confusing you?
I am not talking about what you seen in your knees when you look at them, but what you see with your knees.

>>16768587
correct. you've intuited that nothing is a privation of something, ie. blindness is a privation of sight. the question, however, is the ontological status of an absolute nothing, ie. a privation of existence. does it exist? only logically, as a placeholder, not ontologically, not in actual reality, which can't not exist.

>>16768824
It's pretty much the same fallacy as thinking you'll "not exist forever" after you die. Not existing forever is the same as not existing for no time.
It's like a vague feeling of "I won't feel anything but I'll still be there, not existing eternally" lmao. Like there's still eternity, which requires time, which is something. Also mixed with the everyday valid concept of not having something, like you lost your phone, or don't have an eye on your knee. The absence of something. If you extrapolate the same vague idea onto existence itself then that's the nonsensical stuff you get.

It Makes For Better Something

>>16763192
Because there was nothing from stopping nothing to turning into something that’s why

>>16763192
because we aren't fortunate enough to not have to suffer you

>>16768576
yeah, 0/∞=0 and ∞/0=∞

>>16763192
>78 posts and not a single answer
God did it.

>>16768824
>blindness is a privation of sight
No, that would imply that sight existed before blindness which makes no sense with the knowledge of biology we have, babies don't have sight, then get conceived, then go blind for a few days when they are born only to start seeing again, they start out blind and slowly gain the capacity to see as they develop, assuming they follow typical development milestones.

>>16769036
"Nothing changes" means two entirely different things when you are talking about solely nothing vs a universe of nothing that has been filled in with a bunch of other things.

>>16769080
How surprising, a theist with no reading comprehension ability.

I would not be shocked if entropy is the reason things exist

Some freaky irreversible second law of thermodynamics but for reality instead: "something" must only increase and cannot be reduced

Why there is something rather than nothing feels solved logically. But how there is something I have no clue.

>>16769791
>how there is something I have no clue
0!=100%
You can also consider that 0^0=100%, but that one is more disputed where no branch of math disputes 0!.

>>16763192
god paradox, this universe is a gift from the unknown

>>16769798
This is not "how". It's at BEST "why". And I'm being generous.

You could also just say the anthropic principle is why there is something.
But it doesn't explain how.

File: chud-buddha.gif (318 KB, 220x294)

318 KB GIF

>>16763192
Nothing ever happens.

>>16768587
I cant tell if you are trolling or actually retarded. Is your argument if you cant see something it means nothing is there? Have you ever actually taken a science class before drooler? If this was true why the fuck would anyone invent a microscope? Man you are fucking apex tier retarded bruh

>>16763192
How strange it is to be anything at all

>>16768632
Oh, you were actually serious. Holy shit you are stupid. Stop posting on science forums

>>16763192
because it can.

>>16763192
what if too much nothingness is scientifically proven to create somethingness

File: 1750447318031734.jpg (785 KB, 1200x1234)

785 KB JPG

how legit is m theory?

File: 1751306964654024.jpg (69 KB, 600x624)

69 KB JPG

>>16763192
Why does a donut have (to have) a hole in it?

Ponder on this, OP.

>>16771207
No, try saying something scientific and on topic on a science forum thread instead of retarded things that regularly get you ridiculed and laughed out of the thread.

>>16771204
You can see the small stuff with the microscope and no amount of magnification is going to make nothing visible which is why they are not going to help a born blind person see anything other than nothing, retard.

>>16770761
No, math is the how, not the why, it shows exactly how different value relate to each other, it doesn't explain why since it is axiomatic based on empirical observation.

I'm more interested in the follow-up question: if something exists why just this and not everything?

>>16772421
You mean if everything exists, why are (You) just (You) instead of everything or nothing?

>>16772424
That too

>>16772431
Its the same question, you just don't understand you are asking from a specific context window and referring to that window (ie yourself) as just this and something, you want to know why each value is its own own if they all end up smashed together in infinity at the end.

>>16772438
The dynamics of the universe as we know it seem constrained in ways independent of the observer. But who knows, there may be worlds far beyond what we can perceive. I can conceive of it. Such thoughts may simply be an internally inconsistent delusion. But I want to know if things have to be this way or not

>>16772418
You're just flipping the meaning. Disregarding the pointless semantics talk; What you now call "why" is the entire point. The universe exists, what made it? The question is nonsensical because it causes an infinite regression, hence, causality doesn't apply. Your math doesn't apply.

>>16772446
>The dynamics of the universe as we know it seem constrained in ways independent of the observer.
Yet you are still just asking questions with respect to an observer, since the "everything" you mention is just everything you can observe.

>But I want to know if things have to be this way or not
So you don't know if you HAD to eat/skip breakfast this morning or if you just wanted to?

>>16772453
>What you now call "why" is the entire point.
Why questions were always in dispute since man can not necessarily understand his own motivations.

>The universe exists
No, the onus in on you to prove that individuality is just some kind of illusion and that all possibilities are actually bound unto a singular object called universe.

>The question is nonsensical because it causes an infinite regression
No the question is nonsensical because you are asking as if you are outside of something you are claiming to be inside of, you act like some independent agent inquiring about something else, but your question necessitates you to just be some minor cog is some massive cosmic monad that if you were a part of, you would already know the answers you seek. Your outside observation does not apply if you are just some internal component of some whole universe.

>>16772461
>No, the onus in on you to prove that individuality is just some kind of illusion and that all possibilities are actually bound unto a singular object called universe.
What the fuck are you babbling about?

>you are asking as if you are outside of something you are claiming to be inside of
Wrong.

You're clearly mentally ill and you're talking as if others already know your internal incoherent thoughts.
Fuck off, retarded schizo.

>>16772462
>What the fuck are you babbling about?
You don't have proof of a universe until you have a unified theory of everything.

>Wrong.
Wrong.

>You're clearly mentally ill and you're talking as if others already know your internal incoherent thoughts.
>t. the retard claiming to have proven some grand universe where he is connected to each and every thing that could possibly exist, yet doesn't even have a unified theory to prove such a thing is even possible since his theory likely depends on dozens of disconnected fields and disjointed forces.

>>16772417
"nothing" as a concept and nothing as a physical object (non-physical object actually) are not the same thing. JFC you have won the biggest moron I have ever met on this website full of morons. That is quite a feat, congratulations, you are actually retarded

>>16772464
>proof of a universe
we exist, that is all i said.

>>t. the retard claiming to have proven some grand universe
uhh, yeah. either you're under the impression that i'm someone else or you're just batshit insane. or really either way you are.

>>16772470
Then what is the difference in mass and energy between the two?

>>16772475
>we exist, that is all i said.
No, you actually said the universe exists which means we don't actually exist since we are just sub-components of the universe which is all that actually exists, by definition of universe.

Nope I replied to the person who claimed they could prove a universe exists and you are the one who showed up with retarded cope and eventually backing off of the argument entirely.

>>16772481
>Nope I replied to the person who claimed they could prove a universe exists
nope, you didn't. i never wrote anything like that and never meant to

you're one of the most deluded, out of touch people i've seen here. and it's not exactly a place known for sanity

>>16772478
if you wear sunglasses with pink lenses you can successfully rid the world of all colors other than shades of pink! You are an idiot, fuck off

>>16772485
Then why are you interjecting yourself in a conversation between >>16772453 and >>16772461 if >>16772453 wasn't your post?

>>16772486
No you totally misunderstood the point being that you can definitely see pink and prove pink to yourself if the only color you see is pink.

>>16772500
the first and last of those are me

>>16772504
So the one that is explicitly based on the premise that a universe definitely exist that says in no uncertain terms the universe exists?
No wonder you are so angry, you are too stupid to even remember what you wrote a few minutes ago, of course that tard rage to going to overflow into every social interaction you engage in.

>>16772509
that the universe exists is the basis of everything else. that doesn't mean random people you encounter are debating you on that fact, simply by going about their day. you're the crazy guy who goes up to people and shouts "I SEE YOU'RE HERE DRINKING YOUR COFFEE, PROVE THAT THE UNIVERSE EXISTS THEN" and that's not even an exaggeration.

>>16772510
No, its not the basis of >>16772485 where you literally just said you never claimed a universe exists and don't meant to imply such a thing.

I didn't come up to you, you asked me questions, then when you didn't like the answer you were all like, "NO, NOT HOW, WHY AND WHAT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE" the rest is just your tard memory messing up your time line again, just follow the reply chain and see you were the one who questioned me originally with a bunch of unnecessary poor assumptions about complete unity.

>>16772512
I promise you what you think happened, didn't happen. I have no reason to lie to you. Get help.

>>16772513
Your promises mean nothing since you have already been caught lying and its plain for everyone to see, I even pointed >>16772500 out the exact post were you claimed the universe existed and you conceded that >>16772510 yes your questions were based on your false universe assumptions.
You will never have a unified theory of everything, you will keep having to act retarded and pretend like your nonsense isn't predicated on the existence of a universe that you can't prove right up until you are force to admit that you are and it is.

>>16772518
I could answer but I don't have anything more to say to a piece of shit who accuses me of lying. Then you're no longer just a massive retard, you're a scumbag too. Go fuck yourself.

>>16772520
Then you shouldn't have lied and you should have owned up to making claims you can't prove since you have no unified theory of everything that can actually tie all together as one, so have you no reason to fall back on some nonsense about a universe.

Everyone can see >>16772500, everyone can see you claimed it was your post >>16772504, and everyone can see you lied about not writing about the universe existing >>16772485, nobody is falling for your tard rage gambit, they all know you are just trying to reinforce your lies with strong emotions and name calling, you nonsensical angry retard.

you don't consider that a property?

>The universe of discourse is non-empty.

Proof?

>>16763192
I'm not sure, but I don't think it's god, because no God would be dumb enough to allow OP to breathe in the first place.

>>16772456
> Yet you are still just asking questions with respect to an observer, since the "everything" you mention is just everything you can observe.
Not necessarily. We have developed ways to relate observations in a consistent way between different observers. I can tell you something is 100 meters long and you can figure out how many sticks long that must be. There is a mechanical process to verify our reckonings are the same or something breaks. We have simple mechanical means like phonographs of generating consistent conscious phenomenon between different observers.

Sup Reddit,

We need to make something happen: find out who's the smartest human in the world according to IQ which can be objectively measured (for sure he is an Ashkenazi jew in Germany or the US, this narrows things down quite a bit) and simply ask for his intuition about this. Or perhaps we should go and seek termites or the very few guys who correctly answered the SAT question about the coin rolling around another coin where every midwit got it wrong even the professors themselves... We need to collect their thoughts like it's the most precious thing in the world and keep it in a museum or something for everybody to see.

>>16764433

I think you hit the nail on the head. There can't be nothing because that would mean there is something that is nothing. "Nothing" isn't the opposite of "something", it only means that something could be there but isn't. "Nothing" has to be something in order to tell that there isn't anything. And if it were so, then there is something instead of nothing which means there not being something is impossible.

>>16772765
So because they can make thing for you to observe, you don't think you are observing it since you didn't make the thing you are observing?

>>16763192
>is
There can't *be* nothing.

File: witt.jpg (230 KB, 960x1299)

230 KB JPG

Reminder that everyone in this thread is retarded, especially the ones who think they're actually having discussions and are typing out paragraphs. You can't use language to answers things it was fundamentally not designed to answer, everyone is talking past each other thinking their words actually mean anything.

>>16773608
> Calls everyone retarded.
> Thinks language was designed.
> Thinks words have no meanings.

Well done dude!

Also, you're answering the question by saying that it can't be answered, which is paradoxical.

Again... well done!

>>16773634
he thinks he's cool and speshual

>>16773604
No, you are just in tard denial, this thread has already established that everyone directly experiences nothing, it is an undeniable empirical sensation that you along with everyone can see with your own two knees at all times.

>>16773634
Getting caught up on the word designed shows you are retarded without doubt.

>>16763203
Poo

>>16770454
indeed this anon samefag knows i wonder who it could be you guys should chill out good shit is about to happen

>>16774216
lmaoooo when indians attempt at sounding intellectual its fucking hilarious recycled garbage fucking retarded deepak shitbag