I've been attempting to refine an idea, where reality exists as the default, because the alternative of nothing existing is logically impossible. With that logical crux intact, I inferred that existence is largely self-generated, and exhibits a recursive, fractal structure that branches into an infinite multiverse, becoming boundless because the entirety of reality has no fundamental "outside." With this in mind, I also thought that "existence" is essentially eternal and transcendent, acting as a screen that extends infinitely in every direction, where the "images" it displays are transient, spatiotemporal phenomena. Regardless of the current state of existence, whether it's in the initial states of the Big Bang, or deep within the thralls of Heat Death, existence itself still remains a permanent, immutable fixture. It is not limited by the spatiotemporal restrictions of finite objects and events. This acted as a "basis" to reality, where the creation of time and space are projections of a static, eternal system that lies outside of space and time, so while our contingent universe began, the entirety of reality has no definite beginning or end, as its source remains outside the constraints of space and time, essentially extending infinitely in every possible direction.Thoughts?
>>16930176
Infinity exists, or everything ceases to exist forever, infinitely.
If there is a limit on people, then there's a limit on mass. It's calculated based on people.People are reflection on themselves through time and space to make a future.
>>16930191>or everything ceases to exist forever, infinitely.Schizophrenia.
>>16930176you're on the right track. it is not that there is no fundamental outside, but that the outside is undecidable.
>>16930219How so? Simple logic, if the end is permanent, then that is an infinity.
>>16930234Well "infinite nothingness" can't exist because time and space existed before it, no?
>>16930176loquito
>>16930225Thanks, but what do you mean the outside "undecidable" as opposed to simply not existing?
>>16930176>the alternative of nothing existing is logically impossible.If nothing can't logically exist, then what exists between two particles that are in direct contact if not nothing, an infinite array of smaller particles in between smaller particles?
>>16930236No, each single 1 unit of time and 1 unit of space are functions of nothing because 0! = 1.
>>16930516Think of division by zero, sure the expression exists, you can try to ask what is x/0, but the answer is undecidable as any seemingly logical answer would actually trigger endless contradictions.
>>16930176>nothing existing is logically impossibleaccord to what logic? Nothing exists, including logic! Logic is something only found within particular manifestations of existence, and doesn’t explain why anything exists at all. The real answer is that something exists simply because it can, it doesn’t need a cause. Then it’s just a matter of either believing that only particular types of universes exist, which seems quite arbitrary, or believing in an infinitely diverse existence, which seems more complete. Also, it’s probably more accurate to get rid of the “universe” paradigm and just talk about conscious experiences, since we’re not really concerned with universes that “exist” that aren’t experienced in any way. They may as well not exist at all.
>>16931629Didn't Godel mathematically disprove the concept of the universe since his incompleteness theorems proved that no single universe could actually contain all existing truths?
>>16931632Nope. You've fundamentally misunderstood his theorem.
>>16931638How so? According to his theorem, how can exactly can one framework, like the universe, truly contain all things?
You cannot have a closed, finite set of rules that proves every truth. The math seems to support an expansion beyond the universe. Maybe we just keep going to the outside.
>>16931639It's a theorem about mathematical axioms, and how no matter how many you have there will always be something you can't prove with them.
>>16931642But universe is defined as the thing that truly contains all things, so if there isn't any mathematically possible way to actually do that, then universe itself is a faulty model.
>>16931644So math doesn't extend to physics ie physics isn't derived from math? You can have a physical framework that contains all physical bodies even though you can't have a mathematical framework that can contain all mathematical truths?
>>16930176From memory, a person in the afterlife has to set off a universe after traveling down a random wormhole tunnel (Big Bang mass re-consolidating), and there's a red energy string free-falling with them that catches up near the end of the wormhole tunnel. It then lights up super bright at a point as the energy string reflects the person. Then it condenses to a small point far in front of the person, and then the universe expands out. It looks really quick from that perspective, ready to live through.
>>16931646Yup. Just another reason why physics isn't maths.
>>16931659So physics isn't actually mathematically valid and can't possibly contain mathematically valid truths, which is why it isn't subject to mathematical axioms?
Nothingness and something is the same thing. Your experiences were never real and aren't real even now.
>>16931667>Nothingness and something is the same thing.Close, but nothing is the smallest possible amount of something, its very similar, but different in scope.
>>16931661Math is used to describe reality, that doesn't mean math is reality.
>>16931672Why are you trying to change the subject from physics to reality? The question wasn't whether incompleteness disproves reality, it was whether incompleteness disproves the universe construct as a mathematically valid physical model of reality.
>>16931674ah, I see. you're an idiot.
>>16931678this kind of smugness over anonymous posts are so embarrassing and gross, quit being a nigger
>>169301761/6
>>169301762/6
>>169301763/6
>>169301764/6
>>169301765/6
>>169301766/6Not bad, kid.
>>16931678You are the retard that can't justify your conflation of actual reality with a mathematically derived physical universe while actively admitting that math isn't reality.
>>16931726>>16931727>>16931728>>16931729>>16931730FUCK OFF
>>16930236Nothingness isn't, therefor something is the only state.An anon told me this once and it stayed with me.
>>16930176hi anon, ive been working on the same thing lately heres some of what i got, "equilume: aqualume (noun): The state of dynamic homeostasis in a system where logarithmic input is matched by the system's capacity to process it without requiring a linear override (Linialume) or suffering a chaotic collapse (Exolume). It is the ideal flow state where data density and predictability remain in total equilibrium. Regulatory Capture vs. Phase Transition:Linialume acts as a dampener. It is the imposition of a "flat-map" onto a "globe"—it makes the terrain manageable and measurable at the expense of true scale and topography.Exolume acts as the rebound. It is what happens when the tension of that artificial "flatness" becomes unsustainable, and the system snaps back to its native, high-dimensional reality. Linialume (noun): The phenomenon in a computational or feedback-based system where a logarithmic progression is forced into a linear state; an override protocol that flattens an exponential growth or decay curve into a constant rate to achieve predictability or stabilization at the cost of information density. Exolume (noun): The systemic collapse of artificial linearity; the reversion of a governed constant rate back into its inherent logarithmic, exponential, or chaotic state. It signifies the loss of predictability as the system "escapes" the flattening override, resulting in a rapid, potentially volatile, surge in information density or energetic throughput."
>go on /sci/>another metaphysics threadWhat can your model predict? Nothing? Then it's not physics. It's philosophy.
>>16932458good boy, you are making me proud
>>16931993Hello, I'm the author of the paper. This has been a social experiment on the mathematics or physics communities to see how long it would take the internet (x, reddit, stack exchange, arXiv, etc) to react or engage with an already peer reviewed formula that unites mathematics and physics with pure math.Despite dozens of experts and roughly 500 people reading the first page at least, needing no more than 10-15 seconds to realize the validity, you are the very first person to respond in any way or engage whatsoever. Congratulations, at approximately 5 weeks, this concludes the experiment. Results will be published alongside the paper proper.
>>16930176>ThoughtsReminiscent of the idea of ein sof, the logos, etc.
>>16933266clever meme. the 1 in a million posts by someone who is not an NPC and is actually clever and funny is the only reason I come here
I am convinced that /sci/ has just as many schizos as /x/, but the difference is /sci/ schizos call each other midwits when their schizophrenia is rejected.
Weird flex but OKOne thing is that reality is really there as far as words go and if I want to talk or speak about or make claims about reality OK then reality is a piece of reality as physics is also a piece of physics so if I create claims about reality I am also creating claims for a symbol system that those claims are also a piece of but this is a pragmatic account of reality and I could also, at least conceptually by the idea of pragmatic pragamata, go on to give an account of reality as described by the concept of pragamata or another concept as a description of or to reality which would make part of what you are saying a part of what I am talking about at this moment while not being determinant or indeterminant because being is not a category for the faculty of pragamata as so far outlined
I used to get real high on different things n come up with real high ideas about things but I don't remember a lot of them. But one of them is well there are other dimensions n shit maybe right, well what if like there is a place with no dimensions. What if there is a place called non existence and it doesn't exist. It fully doesn't not exist but it's where God and Santa Claus are. Not only that but what if there are other things in non existence too. What if, changing the idea a bit here, what if non existence does exist a little bit. A video game is basically a bunch of calculations plus a rendering of it. What if at times there is no rendering, what if at times there's not even any calculations, what if there are idk certain constants but also maybe rules, not formulas but a code that is set in stone. Idk
