Anyone can explain how can something exist out of nothing? How can something be created out of nothing? If time is fake, matter is fake, energy is fake, fields are fake and made by thing beyond our comprehension, who made the things that created these fake things?
>>16946965Obviously some supernatural force beyond physics is what created the universe and earth.The things you listed aren’t fake they are real because they have a physical existence. The way we describe them aren’t real or is just pure abstraction. You cannot actually see atoms or electrons so we come up with clever formulas and techniques to describe and measure them. Which are abstractions. The word abstract means no physical existence. An idea is an example of an abstraction because it doesn’t exist in the physical world.We will never understand everything in the context of how the universe works/created because there are physical limits with what we can observe or see.So it’s impossible to have all the answers. It’s just better to accept we can’t have all the answers and work with that.
>>16946965lol it’s mostly modern physicists and mathematicians who say everything is fake
>>16946965Define nothing. Define fake.
>>16947005>Obviously some supernatural force beyond physics is what created the universe and earthWhy is that obvious?
>>169469650 = -1 + 1
>>16947031Because there is order and structure to the universe which is why the universe is intelligible in the first place. Christianity came up with the theory of the intelligible universe in which modern science derives from. But I digress..A better explanation is to challenge your idea of language and semantics and ideas and treat them as human made constructs only humans use. Now with that blank slate ask why is there something rather then nothing? You can go back and forth with endless feedback loops of logical parameters that are unknown because that’s not a question humans can realistically answer. Because truthfully we don’t know.Or we can look for simple explanations you say an iPhone never assemble itself into existence. There was an intentional actor that was an artist who learned his environment that he may assemble an iPhone. Nothing has ever just appeared out of dust. Everything has intent for its existence.
>>16947055Something and Nothing are the same
>>16947055Honestly it's not even worth starting with you. First paragraph is already wrong in so many ways.
>>16947076>nothing caused.... nothing!>now give me a nobel prizeYou're retarded.
>>16947031Existence is the most /x/ thing there is.
>>16946965>Anyone can explain how can something exist out of nothing?Same way "something" exist out of your monitor. From start to end there has ever only been the monitor. Nothing was created, nothing was taken away, only your perspective of it changed.With reality, it's just a movie of 3D frames played out on a timeline, with the displaying "monitor" been your consciousness. The "laws" of physics are persistent patterns that we have observed so far in said frames. The real question is, who/what determines said patterns and how can the limitations be broken. I think we'll find soon enough.
>>16946965>Anyone can explain how can something exist out of nothing?0! = 0^0 = 100%>How can something be created out of nothing? Nothing is the smallest possible amount of something, if you already have nothing, then you have seeded the potential for everything else.>If time is fake, matter is fake, energy is fake, fields are fake and made by thing beyond our comprehensionYour mind?>who made the things that created these fake things?Your parents and teachers when they applied lies to children that you ran with to form your own unique worldview.
>>16946965It has multiple symmetries to break point.
>>16947055>Because there is order and structure to the universe which is why the universe is intelligible in the first place.No, you can only make a small subset of things intelligible, the rest of reality is entirely out of your reach and beyond your comprehension, you can not possibly prove that every single true object is bound to the exact same container because a universe is mathematically impossible via incompleteness.Christianity also came up with the idea that you should rip your appendages off if you might be tempted to sin, but I don't see a whole lot of christian quad amputees since christians don't tend to actually believe anything they report.>Now with that blank slate ask why is there something rather then nothing? But that doesn't make sense, it is mathematically impossible to have something specific without nothing since it is a absolute necessity that x = x + 0 because if x=x+x, it would infinitely regress before any x could be coherently measured.>There was an intentional actor that was an artist who learned his environment that he may assemble an iPhone. So The Grand Canyon couldn't have possibly been formed by water over time, god would have had to have worked out some deal with his poseidon like angel to get it made?>Nothing has ever just appeared out of dust. Nothing surrounds dust and is inside dust keeping it as a stable mote instead of instantly regressing to infinite dust.What did god appear out of, if not nothing?
>>16947076Kind of, nothing is the smallest possible amount of something.>>16947093>nothing caused.... nothing!No, nothing is nothing and functions of nothing mathematically must have caused everything else.0! = 0^0 = 100%
There was never nothing.
>>16947038what a beautiful, elegant demonstration
>>16947798uhm ahckshwually the gods are a polyamorous council we call atoms and all of reality follow atoms because they are the hip new gods of the new world unlike your old weak gods. The power of tiny inert law makers is very scientific and confirmed multiple times through consensus. Also, consciousness doesn't exist, there is no awareness, and it is true that true things are unknowableheckin sciencarino
>>16946965>How can something be created out of nothing?It's a difficult or even impossible premise if presuming total, inactive, nothing. It's easier to work off the presumption that the universe is eternal, substance is without origin, and our sense of it beginning and ending is an arbitrary application of properties we see in our own life to something which transcends it.>If time is fakeTime isn't fake, you can only have a fake perception or understanding of it. The most we can say about time in a general sense is that it's the implicit structure of ordered events of undefined epochs and their subtraction assumes an undefined duration (vector space over time, value is undefined but has order, origin and sign); non-general time systems are made by attaching a metric to duration (typically from a quantum, for example the time it takes light to travel a planck-length relative to anything else) and then offset the events by some origin (big bang).>matter is fake, energy is fake, fields are fakepretty much the same as above, you can only have a fake perception or understanding of it.>and made by thing beyond our comprehension, who made the things that created these fake things?This reality is trivial, it just happens to be one of many stable configurations which supports our existence and thus our ability to observe it. If it wasn't we wouldn't be capable of observing it to know that. You can make arguments that it was made, but you can just as well make the argument that it wasn't (so as to suppose it exists and was never 'born' in any sense).The only difference between accepting a creator and an eternal universe is that accepting a creator supposes a problem (whom created the creator) which only terminates by "nothing created it, it's eternal", it's easier to assume there's no creator and the universe itself is eternal because it requires less assumptions.
>>16947005Invoking a deity to explain the creation of the universe today is no different from cultures thousands of years ago deciding the sun must be some kind of god, because they didn't yet understand what it really was.
>>16947038>>16948840but where'd the 1 come from?
>>16949553Do you understand what it really is?
>>16950423The sun? Yes. The creation of the universe? No, and it's possible no one ever really will, but I still don't need to invoke a supernatural designer to fill that gap in my understanding
>>16948977Nope, atoms can only fill points in space and points are the 0D objects I was referring to.
>>16946965cats wanted to exist and they made it happen
>>16950532Cats were made by demons to aid and abet witches while carrying around mind controlling brain worms.
If 0.9999 = 1. Nothing = something
>>16950556Close.Nothing = FLOOR(something)
>>16946965>Be empty headed OP faggot>Produce gay OP>Hurr durr how emptiness produce non-empty??You're so meta op.
>>16947038>>16948840The official scientific term is particle pair production.>>16949628It came from the harmony of 0 to balance out the -1 just like the -1 came from the harmony of 0 to balance out the 1.
>>16950479>The sun? Yes.I don't think you do.
>>16951348Obviously... that is how psychological projection works, you tend to think that others suffer your personal limitations.
>>16951348Of course an astrophysicist would understand it better than I do. But it's not hard to grasp, in a general intuitive sense, an object having so much mass and gravitational pressure that fusion occurs at its core
>>16947031In a causal universe what created the first cause?
>>16946965>It is IMPOSSIBLE for something so basic as physical matter and energy to just occur out of nothing!>OBVIOUSLY a hyperintelligent, sapient and sentient being capable of visualizing and fabricating matter and energy in extremely specific patterns according to a specific brief about what it'll look like after 14 billion years just formed from nothing, and then made matter and energy.>Cope and seethe PhD holder! Your 'science' cannot answer what my fundamental truth and logic, which fits into an A5 book to carry on your person, can!It is one of the great natural wonders of the world, that so many people like this exist, and they can't comprehend how ridiculous they are.
>>16957621So why cant your prescious big bang theory answer what came before it?If it is so simple sir?And your so knowlegable.Tell us. What came before big bang?
>>16957629Big bang theory is nonsense invented by priests to justify god with spurious physics. A universe is a mathematical impossibility since its not possible for one system to contain all true objects.
>>16957621do you ever grow tired of communicating like this?
>>16957629>>16957794You have an incomplete video clip of a balloon being inflated and expanding. If you play it backwards, you can deduce that it started with an empty balloon, without seeing that part. That's all the big bang theory is- seeing expansion and concluding that the universe was smaller and denser in the past. It doesn't pretend to know or try to explain what the true beginning was or where it came from.
>>16958059>You have an incomplete video clip of a balloon being inflated and expanding.No, we have incomplete video clips of light extending indefinitely in all directions and inferred expanding inflation and balloons from that.>seeing expansionBut we don't see expansion, we infer it from multiple measurements that are inconsistent over time by a fudged red shift factor.
>>16946965It can'tIt didn'tIt isn'tIt isn'tThey aren'tThey aren'tNothing, they always existed, time is only a meaningful concept when entropy appears and will stop being a meaningful concept when entropy maximizes
>>16956462The zeroth cause.
>>16957845Did you just see the template without actually reading the text? It is pretty clear the poster was voicing their frustration with that style of communication.
>>16947005>Obviously some supernatural force beyond physics is what created the universe and earthNot true. This real always existed. There was no beginning and no creator >nooo but it doesn't fit with my earthly physical "laws"well though luck bucko. you'll have to learn to deal with it one way or another
>>16960231*realm
>>16950556>0.9999 = 1nice try
>>16946965Can anyone explain why we aren't just the product of a black hole? Maybe we're kind of like a white hole.
>>16960628There's a theory (more like a bong rip idea) that universes result from when a black hole decays.
>>16946965It didn't come "out of nothing." There was no "nothing" before because time and space didn't exist. Existence began with the big bang. You can't have a cause if there's no causality.The history of the universe demonstrates a trend towards "increasing complexity," which means "significance of elements to each other. In the very early universe it was too hot for atoms to form, when it expanded and cooled enough for atoms to form the possibility for stars forming in galaxies emerged. The first stars forged the heavier elements of which Earth is mostly comprised, which made the emergence of life possible, which made the evolution of consciousness possible, which made exploring the questions of existence possible.The universe is creative, continually generating novel structures and relationships, grasping from its immediate realizations towards potentiality. Curiosity is an extension of this primordial eros of the universe. Every impulse to explore, create, discover and love comes from not merely its 'fitness value" but from the deepest nature of reality. This is the reason why science is so powerful: the universe "wants" to know about itself (More correctly: us wanting to know about the universe is an extension of its aconscious creative impulse.)
>>16960873>There was no "nothing" before because time and space didn't exist.You do understand you are getting closer to nothing than further, but what else was there if nothing that occupies time or space existed?
>>16946965Yeah, it's simple, it just is
>>16946965can't you comprehend "we just don't fucking know"?
Testing in shitty thread
>>16946965>how can something exist out of nothing? It can't. Nothing doesn't exist. It's just fallacies in your brain, probably from the fact that you can have one apple or zero apples.You could just as well say there are infinite nothings. Does anything change? No.>If time is fakeThis doesn't mean anything. Again it's just your brain playing tricks on you.
>>16962069>probably from the fact that you can have one apple or zero apples.Not just apples, in the process of not holding, you simultaneously hold zero of everything and the word for zero of everything is nothing.Nothing is the only thing that MUST exist before anything else can exist because if x != x+0, then x = x+x which means x = (x+x) + (x+x) which means x = ((x+x)+(x+x)) + ((x+x)+(x+x)) which means x = infinity for all x.
>>16962439This logic is silly.. you treat abstract mathmatics as absolute truth. Your saying the fact you can have 0 objects (apples) implies that you can have nothing in the universe. then something. 0 to 1 I don't understand how this proves anything.Math is just a point of reference to measure things. Mathmatics IS NOT how the universe operates. Its just a clever tool, humans made up.
>>16962891>Your saying the fact you can have 0 objects (apples) implies that you can have nothing in the universe.Yes, nothing is what is between the 1 apple and your 1 hand when you are directly holding an apple in your hand, you can only hold so many things and nothing else.>I don't understand how this proves anything.I sense that you don't understand most everything and will just give up and make up a bunch of excuses for your mental impotence when pressed.>Math is just a point of reference to measure things.I accept your concession, nothing is measurable which is why you can model it with math symbols like 0.>Its just a clever tool, humans made up.Yes, its a tool to measure and articulate how the universe operates built on the tool of logic which also necessitates additive identities and nothingness in order to function.
>>16946965Define "nothing".
>>16963074The smallest possible amount of anything and everything and the thing that gets added to anything and everything else without changing them.
>>16963079Well that's not how everything came to be. There was an awful lots of something gathered together until it couldn't hold any more, then it went everywhere.
>>16963084>There was an awful lots of something gathered togetherYes there is an awful lot of nothing from which opposing particle pairs can be produced.>until it couldn't hold any moreNo, there are infinite 0s in every 0 since x = x + 0 which means 0 = x+0 = (x+0)+0 = ((x+0)+0)+0, so there is no limit to how many zero a zero can hold. >when it went everywhere.No, everywhere goes where ever particle pairs are produced from a void.
>>16963079>He can't read>>16962069>It's just fallacies in your brain, probably from the fact that you can have one apple or zero apples.
>>16963087>Its a fallacy because you can hold it yourselfThe word for something you can interact with your using your own senses is empirical, not fallacious.
>>16963089Just because you can have no apples doesn't mean "No apples" is something that "exists" or that applies to fundamental existence. It's fallacious extrapolation.
>>16963091No apples exist in my hand right now, though, there is nothing fallacious about that statement, I can directly sense it, and it can be measured by a third party.If "no apples" couldn't fundamentally exist, then the whole of reality would be overwhelmed by apples because there couldn't be no apples anyways and every apple would have to be made of infinite arrays of infinite sets of apples on apples all the way down.
>>16963096>No apples exist in my hand right now, though, there is nothing fallacious about that statementNo one has said that. If it's that hard to understand for you you need to just leave this board.
>>16963099>No one has said that.Then if you are no longer arguing that its fallacious to say no apples exist, I accept your concession, no apples exist in my hand right now, so I have a direct intuitive empirical way to validate the factual objective existence of "no apples".
>>16963074>Define "nothing".It's when "X exists" is false for any X.
>>16946965>out of nothingNothing doesnt exist
>>16963147So? Where does OP say nothing "exists"?
>>16946965>how can something exist out of nothing?>>16963148Literal first sentence implies in the question that nothingness was at some point the initial state. There was always a something that wasn't "nothing" that every other something came from.
>>16963150>Literal first sentence implies in the question that nothingness was at some point the initial state.No, it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to understand that statement without taking nothing to be a state but only the denial of any state.
>>16963152Then "out of nothing" is redundant.You can just say "how can things/anything/everything exist?"
>>16963158>Then "out of nothing" is redundant.No, it isn't. That's there to indicate that causality seems to break down. You sound like a retarded bio-LLM getting itself tangled up in rhetorical patterns with zero grasp of what anything means or implies.
>>16963160>to indicate that causality seems to break downNo fucking shit Sherlock, its part of the ultimate question, with the answer being "something else was there", not "nothing, then something"
>>16963161>No fucking shit SherlockYeah, but you're a barely-sentient mongoloid who needed me to spell it out for you. Looks like your context window is ~2 posts, so you've already forgotten how we got here.>the answer being "something else was there"This answer demotes causality from being ontologically fundamental to being, at best, an emergent consequence of this universe's physics.
>>16963162Don't talk to people like that.
>>16963162Causality isnt broken in any way if there was something there beforehand you pompous faggot, the point of your entire question indicates that you're a fucking brainlet >>16946965>If time is fake, matter is fake, energy is fake, fields are fake and made by thing beyond our comprehension, who made the things that created these fake things?None of those things are fake, and none of them require the authorship of a maker to exist. Fucking kill yourself
>>16963165>Causality isnt broken in any wayI didn't say causality is broken in any way. It's pretty funny to watch you fall flat on your face over and over again in literally every post.
>>16963167>I didn't say causality is broken in any way.Most people would consider things happening initially "just because" as a broken version of "causality", where in every other aspect you can think of, its taken for granted "ontologically fundamental".You are a faggot splitting fanny hairs over something that doesnt matter
>>16963169>Most people would consider things happening initially "just because" as a broken version of "causality"Yes, you drooling chimp. But wasn't it your contention that you can circumvent this issue by supposing that something has always existed? This doesn't necessarily break causality but it does limit its scope and makes it derivative to something else that can't be accounted for in the way of any natural event. So you've effectively gone from playing retarded word games trying to find faults in OP's question to invoking some precarious metaphysics.
>>16963174>But wasn't it your contention that you can circumvent this issue by supposing that something has always existed?Yes>derivative to something else that can't be accounted for in the way of any natural event.SureThe actual wordgame is the term "nothing " being used. That's it. The initial point I made wasn't wordplay it was against it, and the clarification is not "precarious metaphysics"
>>16963178Ok, I'm just gonna ignore your psychosis-tier attempt to save face about your failed GPT-2-tier rhetorical games and wait for you to justify your belief in the supernatural. Alternatively, I'll accept your concession that you believe causality is optional in nature. :^)
>>16963181>wait for you to justify your belief in the supernaturalYou asked for a clarification, I gave it, and you're upset. My condolences.>>16963178>that you can circumvent this issue by supposing...Its an issue to you because you're a faggot. Its not an issue to me because I dont care that I dont't/won't know, and that complete innability to know might be baked into the structure of things, so all you can do is ask questions that go nowhere, and either a) move onb) end up in philosophical circle jerks with knob gobblers like yourself
>>16963193>You asked for a clarificationFull-blown psychosis. Either way, I accept your concession.
