Something can't come from nothing
cope
the big bang theory does not state that it came from nothing, KYS OP
>>16952772it literally explains time started with the big bang
>>16952774time and space as we understand them began with he big bang, this says nothing about what "existed" prior to our conception of 'nothingness'
>>16952774the current theory is that everything was packed together and the big bang is everything suddenly expanding outward. thats what the image you posted is showing.
>>16952754At the start the energy string was huge and held the amount the universe had for the equation. It just went through sizing configuration in the change with the person that collapsed it.
>>16952754except for my god. he can, because that's just how it is, and i don't need to explain it.
>>16952754If nothing existed, then logic also wouldn’t exist, and anything could happen. Now let’s talk about something more relevant, shall we?
>>16952754It’s not nothing it’s everything the last universe had in it, condensed into a singularity. Our universe will eventually collapse into the same singularity and then it’ll go bang, just as it did infinite times before and will do infinite times again. Or this was all a one-off and everything will get ripped apart into smaller and smaller pieces until its just an infinitely big inert blob.
at the very end of time where there is no longer any anchor the here and there is the same, hence a violent compression and then expansion, i call it the rubber band theory
>>16952774Nope. The Big Bang Theory describes how the universe evolved from a set of initial conditions. It doesn't say anything about how those initial conditions arose.
>>16952797>>16952799>>16952929pseuds
>>16952944Explain how they are wrong then, other wise your mom dies.
>>16952923That when all the people that exist are just floating around each other. Then it starts to happen! The children start hallucinating and then disappear. Then more and more people start to disappear! One of the reasons is an individual during the universe has accumulated enough symmetry to hold form till the final end of the universe.Only a few ever get through, totally scared me, and I quantum jumped to know more. Growth of people to help the future of us. The people that are fazed out are thrown down a hole that accumulates in a white energy ball. The ones that pass can see the super large people that made us, before residing ontop the white energy ball. That's why people are spread out in the energy of the bang.
>>16952754Math proves you wrong 0! = 0^0 = 100%.x= 0+x, nothing is the most fundamental component of something that can be quantified.
>>16952892Nothing and Logic both exist, nothing is one of the most necessary things needed to establish the first order of logic because something can only be itself if it is exactly what it is and nothing else, otherwise each thing would necessarily lead to an instant infinite regression to everything and it would be impossible to determine individual properties.
>>16953008Fail. 0 =/= Nothing.
>>16952923>i call it the rubber band theoryWhy rename the big bounce theory when it has existed longer than you have?
>>16952951>Explain how they are wrong thenokay>time and space as we understand them began with he big bangwhat does this even mean? time and space has an arbitrary finite starting point, yet derives itself as fundamental principles of physics 101? then where did the motion *before* the big bang come from if time wasn't a pre-requisite? >this says nothing about what "existed" prior to our conception of 'nothingness'okay, but if you're going to kick the can down the road, you may as well be implying an infinite regress. so the big bang is contingent on something else entirely, but that in of itself goes against everything the model suggests.
>>16953011Wrong, the equality specifically mathematically proves that adding nothing (x) is the exact same as adding 0 (x+0) which is why putting nothing in a spreadsheet cell is the exact same as putting 0 and if you have 0 things in your hand, you are holding nothing.
>>16953011x = 0+x also means that x-x=0, so if you have something and it gets taken away, what exactly do you have left if not nothing?
>>16953019x*0 = 0 but x*0 =/= x. Your analogy fails.
>>16952929>Theory describes how [ insert your favored here ] >evolved from a set of initial conditionsOh really, never thought about that.
>>16952772>the big bang theory does not state that it came from nothingIt states total BS because you will not receive the light to state it because you must be faster than the expansion. It's so utterly helpless that "science" isn't capable to see this obvious flaw.
>>16953026No it doesn't, you just don't understand what multiplication means, how it differs from addition, or how the additive element functions in each case, x*0 is not like adding nothing to x, it is like distributing x to nothing which still just results in nothing since you would not be distributing it to anything.
>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..>*knock knock knock*penny..
>>16953010Logic appears to exist in this universe. Doesn’t have to exist everywhere or prior to this universe. Ultimately when explaining why logic must exist at all, the answer is that there is no cause, the same with everything else. Because there doesn’t need to be a cause.
>>16952893>>16952754Our universe is just a popped pimple on the forehead of Zeus
>>16953016> but that in of itself goes against everything the model suggests.Not true. The model only describes space and time as we understand them in *our universe*. Maybe "space" or something like it exists outside it - we don't know. Maybe "time" or something like it existed before it - we don't know. By definition it's kind of hard to see things outside our universe. The big bang model only says how our universe went from very, very small to very, very large and into what we observe today.
>>16953094>Ultimately when explaining why logic must exist at all, the answer is that there is no causeYes, the word for that is nothing which is why I said it was one of the most necessary things for logic.
>>16952774No, wrong.
>>16952892whats the point of isolating logic a metaphysical phenomena with the big bang lol
>>16952754i blame the jews
>>16952754You’re right, god can’t come from nothing, therefore it follows that it makes no sense to believe he created the universe rather than some other, more explainable phenomenon.
Correct
>>16952754you can't just make a claim like this when you know nothing about quantum mechanics
Both atheism and agnosticism are naturalist positions thus not creationist positions. Its a TRUE DICHOTOMY NO POSSIBLE 3RD POSITIONBoth atheism and agnosticism are positions of non-positions, the difference is agnostics say they dont have enough information to make the callBoth positions are still in contradiction with 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics>not a single naturalist position is backed by natural science go ahead and name one (you can't)>God/creationism is scientifically proven
>>16952754Ironically something did come from nothing an atomic particle exploded out of no where
>>16957781particles spontaneously come from nothing all the time via particle pair production
>>16953016>where did the motion *before* the big bang come from if time wasn't a pre-requisite?Hey nigga how old were you before you were born? How far did you walk before you were conceived? You're one dumb motherfucker.
>>16957790>how old were you before you were born-x seconds>How far did you walk before you were conceived?0 m
>>16957797what was your name before you were born?
>>16953016>*before* the big bangno such thing. or at least completely unknowable to us. "before the big bang" is absolutely meaningless.
Define nothing.Then ask: can this substance be real?Answer: 1. Yes.Then the first symmetry break is between void and infinity, its logical equal and opposite.2. No.Then you answered your own question, dipshit >t. 3 PhD's>M-theorist
>>16957874Define substanceDefine real
>>16956349Some fancy math doesn't mean the universe works that way. There's zero evidence for that theory.
>>16957882I think therefore I am.Next question?
>>16958182cogito cogito ergo cogito sumkierkegaard already btfo that bullshit
>>16958186By what, killing himself? You're not one of those retards who thinks "pain is just, like, totally an illusion man..." until I punch them in the mouth, are you?
>>16952754At some point, something had to come from nothing. Otherwise how could anything exist. Also, the big bang is not even a creation event, it describes the state of the universe in the distant past, but not how it came to be in that state.
>>16958186That was pretty rude of me, I apologize. I've spent the past 6 months solving some hard problems and now normal people are like monkeys to me. I have become a colossal asshole. Your response was perfectly fair.Just wrong.
it's pretty gay we will never have all the answers for whatever the fuck reality is desu
>>16957744it's ok for god to be eternal but not the universe for whatever reason
>>16957874>Then the first symmetry break is between void and infinity, its logical equal and opposite.Law of explosion says a logical contradiction always leads to a deductive explosion.x=-x is the arithmetic description of a self-contradicting (ie self-negating) arithmetic logic element.Arithmetic axioms mandate the logical contradiction x=-x at x=0 because 0=-0 thus 0 can only be described as an oxymoronic valueless value.As a paradoxical consequence of 0=-0 as an origin number, completion of the arithmetic system necessitates leaps of the imagination that introduces complexity which infers x=-x for all x; x = x*1 = sqrt(x*x)*sqrt(1*1) = x*sqrt(-1*-1) = x*sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = x*i*i = x*i^2 = -x. Arithmetic is a numerical explosion of logic, all statements of truth made by arithmetic are trivial truths among infinite truths because its original number is a self negating logical contradiction that imbues self contradiction upon all values.The Standard Model of Physics is an emergent property of arithmetic by way of geometry, any models produced by physics, such as strings, rings, lies, groups, manifold, quantum foam or ultimately big bang, rely on arithmetic that is irrational at its core 0=-0 and not an accurate reflection of nature, by definition of logical contradiction and through the consequences described by the law of explosion.Total incoherence is at the most extreme poles where zero and infinity might as well be equivocated in their trivial projections.0 = 0 x 0 x ...infinity = infinity x infinity x ...Arithmetic/Physics is either illogical and irrational without making completely measurable predictions about nature or nature is illogical and irrational without being hindered by paradox or quantification predictions being infinitely trivial.
>>16958379Matter and energy had a starting point, directly proven by observable laws of the universeSo no the universe could not have existed forever nor arrive by itself
>>16958552>Matter and energy had a starting pointEnergy is just matter in motion and matter starts at the point where a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter split from each other out of a void in a vacuum which adds no net energy since 0 = 1 - 1.>directly proven by observable laws of the universeNo, the observable laws of the universe have led to numerous experiments that have proven virtual matter, antimatter, and matter can arbitrarily be created in a void vacuum via particle pair production and destroyed via matter-antimatter annihilation.
>>16952754>Something can't come from nothingIf there is nothing, there are no rules. So there is no rule that says it can't be something.
>>16958552>>16958789Hawking hypothesised the zero-energy universe. All the mass-energy you are talking about is counteracted by gravity which can be viewed as a kind of negative energy: Mass + Gravity = 0 Energy. So similar to how matter / antimatter pairs can spontaneous appear according to quantum mechanics, in principle so can a universe.
>>16958820No, gravity is a force, not energy, energy is a function of mass in motion, the units of energy are kg*m^2/s^s while the units of gravity are m/s^2, the same units of acceleration and force.
>>16952754>hurrrdurr muh gaaawdshut up retard
>>16958843We aren't talking highschool physics here dipshit. The equations of general relativity are literally "energy+mass = curvature (gravity)".
>>16958789Calculations are not the same as natural phenomenon nor natural laws>>16958820>>16958843>>16958859Gravity isn't even a forceEnstein threw it out with curvature of space-time he didn't believe in gravity.That means all the maths your using goes out the window if it isn't quantum mechanics.
>>16958859You can't even be consistent with grade school math, though, first you said mass+gravity=energy (meaning energy-mass=gravity) and now energy+mass=gravity instead?>CalculationsParticle Pair Production and Matter-Antimatter Annihilation are not just calculations, they are experimental observations.>Gravity isn't even a forceIt is, the curvature would explain the force acting on the mass, not replace it as a force acting on mass.
>>16959299The parts with the greentext were obviously meant for >>16959299.
>>16959299The "experimental observations" are based on the garbage sciences known as cosmic ray or spectroscopy studies, violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamicsQuantum field theory was invented to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity. That why I'm saying if the math isn't strictly quantum mechanics based then they're just calculations at that point and outdated physics
>>16952754It didn't.
>>16952754big bazinga theory and genesis are the same fucking thing>once upon a time there was only one thing, then it made everything in a very short time>what came before that?>NOTHING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
>>16959426https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220000717/downloads/Pair_Production_Chapter.pdfhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750006845/downloads/19750006845.pdfNo, that is not the only way to confirm particle pair production or matter-antimatter annihilation and its about things in open space, not in an isolated system, so its not limited by laws of thermodynamics that only apply to isolated systems.If you want the quantum mechanics interpretation of pair production and annihilation instead of the basic math, you can review the following.https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~baring/phys541/phys541_lec_110624.pdf
Hey, bro, you know that new EML equation everyone us losing their shit over? Shift the pole to -1 and construct a rational map replicating the Zeta dynamics and it'll boot from 0/0.You're not bad, kid.
>>16960028>>16958402What the fuck even is this website. It's like a DOS system fucked a gen 1 iphone.
>>16958308This.Any other opinion is dumb.
>>16959854Space is the thing violating the 2nd law. Classical physics and relativity were thrown out the window by quantum mechanics. I don't care what NASA says about their model assumptions or mathematics, they can't ever get things consistent
>>16958308>something had to come from nothingWhy should we assume that "nothing" is a default state?
>>16960053>Space is the thing violating the second law.Nah, it is the second law.Let's assume that everything in the universe obeys it. So, you push against something and it pushes back with equal and opposite force. Now apply that to logic.Instantiate "down" into a system. Guess what pushes back? Up.All you need to do to explain reality is apply Newton's second to logic. Instantiate nothingness. What pushes back? Infinity. Why can't people see that? Because you don't get grants for making things more simple. Modern science is a schizo-babble llm circlejerk by the collective unconscious of the academic elites sniffing one another's farts to ever greater ejaculations of satisfaction. Humans are like computer game characters obsessing over the user interface of their reality and completely ignoring the source code, which is pure logic.
>>16960075Logic an abstraction not a natural law I just told you that. You can't have any logical framework based on that axiom
>>16952754Intuitively the big bang happens because nothing cannot hold nothing, because "nothing" has no power to do so with, but this only tracks if there is a variation in power vs current size. So at a certain point "nothing" structurally fails and causes something, when it decays so far that the very randomness of existence overcomes the weight of existence (extremely close to zero). So the universe is renewed because of the massive energy of "everything" finally releasing. Universe goes on.Then, again, after an extremely long time in the new universe, we reach heat death and eventually absolute zero, which propagates the cycle by imploding again (we are not in the first cycle of the big bang).This is also why there could be parity violation, as the spread may be slightly random for each big bang cycle, the idea being that on the first cycle of the universe it would be in balance.So maybe "something coming from nothing" has something to do with a perfect 50/50 parity.
>>16952772thisat least criticize scientists when they make up pure baloney like dark matter/dark energy. no philosopher honestly believes the universe came from "nothing"; scientists know it came from something, but whatever it was wasn't time or space or matter.>h-hey guise the universe is 99.9% made up of this shit we can't observeok sure, maybe your model is just FUCKED. ever think about that?
>>16952754The funniest thing about your statement is that something literally comes from nothing constantly everywhere all the time via virtual particles and the Casmir effect.You're just fucking retarded lol.
>>16960383how can you prove it's from nothing? you can't. you just rely on what others have told you.did it ever occur to maybe those people are wrong? science is a priesthood man. they just make shit up when they don't have a real answer, because some answer = better than no answer among the plebs. it's not like the plebs can tell the difference between reality and fiction.
>Let P be the proposition "X is exactly empty">Let all facts about X be indexed by X.>Therefore, if P is true then X is not exactly empty. It contains the truth value of P.>If P is untrue, then X is not exactly empty.>Therefore, X is not exactly empty.Ergo, the universe cannot be a static void.
>>16960384And why should I trust a person on the internet more than the people who invented cars and flushable toilets? All these great inventions come from physics.A hand-crank flashlight actually works and the people who invented can explain why. You need to apply the force of your hand to crank the wheel and push the electrons through the wire and then the electrons get photons scraped out of them when they pass through the filament.The Casmir effect is not just hypothetical it's a real experiment that proves the existence of virtual particles, Hawking radiation is another example of virtual particles, that's when something comes from nothing.But let's suppose you are skeptical, like you are clearly skeptical of this, there's even a philosophical argument here.Essentially, what is "nothing?" Can nothing exist? Why do we exist if something cannot come from nothing? The fact that we exist at all proves that existence has a sort of "priority" over nothing, in a way, I've never experienced nothing, it's more likely that the concept of "nothing" is made up, than the concept of something, because I have proof of "something" right in front of me now, but there's no "nothing" in the room with us right now, it's something you just made up hypothetically that doesn't exist.And even if nothing did exist, you could represent it as the combination of two opposites. Fire + Cold = Lukewarm.Nothing is just two opposites combined, and therefore you can split nothing into two opposites. Like matter + antimatter.Lol.
>>16952754no shit?SIR Roger Penrose agrees with you.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
>>16960384Nothing is a made-up concept.Nothing does not exist.Where is this nothing if you are truthful, show me it? Where is the nothing that allegedly existed before the something? Is it in the room with us now?Everything is relative, hot is only hot compared to something else, light is only light because you can compare it to a shadow and from the shadow you know that the light is light.Nothing is just the combination of the light and the dark. The hot and the cold make lukewarm, and from the lukewarm you can derive both the hot and the cold. Nothing is just the presence of two opposite forces that cancel each other out.There is no reason to believe the initial state of the universe was nothing, and you can never actually prove it makes sense that was the initial state of the world. And so therefore your proposition is irrelevant.The actual studies just show everything apparently "expanding" whatever that means, I'm sure only a handful of people really understand it, and if you reverse time then about 13-15 billion years ago would be the point in time when everything was compressed into an infinitesimal little ball.Lol.
>nothing is a made up concept>nothing does not existBut you just said it's a concept.
So... it does exist. As a concept. And if it exists as a concept, then it exists in reality, unles you believe thoughts are magic and don't happen physically in the brain.
>>16960392Let me rephrase.The idea of the sky and earth just being a bunch of nothing at some point in time is the made up concept that doesn't exist. Lol.
>>16960394It's a made up concept that you just experienced physically in your brain.Either it exists and you can talk about it in a sentence or it doesn't and you can't even refer to it because there's nothing to refer to and you're just talking in circles.Make up your fucking mind dude.
>>16960390nothing is the absence of something. from whither do particles come from? what explains the mysterious actions of electrons? i don't know. "i don't know" is a more honest answer than you will get from the priesthood.
>>16960394>>16960396Apply the pragmatic maxim: if either of you are right and the other wrong, how would that change your respective behaviors?
>be catholic priest and major astrophysics autist>propose a theory that the universe started expanding from a single point and spitball how this might be proven experimentally>euphoric atheist declares himself your archrival, insisting you made up your theory to support your hokey religious belief>"something can't come from nothing christcuck">"oh yeah, as if god just made everything in some BIG BANG">soon even supporters of your theory are calling it by the name invented to make fun of you>the pope endorses your theory and you freak out because you're afraid he's proving the other side's point>after you retire and shortly before your death new evidence comes out definitively settling the dispute in your favor>decades later your theory is universally accepted by euphoric atheists while religious nuts call it a lie invented by satan>"something can't come from nothing libtard">"oh yeah, as if everything just appeared in some BIG BANG"
>>16952754Your sentence is too vague to be worth a serious critique but tangentially I find the "big bang theory" to be fundamentally misguided.
Even if the Big Bang was the absolute beginning, it's not like there was an eternity of nothingness before, it's just the beginning.Just like there isn't infinite nothingness north of the north pole, there just is no such thing.
>>16952754God is something too.
>>16952754we are too small and too ignorant at the moment to answer the big boy questions about universe origin.however it seems we live in a hole made by BIG explosion we named BIG BANG. because if we look far enough, we can see things outside which dont fit the current theories.the simple explanation for this is very simple:> something exploded> with so massive force it essentially had enough energy to slap pieces of atoms around so hard it even made gold and other hard-to-make atoms>the force teared space / time around>eventually the debris cooled down and formed our galaxyit even explains why milky way is in middle of nowhere and why no aliens came to say hi. we live in gigantic crater which acts as natural barrier to everything else outside of it.and the satelite simply for the first time sees things outside the crater, which were so far away they were not impacted, hence why they are older than big bang.
>>16960058Because if you remove all else, it is what remains by definition, x-x=0.
>>16952754I chegg'd an interview the other day to a prodigy dude with 170 IQ. he said he was a christian, but only when he was 15 yo, top leel
>>16953099no it isn't
>>16961420so you're saying we're the aftermath of an alien superweapon so powerful that it destroyed many galaxies
>>16962166Wrong Saar, no cause for something and nothing caused something means the exact same thing and every native English speaker intuitive understands that fact.
We haven't figured out what dark matter is yet have we? There is obviously something there. And shit in the universe, shapes and stuff crops up in humans and nature. Maybe something thing reacted with dark matter??? How I imagine the big band to be is like static on earth. Shit all comes together and it just pops out of nowhere when you're near certain things. You guys put sums and physics into it to try to explain it but I just think about it and that's how it seems to me. There is that paper than turns instantly into smoke as soon as it touches a flame. So there is something there, and something combined to create something else. Or god made us because there hasn't been another big bang that has wiped us all out has there?
>>16962197>alien super weaponmy favorite theory is collapsing black hole. the more matter it sucks in, the greater diameter of the horizon gets. and eventually the force which is centered in middle isnt strong enough to hold it all together at the outer layer and then it pops and spews everything out.
>>16960364> dark matterDark matter is not made up, dark matter is the name given to apparent mass that cannot be accounted for.
>>16952754Actually, I find the logic that everything comes from "nothing" to be the only logic without holes (actually there is intention, but it is not measurable, though it creates). If something comes from something then we always have the unsolvable chicken egg problem. In the beginning there was the word; everything starts with a decision, Neo; Nomen est omen.
>>16960364>maybe your model is just FUCKED. ever think about that?people have thought about that, longer than you have been alive. and they ended up realizing that assuming this leads to even more absurdities and contradictions than assuming there's undetectable matter/energy binding galaxies.
>>16960134You don't even realize that your are fallaciously attempting to use logical abstraction to invent an axiom that you can't have logical frameworks?
>>16960364>scientists know it came from something,Yea, nothing, that is the word for the most base layer and smallest possible amount of something.
>>16960384>how can you prove it's from nothing?0 = -x +x, 0! = 100%, 0^0 = 1There are many proofs available to choose from if you were actually looking for proof instead of actively trying to blind yourself to it.
>>16960390>Nothing is a made-up concept.It is a logical construct and mathematical element.>Nothing does not exist.Nothing is the smallest possible amount of existence and thing that exists to make sure that anything can remain itself via additive identity mechanics.>Where is this nothing if you are truthful, show me it?I don't need to show you, you constantly see it with your own two ears.>Where is the nothing that allegedly existed before the something?Between something and itself and between any things in direct contact.>light is only light because you can compare it to a shadow and from the shadow you know that the light is light.So now you are arguing that things (photons) aren't even real since they require shadows (no photons) to be measured?>Nothing is just the combination of the light and the dark.>Nothing is just the presence of two opposite forcesSo now its definitely a thing just like 0 is the number you get when you combine x and -x?How exactly do you think you are disproving its existence by proving the way it exists?>no reason to believe the initial state of the universe was nothingSo how many reasons is that, what is the initial number of a number line, why would it be different for a number of particles or moments?>you can never actually prove it makes sense that was the initial statex - x = 0.What was your initial state, are you saying that you have always existed instead of you were nothing, then two retards had a fuck, then you existed?>studies just show everything apparently "expanding" whatever that meansIt essentially means counting as in sequentially going from zero to one to every multiple of one.>I'm sure only a handful of people really understandSo you basically admit you don't understand and are using your ignorance as validation for your explanation?>infinitesimalWhy would you think infinitesimal was a more coherent value than 0? Show me some math of infinitesimals that is as useful as the additive identity.
Prove it.
>>16952774So? Time isn't everything. So all it means something else caused time to happen.
>>16953010Sounds like a lot of rules there. Can you prove those rules existed before the Big Bang?
>>16962984The axiomatic 2nd law isn't an abstraction and I never claimed it to be.If your "logic" contradicts it then you don't have sound logic.
>>16963231I didn't say anything about a big bang, if you mean a state of purely nothing, then everything just reduces to nothing and nothing else by the logic presented which is only really 1 rule being repeated as often as necessary and that 1 rule is the least amount of rules possible since trying to make no rules the rule is paradoxical which would instantly lead to a logical explosion of infinite rules. What are these "lots of rules there" you are indicating?
>>16963610Even saying "1 rule exists" has many rules embedded in it. Since to even say that you need definitions of numbers, rules, and existence.
>>16963729No, I covered that those are all the same thing at that level, the one rule exists are all just different ways to describe the same nothing when nothing is the one rule that exists so nothing is the one thing, nothing is the rule, and nothing is the existence, so its just like saying 0 = 0+0+0.
>>16964194>0=0+0+0That's now a new rule.
>>16964201No, its a truncated version of the same rule as before where 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
>>16964203>Truncating a ruleSounds like yet another rule.
>>16952754something something quantum virtual something... uhhh... fundamental elements... yeah... virtual... thigns like tht... they get... like real y'know... *burp*
>>16964264So nothing else different from nothing.0 is a different 0 than 0 that results from 0+0?How much are they different by?How much does the yet another rule differ from the original rule?
>>16960028elaborate? im not good enough at math to fully understand what youre sayingi constructed arithmetic in mathematica with just eml and 1. how do i shift the pole and boot it from 0/0?
>>16965926You are the one providing answers to all those questions while somehow denying that you are.
>>16966467Yes exactly, the point is that they all result in the exact same answer because they are statements of the same rule, 0 (0 difference between nothing and nothing else, 0 difference between 0 and 0+0, different by 0 amount, and the rules have 0 difference), rather than multiple different rules or answers as you implied.
>>16952754>Something can't come from nothing
>>169665480+0=0And 0+0+0+...+0=0are different statements. You need multiple rules to explain why they are both zero. The universe could have just as easily had a rule that says "all infinite series sum to hbar/2".
>>16960384They come from "nothing"?Spacetime is not nothing, first you must produce "nothing" without a container, mass, spacetime, or energy, and the. Demonstrate virtual pairs coming from that nothing. Describing virtual pairs coming from an already existent universe with everywhere that is riddled with fields, and non-zeto energy, which is not even close to "nothing", you absolute retard
>>16960387Hawking radiation doesn't come from nothing though. It requires the schwartzschild radius of a black hole to originate from, a black hole that is constantly absorbing photonic radiation and mass, and is mass.What happens if something moves faster than c, if it were theoretically possible for something to move faster than c? You would see it moving in reverse. An object moving at 1.1c appears to move backwards at 0.9c, that's what hawking radiation is, photons reversing their time component. That's what gravity is, time-reversed photons. Science already uses imaginary time to solve path integrals. If there's an imaginary time component, which QFT cannot function without, then there is negative time, because the complex unit circle of time from which imaginary time is assumed, demands it.Therefore, any amount of the "evolution" of the universe could have occurred in imaginary time, negative time, negative-imaginary time, or the time mass is limited to perceiving. There's no way for science to definitively claim otherwise once Shrodinger introduced "i" into the equations governing QFT and science accepted it as factual.
1-D1^2 + i^2 = 0^21^2 = -i^2Therefore1,-1 = i, -i2-DLet 1 = A, let i = B, 0 = CA^2 + B^2 = C^23-DLet A = sin(x), B = cos(x), C= 1Sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1^2Sin/csc + cos/sec = 1^21/csc^2 + 1/sec^2 = 1^24-DLet sin(x) = mc^2, cos(x) = pc, 1 = E, c = 1/gE^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2E^2 = (mc/g)^2 + (p(√(c/g))^2E^2 = (m/g^2) + (p/g)^25-D mindLet 1 = Truth, sin(x) = pride, cos(x) = shame, csc(x) = humility, sec(x) = wisdomTRUTH^2 = pride/humility + shame/wisdomTruth is the pride of humility and the shame of wisdomTruth^2 = humility/pride + wisdom/shameTruth is the humility of pride and the wisdom of shameSame formula; relativity and QFT are metaphysics smuggled into physics.
>>16952754why not?
Photons do not experience time.Thus there is a steady state model involving photon interactions as the fundamental substrate.
>>169527540 = +1 - 1Woah, check it out, I started with nothing and ended up with a +1 and a -1.
>>16966977Math is not physics. Math is a conceptual abstraction. How many concepts can you fit on the head of a pin?I could say the 14th root of 4,782,969 is 3, and that's a valid mathematical expression, but what, in the physical universe, has an input that is naturally applying the 14th-root of the input to result in its output? Nothing. Because mathematics is its own domain of episteme, that physics steals from while proclaiming itself a sovereign domain of episteme along with language.
>>16957790>>16957816funny how sophistic faggots on /sci/ will say>the big bang only describes data we can observe, it says nothing about what came before!then contradict themselves moments later.
It's all bullshit scientist headcanons about reality, fundamentally no different to Vedic meditations on the true nature of Brahma and whatnot.
But I did eat breakfast this morning
>>16966649Only in the sense that tarded and retarded are technically two completely different ways of describing your arguments.
>>16966921>Spacetime is not nothing,The smallest amount of spacetime is nothing, for example, the space that exists between two things in direct contact or the time between two connecting moments.
>>16966997>Math is not physics.Math underpins physics.>Math is a conceptual abstraction.Upon which physics is built.>How many concepts can you fit on the head of a pin?The same as the number of physical laws you can fit on the head of a pin.>what, in the physical universe, has an input that is naturally applying the 14th-root of the input to result in its output? If you want to figure out 14 generations of third life decay.>Because mathematics is its own domain of episteme, that physics steals from So how did it validate your argument to say math is not physics only to end up concluding that physics is math?
>>16967128No it is not. Spacetime is not even ontologically primary. Spacetime's existence is dependent upon mass and energy, making an emergent property of mass and energy
>>16967162>Spacetime's existence is dependent upon mass and energyNo, space is dependent on the meter, time is dependent on the second, mass is dependent on the kilogram, and energy is dependent on the kilogram times the meter squared divided by the second squared. You can derive the units of energy from the other units, but space, time, and mass are fundamental.So based on your claim that space and time emerge from energy and mass, how many units of energy do you have to pump into a unit of mass to create a unit of space and/or time?
>>16967124There is an entire branch of mathematics dedicated to rules about infinite series. It tooks people thousands of years to develop the formalism.
>>16967165Produce pure spacetime without mass or energy then
>>16952754It seems obvious that the whole concept of "nothing" simply isn't real and it's just a human perception thing so that we can make sense of reality.Yes even by human logic if you say "something can't come from nothing" well just think about it for a second. There sure is a lot of something everywhere and we've never truly observed "nothing". So this idea of "nothing" sure seems quite falsifiable...The concept of "zero" only exists as a state of equilibrium i.e. two or more "somethings" cancelling each other out NOT as an empty "starting point" for anything.
>>16967083>headcanonsDo you eat "foods" and listen to "musics"? The plural of "headcanon" is "headcanon" you dumb fucking ESL retard. You're not intelligent enough to be posting about the big bang theory. Shut the fuck up.
>>16967356
>>16967356>SAAAR DO NOT PLURALIZE THE WORD BLOODY BASTERD BITCHTrying too hard, ESL bro.
>>16967368>whats a mass noun???>n-no ur the esl!!They're not sending their best.
>>16967369>>whats a mass noun???But the word 'headcanon' is not strictly limited to being a mass noun, either. Treating it as a countable noun is also correct usage of the word.I swear, you ESLs and your autism about 'preciseness' crack me the fuck up.
>>16952754You are incorrectly applying the rules of the universe (inside) to whatever is outside of the universe.
>>16952754the epistemic nonsense of "something coming from nothing" is derived from the composability nomencalture of what we do as humans (if you dont know what that means you are fucking stupid go back to school) its a category error in our wordage therefore it shouldn't be possible right? guess what nigga it is we can simulate the big bang and another jesus will come out lmfao, but we cant even control the god that comes out of the large hadron collider since it has infinite power so all we can do is wait for the current god to come out
>>16952754shut the fuck up muzzie
>>16961983Why should we remove all else and assume 0 is the default?
>>16952774no, it states that the further back our models simulate, the faster things appear to accelerate.An inverse singularity.
>>16967297I literally just said that space, time, and mass are fundamental.You are the one saying that you can make spacetime emerge from mass and energy, so you are the one who needs to prove that you can produce spacetime with mass and energy, not me.
>>16967348No, zero is based on the logical concept of the additive identity, a thing that is inert and intangible, not on two things canceling out.
>>16967624The definition of default hinges on a state of inert inaction, so to get to that state, you would remove everything that can change something else's value when compounded.
>>16967705You're misunderstanding, I'm saying present pure spacetime by itself devoid of mass and energy.
>>16967297Spacetime doesn't have neither mass nor energy, it's a mathematical tensor model in 3+1 dimensions
>>16967845The challenge to present pure spacetime devoid of mass, energy, fields etc is still the requirement to prove it's fundamental existant.Present pure spacetime or stfu
>>16952754>Something can't come from Nothingnessfify
>>16952754>Something can't come from nothingRight. And, so, time and the universe don't have a beginning or an end. Time is illusory from the perspective of conscious observers, as you know. In our little corner of spacetime, we see 4-dimensional (spatial and temporal), omnidirectional cycles of mass/energy density phases that look like universe-forming spatial explosions and hypermassive black hole "crunches" and universe-ending freezes. But space and time exist. Everything that obeys coherent rulesets happens. Permenantly and forever. Forget about how time "feels" to us.
>>16967820No, you don't clearly understand that mass being fundamental means space and time are just as dependent on mass as on each other and that you are the one claiming you can create space, time, and mass out of energy because energy and massless particles rather than space time or mass are fundamental. I can show you how energy is release from mass in space over time with bombs and the like under the assumption space, time and mass are fundamental, but can you show how to make space and time and mass out of energy since you claim those things emerge from energy rather than energy emerging form the interaction of mass in space over time?
>>16960390>Nothing does not exist. We -- the participants in thread but, more broadly, the human scienctific endeavor -- are going to remain confused, talking past one another if we can't find a shared definition of "nothing" and agree upon what it means to "exist."Can we try it this way, just as a thought experiment:Let's agree that the concept of numeric zero (0) exists. I'm fairly certain that's non-controversial. But when did it begin existing? Did it exist before any human conceptualized it? If not, then why a human? Furthermore, why any conscious observer at all. Is it fair to say that plain, logically-pure statements exist permanently, with or without material minds?
>>16968228>the concept of numeric zero (0) existsI'm anticipating that my setup here will draw complaints that zero is a cultural construct and, in a certain view, it could be said that constructs don't exist outside of the context of culture. I probably should reframe the line of thought I'm having. Let's pick a different factual element. A statement that will be universally true from the perspective of any intelligent species, anywhere in any galaxy in our universe. Can we presume that these are true statements:1. Any sufficiently-intelligent, technological species in our universe will, barring some extinction event, develop a numeral system to represent integer values. 2. In any such numeral system, using any base, whether discovered and named or not, there *exists* a basic-form Fibonacci sequence equivalent to [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8...].3. The first element in this basic Fibonacci set is zero (0).Can we agree that those are three true statements and those truths exist even if not discovered or conceptualized by a technological species?
>>16968228Unfortunately that can't be agreed upon because a large contingent of human's believe that everything is the hallucination of some unknowable cosmic horror, even their own lived experience, so they would just say nothing is just some word that some hallucination's hallucination invented to describe some illusion that is technically just a word and isn't actually really real.
>>16968234Zero is still a number. Nothing wouldnt even be a number. Definition of nothing: "Nothing" defines the absence of all existence, representing not anything, nonexistence.So it literally tautologically follows from its own definition that nothing doesnt exist. And yes this is a useful mental concept because it allows for differentiating between imagination and reality. It is an existential operator ok and the default operator is that things exist and then if I ever say something imagined is really nothing then Im really differentiating between the mental representation that is not an actual (except for being an actual mental representation ofc).
>>16968266>Zero is still a number. Nothing wouldnt even be a number.Zero is a number that represents the additive identity, nothing is a word that describe the same thing. Doing/having nothing and doing/having zero is the exact same thing, its why x is the same thing as x+0 and leaving a blank cell is the same as putting 0 in it.>So it literally tautologically follows from its own definition that nothing doesnt exist.No, by your definition, nothing is what exists when all else ceases to exist which is why {X}-{X}=0.
>>16968228I agree that zero exists regardless if humans have discovered it or not, in the same way objective morality exists. Also zero is not nothingness. It's a state within a system where something is absent.
>>16968277>No, by your definition, nothing is what exists when all else ceases to exist which is why {X}-{X}=0.This is based on the assumption that things can ever fundamentally cease to exist, which I reject. I agree that superficial understandings of things can cease to exist, like for example a chair can get destroyed, but it cant existentially fundamentally cease to exist. Every destruction necessarily is a reconfiguration and a creation of something else. Fundamental substance is immutable.
>>16968283Then nothing can't cease to exist either, so your attempt to wish it away with word magic isn't going to work. Nothing must exist for a chair to exist because if nothing didn't exist between the chair and the person, the chair and the person would be the same thing and chair would lose meaning since it would no longer be something for a person to sit on since the person wouldn't just be sitting on the chair, it would be part of the chair.
>>16968285If you don't understand what Seven is saying then you shouldn't try to argue against it either. Get a grip.
>>16968285It is interesting when mathematicians and physicists accuse anybody of word magic. Maybe first check themselves before they wreck themselves. Formulas are word magic too.What you are describing is empty space which is still space, so not really true nothing, besides that there is air and dust and so forth in it.
>>16952890that's why these conversations are kinda pointless, creationists walk you through the whole:>"everything comes from something, it' basic causality, you wouldn't expect to find a fully functional clock layint on the beach that randomly flew together">"well except for this thing that has to be a being with specific intentions and actively made the whole universe, also it's a guy and he doesn't want you to wear shoes on sunday"
>>16968293>Formulas are word magic too.Formulas are in response to observation, not the other way around, its not a word invented then trying to justify it.I am very clearly not describing empty space, if things are in direct contact like a butt on a chair, there is no empty space between them, only pure nothing.
>>16968266imagine a tesseract. can you simplyfy it why maintaining its defining features? If you could would it look like a Torrid? does a torrid describe a 1 sided tesseract? Can that be simplified into a zero sided tesseract? what does that look like?
>>16968466while* not why
>>16968283i'd love to hear your specific thoughts on this >>16968466
