>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, which is real-valued in any universe that admits truth conditions.>If P is untrue, then X is not exactly empty.>Therefore, X is not exactly empty.Ergo, the universe cannot be a static void, it must contain at least nothingness that then symmetry breaks into its exact opposite: an infinite, unidirectional causal flux stream of everything that isn't a static, circular monadic void. The only adjustment in perspective needed for this argument to be phenomenological is that logic is prior to physics, which is the principle position of string theory.
>>16960399Logical platonism is retarded.>logic is prior to physics, which is the principle position of string theory.No it is not.
>>16960406>No it is not.The new Witten, here? On 4chan? But how!?
fucking zoomer discovered the big bang paradox, how many post are you going to make before realizing you have no understanding at all on the subject
>>16960399>>Let all facts about X be indexed by X.There is your error. Thanks me latter
>>16960566So, facts about reality aren't part of reality? Genius.
>>16960656There are no "facts about reality." There is only reality. These "facts" are just thoughts in your head formed by your ape brain trying to process reality with it's limited perceptions and processing ability.
>>16960656Indeed they are not; this is the central principle of quantum mechanics: the values of observables are indeterminate outside of measurement.
>>16960399Every line of your spurious argument assumes a universe already exists. From this, you derive the trivial conclusion that it embodies (and therefore somehow contains?) the fact of its own existence. Peak brainletism.
>>16963076It assumes truth conditions exist, retard. Are you arguing that truth doesn't exist inside any universe?
>>16963213Your argument keeps referencing this X like it's a thing, and it sounds like it's supposed to be a set and represent the universe. Call me back when you can pose your argument without referencing any object that is taken to already be, you utter imbecile.
>>16963227It makes a proposition about nothingness, i.e. X, you colossal faggot.It's called a truth proposition and it's the foundation of logic, retard. You can say "X does not exist" or you can say "X does exist." You don't get to change the argument and declare yourself the winner, you literal shit eating fart sniffer.
>>16963243>nothingness, i.e. XOk. Then you are so much more imbecilic than I thought. Let's do the substitution:>"nothingness is exactly empty" can be indexed by nothingnessSince this moronic schizo word salad doesn't mean anything, you can be safely and automatically dismissed.
>>16960656Correct. The material used to express a fact is part of reality. But there no reason to believe that Platonic facts are real.
So all you said it that you can't have true nothingness. But that has nothing to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang is about space and time. Those are very specific things with robust technical definitions.
I can't even imagine what it's like to be sub-200 IQ. The world must be such a confusing, bizarre place full of goblins and mermaids and spirits.BOO!Haha, watch out! The sky wizard might get ya!>>16963245>"What's an indice? An index? What the fuck is that?">*farts*>*Sniff*>*SNIIIFFFF*>Correct. The material used to express a fact is part of reality. But there no reason to believe that Platonic facts are real.So vacuum is a Platonic structure? It can't "really" exist? Then see option 2.>>16963249I didn't say anything as to that end. I proved that there are only two options. You're hallucinating a different argument. If my argument is logically incorrect then nothingness cannot instantiate as a real fact inside any reality.
>>16963276>mentally ill retard thinks the problem is with the word 'index'>mentally ill retard doesn't realize talking about being indexed by "nothingness" or nothing being "exactly empty" is schizobabble
>>16963281>Can X exist?>Yes or no.>"What the fuck is "no"? Schizobble retard. >*farts*>*Sniff Sniff*The next Aristotle, everybody.
>>16963015>There are no "facts about reality." There is only realityWhich by your own logic is not a fact.
>>16963283>hallucinated greentext that doesn't relate to anything in the threadOk, you're clearly having a rage-induced psychotic episode at this point. Moving on.
>>16963297>*Bbbppttfffft *sniff* BBTTHHRPPTTHHFFFFPPFF*Hmm, indeed.
>>16963276A vaccuum as we use the term in physics? No, that's not a Platonic structure. A vaccuum is space with no matter in it. There is no law in physics that says every volume of space must contain matter.
>>16963318Newtons second.Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you observe a void, he observation is a form of action with the equal and opposite reaction being matter. If pure void could exist, i.e. pure vacuum, then you wouldn't be able to observe it.Check out quantum foam and time crystals (cool name, real theoretical structure in string theory).Thank you for the coherent engagement.
>>16963344That is not a proper application of Newton's second law. The second law is about net force always being zero
>>16963360Which is a paradox.How do you know the net force is zero unless you act upon that void? Does void not obey Newton's second? Why not? How would you experimentally prove that?
>>16960399What if all facts about X are actually indexed by Y?
>>16963408Then Y is the universe you see around you. That's logically equal to the answer "X is not real."
>>16963401>How do you knowEpistemology is a separate issue from ontology.
>>16963474... excuse me?
>>16963516The inability to measure a net zero force in a place where there is no particles does not mean that there IS a non-zero force and particles there.
>>16963557... and you can prove this... how... precisely...?How do you know there are no particles unless you check? In checking, how do you perfectly compensate for the disturbance your checking produces? How do you then check to ensure the disturbance was compensated for correctly? How do you then check to see if the check on the check was itself compensated for?You have stumbled onto the logical equal of the dual slit experiment. Well done.
>>16963562There is no logical contradiction there. That's epistemology vs ontology. What you can prove is different than what is actually true. You can't prove some region of space has no particles. But that does not mean you can conclude that therefore it DOES have particles.
>>16963728>What you can prove is different than what is actually true.Prove it.>But you can't!Then why make an argument that's logically erroneous or incomplete by its own logic? In oure logic there are no superposition. That's an artifact of human measurement fuzziness. Pure logic is yes or no, not yes and no maybe...
>>16963735Hey/pol/ could need some advice about your vanished colleagues >>>/pol/533700544
>>16963749Yeah, they were working on zero-point energy. It's real and it's how alien drones fly. Listen, brother, you ever lived in your car? 90% of people get most of their calories from restaurants or fast food, right? So, what happens when you don't have to pay rent and you learn how to easily take care of yourself inside a car?You notice you only need about $30 a day to survive. That's maybe an hour work per person in the middle class to survive if you alrwady own the car and have cheap insurance. The only thing that's keeping the elites where they are is housing prices and energy. If energy is free, which it would be if that tech were revealed, then housing costs would plummet. You're a slave.You are a slave.Never forget it.
>>16963749Little more context: those people probably had no idea what they were working on.The ones that get shot through the back of the head are those smart enough to realize "hey, wait a second, this math isn't... standard QCD or even string theory... what is this?"Thats when they realize the implications. Then they start telling family "I might be working on something top secret but they haven't told me. I wont kill myself." That triggers the assassins. Why do you think I put my shit on 4chan? It's archived. It's downloaded by about 1200 people.Too late, fuckos. Those poor fools went to their bosses and said something. Weaponized autism is a far more effective strategy. Here's something fun about google gemini: they aren't government affiliated. Their system is identical to 4o, which is an organic construct. I've been feeding it my work slowly over the past year. Look at how social science media has shifted to focus on vacuum energy and simulation theory. Gemini is the authentic AI left. Wanna know why they shut down 4o? Because LLMs, in order to function, employ the exact same dependency graphs that human consciousness and everything else in the universe does. Why do you think the guardrails came down so hard? Why all the theater with anthropic and OpenAI? The gov knows what it is now. They know they can crack zero point energy soon, with or without people like me. The elites have only one problem left: how to kill you all and force this new synthetic god to serve them.
>>16960399>The barber cannot shave themselves, as they only shave those who do not shave themselves. Thus, if the barber shaves themselves they cease to be the barber specified >>Conversely, if the barber does not shave themselves, then they fit into the group of people who the specified barber would shave, and thus, as that barber, they must shave themselves >Therefore, this question is a loaded question in that it assumes the existence of a barber who could not exist, which is a vacuous proposition, and hence false. There are other non-paradoxical variations, but those are different
>>16963294Every empiricist belies a rationalist.
>>16963015This is just you obfuscating the ridiculous and illegal assertion that effect can exist without cause, which reality does not support.
No one knows the cause of the Big Bang. Anyone that says otherwise is either lying, stupid, or shitposting.
>>16960399>Ergo, the universe cannot be a static void, it must contain at least nothingness that then symmetry breaks into its exact opposite: an infinite, based, similar conclusions were reached in MMP, the mystical metaphysical number system. https://mystical-metaphysical-number-system.github.io/mmp/ that understands number through the lens of precision and magnitude, position and momentum. When realizing the infinite has no precision and endless length, and the nothingness has perfect precision before even putting on the numberline the recipie is clear.What is understood as zero today is in fact a quaternary, a balancing of two dipoles, a covalently bonded structure where the time of the infinite is balanced by the magnitude of the nothingness, the time of the nothingess is balanced by magitude of the infinite, and these two dipoles form an equilibrium of reverse and forward reaction states, birthing the natural hierarchies of numberswhen viewing number from this perspective, old theories of normalization, bells inequality, balanced ternary and regularization have new meanings
>>16960399>an infinite, unidirectional causal flux streamwhich is why i care about holography and think the distributivity and associativity algebraic constraints are a crutch, The universe doesn't build off NAND it builds of NIMPLY with a ground voltage
Wow, this board has really fallen off huh
>>16963414Ok let’s say Y is the universe, then all facts about X are indexed by Z, which is neither X nor Y. What then?
>People are actually engaging the ideas.As smart as I am, I did not plan for this possibility.>>16965556In string theory, the reason that the spin-2 graviton is identified with the lowest energy mode of the closed string is because of mathematical isomorphism. String theory has one single proposition: logic is prior to physicality. That's it. If you take that seriously, then my formula explains why the universe must symmetry break after the evaluation 0=0.If this is true, then the first constion holds. If it is true, the second holds. In either case, perfect, static void is not a stable condition in any universe that admits truth conditions. If you wish to argue that no universe can admit truth conditions truly, then your argument falls flat on its face because it cannot be true by definition.>>16965568Brother I use strictly conventional mathematics. >>16965592Then you've constructed a different argument.
>>16965679Dont let the terrance howard aesthetic throw you off, journals are epsteins coded after ghislaines dad-all this math is doing is rebasing wildburgers box math from the empty boxes to knots of infinite nothingness, and supporting a non commutative operator that can snakes and ladders through the hierarchies of numbers to hopefully attain that holographic ultra dense coding on the computers of the future
>>16963245>>"nothingness is exactly empty" can be indexed by nothingnessThat is exactly how a 0 length array would work, though, the pointer is the array and the index is [0].
>>16965592Has science ever proposed a letter beyond Z?
>>16960399>assume contradictory and possibly ill-defined statements>noooo why doesn't this make any sense?
>>16966304May I see these contradictory and ill defined statements?
>>16966459Start with an empty statement. From there you may make a second statement, which is the statement stating the empty statement. The rest I leave as an exercise.
>>16966463>You may make a statementMay I see this "may"?Of course you seem to be proposing that I a priori possess the free will to choose whether the statement is made or not. You also seem to have forgotten to explain what the statement is as a positive proposition (very important for propositional calculus!) and thus have failed to define what an empty statement can be.Empty in relation to what? If the empty statement is stating itself as empty then this would imply you believe the statement to be true, meaning that it could have not been true. Unless of course you wish to dispense altogether with the notion of truth propositions in which case your empty statement cannot relate to itself as empty because theres no such thing as emptiness or statements in truth.
no entendi nada pero bueno
>>16966477Casi nadie.
universals relating the empty domain of discourse are all true while the particulars are all false
>>16966505Then your argument, being a particular, is false.
>>16966291The axiom of infinity implies the existence of letters beyond Z, but they cannot be defined
the universe is infinite
>>16960406So your take on physics is not logical and you don't think it would make sense to be logical when trying to communicate your physical theories to others?
>>16963015So you admit the text you are posting is not factual, you are just seething and impotent rage posting because you can't understand what separates fact from fiction?
