Q: what caused the big bang?A: nothing caused the big bang because causality is a feature of the universe and the big bang was the beginning of the universe, therefore the laws of the universe don’t apply to it.
>>16975770you couldn't possibly know if causality did or didn't work before the beginning of the universe
>>16975770Okay so just say "God did it" at this point if you're going to imply something more fundamental than causality created causality.
>>16975770Incompleteness proved that a universe is mathematically and physically impossible, no logical system can contain all truths and no physical container can contain all physical objects.
People aren't complex enough to relate to each other here but contain enough complexity to achieve that. The standoff means there's a difference in being here from where they came from.
>>16975853You are a low-IQ Jeet studying to become an EMT in a white country. Stop pretending to understand what the incompleteness theorem says
>>16975886You are an angry retard with no argument, stop pretending like your flagrant ad hominem non sequiturs contain some kind of logical reasoning.
>>16975888My argument is that you fundamentally misunderstand the concepts you evoke to such a degree that trying to argue with you about them is pointless. You will double and triple down on the most retarded things even when your error is rubbed in your face.
>>16975891>when your errorThe problem with your "argument" is that you can never actually point out any logical errors because you are too busying worrying about what a dum jeet poopyhead jerk moron nonwhite jew npc llm undergrad third world faggot esl someone else might be.
>>16975770>causality is not a fundamental feature of natureOk.>causality is a feature of the universeProof? You've just established that nature can do without it. Or were you implying the Big Bunga was a supernatural creation myth?
>>16975894It's not even a logical error. It's a categorical error.Godel's incompleteness theorem specifically applies to systems of logic. Attempting to apply it to physical reality is the error.And you're just gonna double down like a moron.
>>16975904So are you saying reality is systematically illogical?
>>16975905The universe is not a conscious entity. Asking if it's "logical" or "illogical" is meaningless. It just is. Logic is an invention we use to attempt to describe it.
>>16975908So you're saying the device you wrote that on, which operates on boolean logic, doesn't have a logic because it's not conscious?
>>16975910Wrong for two reasons. I'll let you twist your 3rd world brain for a little while trying to figure out why. Hint: the question you asked in this post is fundamentally different from the question you asked in your previous post.
>>16975911I accept your concession. What a way to forfeit your own whiteness...
>>16975896>>causality is a feature of the universe>Proof? You've just established that nature can do without it.IT JUST HECKIN' IS, OK??? It was just revealed to me in a dream.
>>16975912You can keep telling yourself that, little jamboy. You've demonstrated long ago that you can't comprehend the distinction between a thing and the language used to describe the thing. It's a classic low-IQ trait. Nobody's gonna be able to argue extra IQ points into you.
>>16975919>seething
>>16975925>jammin'
>>16975904>Godel's incompleteness theorem specifically applies to systems of logic.So? Any rigorous physical theory can be framed as a formal system. If the theory corresponds to reality, anything deducible in that formal system should correspond to a physical fact. If it happens to be powerful enough to allow the construction of Gödel sentences, there would be true but unprovable statements in the theory that (by analogy to normal derivations) should correspond to real facts (that can't be accounted for by physics). I don't find this argument particularly convincing, but you're clearly not much smarter than the jeet and can't actually find the problem.
>>16975905No, he is saying the physical universe is an illogical system of describing reality.
>>16975911No, you only intuit it, you don't know why you think it, so you can't logically articulate why it is true, hence the seething meltdown.
>>16975938>he is saying the physical universe is an illogical systemThen he's pretty retarded, isn't he?
>>16975936All that means is that any system we come up with to describe reality will be an incomplete description of reality. That conflation between the system we develop to describe something and the thing the system was developed to describe *is* the flaw.
>>16975940Yes, but it would be impossible to quantify all the ways he is retarded because of incompleteness.
>>16975942>All that means is that any system we come up with to describe reality will be an incomplete description of reality. Wrong again.>That conflation between the system we develop to describe something and the thing the system was developed to describe *is* the flaw.No such conflation happens anywhere in my post. Also kekt at you trying to use reddit markdown.
>>16975938That is not what I said.>>16975939Reason 1. "Does not have logic" is not the same as "being illogical.Reason 2. Boolean logic is just a system to describe the way the transistors in a computer interact. A particular configuration of transistors is an "AND gate" only within the confines of the logical system that we're using to summarize the physical interaction.
>>16975942>All that means is that any system we come up with to describe reality will be an incomplete description of reality.Which means that "everything" can't ever possibly be every thing because it is actually an incomplete description of things, some things can't even really be categorized as things no matter what definition of "things" you choose.
The only correct answer is "we don't know."
>>16975951Holy Mother of All Pseuds. And there I was thinking his irrelevant mumbling about category errors was retarded.
>>16975949>No such conflation happens anywhere in my postI didn't say it did. But that is the error the Jeet was making.>trying to use reddit markdown.Punctuating with closed asterisks is not exclusive to any markdown format.>>16975951This is wordbrain made manifest.
>>16975950>That is not what I said.It is, what you said means logic isn't a property of the physical universe.>Reason 1. "Does not have logic" is not the same as "being illogical.illogical means lacking logical infrastructure>Reason 2. Boolean logic is just a system to describe the way the transistors in a computer interact.No. boolean logic was done on pen and paper far before being implemented in transistors.>A particular configuration of transistors is an "AND gate"That isn't boolean logic, that is a device that performs boolean logic.
>>16975954Basic Auntie of All Dimwits. And here I am still thinking that making no arguments isn't a real argument.
>>16975958>illogical means lacking logical infrastructureIf you are to use this particular definition, and not conflate with other uses of the term "illogical," then this statement:>logic isn't a property of the physical universe.Is correct.>boolean logic was done on pen and paper far before being implemented in transistors.Not relevant.>That isn't boolean logic, that is a device that performs boolean logic.Does not contradict anything I said.
>>16975956>Punctuating with closed asterisks is not exclusive to any markdown format.It's exclusive to the format of reddit-trained LLMs.
>>16975962Must be why you never attempt to make logical points and all you do is contradict yourself and concede.>Not relevant.Sure, the fact that something can be done without transistors that you tried to assert was a property of transistors is totally not related.>Does not contradict anything I said.It shows you don't even understand what boolean logic is because you essentially don't understand the difference between a calculator and a calculation.
>>16975770>nothing caused the big bang because causality is a feature of the universethis demotes causality from an ontologically significant principle to an untestable pseudo-empirical assertion. you've basically cut it off from any philosophical support and left it to be torn apart by empricist skeptics, its worthless remains to be picked up only by pop-sci midwits (like you). good job, OP. you've outdone being a faggot
>>16975956Yes the fact that you believe in everything because its a word, but you can't actually quantify it makes you and your worldview peak word brainery.
>but you can't heckin' quantify the word!!!!OP is such a faggot he's gonna argue with this fucktard unironically
>>16975964The color "red" is a property of blood.There us no blood in red paint. What a contradiction!A system used to describe an interaction does not imply the system does not apply elsewhere. And I never said an AND gate is boolean logic. I said a particular configuration of transistors can only be called that within the confines of that logical system.Both word-brained and terrible reading comprehension. No wonder you're do full of delusion.
>A system used to describe an interaction does not imply the system does not apply elsewhere.>And I never said an AND gate is boolean logic. I said a particular configuration of transistors can only be called that within the confines of that logical system.Holy kek.
>illogical means lacking logical infrastructure
>>16975971You didn't say it was a property, you essentially said red was made of blood when you said boolean algebra was a system of transistor interaction, also the definition you just gave of red is a terrible way to define red.>A system used to describe an interaction does not imply the system does not apply elsewhere. I implies that it is not as you described and is actually something else that can be used to make your description,> I said a particular configuration of transistors can only be called that within the confines of that logical system.Yet you don't even need transistors, so its pretty dumb to base the definition of boolean logic on transistors just like its retarded to base the definition of red on blood.If words are so bad, why are you trying to hard to use them to justify yourself? Why don't you prove your point with something else?
>"everything" can't ever possibly be every thing because it is actually an incomplete description of things, some things can't even really be categorized as things
>you essentially said red was made of blood when you said boolean algebra was a system of transistor interaction
>>16975975So is all of this crying just about a poorly interpreted "just" in my earlier post? Keep on jammin' boy.
>>16975976Its why they have to invent virtual things and imaginary things?
>>16975977So you do still think boolean logic is a property of transistors rather than a property of logic even though its explicitly called boolean logic instead of boolean transistor system?
>>16975980You do realize more than one person can mock you at the same time? Especially when you're doing everything in your power to make a mockery of yourself.
>So you do still think boolean logic is a property of transistors rather than a property of logic even though its explicitly called boolean logic instead of boolean transistor system?
>>16975982> more than one person can mock you at the same timeUhhm, but can you quantify that?
>>16975987It's incomplete.
>>16975978No, its because you don't understand incompleteness despite being a wordbrain so you think you can make a complete description of reality simply by calling it everything even though that has been mathematically proven to be impossible.
>you think you can make a complete description of reality simply by calling it everything even though that has been mathematically proven to be impossible.
>>16975770Causality is just another manmade creation to understand our existence. We want to strictly believe that A leads to B. It gives our lives meaning. It justifies our big brains. Causality may the most important theory of science but only because it is the first abstract idea we had.
>>16976017>It gives our lives meaning. It justifies our big brains. Causality may the most important theory of science but only because it is the first abstract idea we had.That's four retarded claims in a row, anon.
>>16975995The definition of a set does not say anything about the knowability of the members contained within it. But you're too brown to understand why that fact dismantles your argument.
>The definition of a set does not say anything about the knowability of the members contained within it.the sheer density of pseudbabble ITT is amazing. post after post of this shit. i love it
>>16976032Sharty-nigger...You bully me a lot, but I like you.
