How do anti-determinists justify something coming from nothing, which is essentially what they believe when they support quantum uncertainty

>>16655184 (OP)
Not everything needs to be internally justified. The universe has casual patterns but this doesn’t mean causality is an absolute fundamental principle of existence. If we in fact started with true nothingness, then there wouldn’t even exist a “law” that says something can’t come from nothing, and anything could happen and there would be no contradiction as there is nothing to be contradicted. If you remove all assumptions about what has to happen, then everything becomes possible, and this universe is one of many possibilities. A random number generator, given infinite attempts, will inevitably produce a number that looks like it isn’t random. It’s the same with our universe.

I’m not going to elaborate on answer any other questions. If you can’t understand this, then you’re simply too low IQ and don’t realize it. You’re just a stupid monkey trying to model the universe after his limited mind.

>>16655186
>>16655187
>and so, everything was just conjured…
Die.

>>16655187
>I has causal patterns of behavior but ackshually my existence is fundamentally spontaneous.
You truly are on another level of understanding. To you the phenomenological world is just a mere illusion of your limited mind. To you beyond all appearances there's something really magical. A comfortable thought after a hard day of getting fucked by causes outside of your control.

all magic comes from somewhere you probabilistic sons a bitches

>>16655187
They hated him because they told them the truth.

>>16655187
>The universe has casual patterns but this doesn’t mean causality is an absolute fundamental principle of existence
Mental illness.

>>16655184 (OP)
you need to prove something came from nothing. atm that's not possible. for all it's known, shit always was. there was never a time when shit wasn't. that's just a retarded hypothesis.
lesser brains cannot process this information. they'll also complain because they feel uncomfortable while thinking about it. also not a determinist

>>16655494
> a time
How about lets start by proving this even exists before we appeal to unicorns and fairy farts

>>16655494
>you need to prove something came from nothing. atm that's not possible.
Probabilist cunts will claim otherwise. “Dude it’s so random”.

>>16655515
>>16655552
you are both wrong. random has been proven and a Nobel has been awarded for it.
there's wasn't "nothing" and then "something". that's not a thing.
everything always was, this is a true statement. matter/energy arrangements can "come and go", for your primitive chimp brains. but matter/energy itself never was "created" and there was never "nothing". and matter/energy cannot be "destroyed". that is not a thing that makes sense. that's just dumbfuck chimp logic retarded.

>>16655555
>you are both wrong. random has been proven and a Nobel has been awarded for it.
Lol, no it doesn’t. You misinterpreted the entire experiment. It only proves reality cannot be both locally real. “Spooky action at a distance” applies. There are things that defy relativity as we know it. Things that move faster than light.

>>16655494
>>16655555
nineteen eighty nine tiananmen square massacre

>>16655187
>If you remove all assumptions about what has to happen, then everything becomes possible, and this universe is one of many possibilities.
booooooring, go write a book with your stupid shit take. hiding behind "hurr durr i m too smart so if you don't understand me you're low iq", get real you coward faggot, kill yourself.

>>16655555
You don’t deserve all those 5s

>>16656146
i mean, in his defense it is vacuously true

How can OP even be refuted here lmao

>>16655192
>>16655194
Lmao

All pure semantics desu

I swear there’s shit we just cannot parse

>>16655184 (OP)
That's Nietzsche.

>>16655187
>A random number generator, given infinite attempts, will inevitably produce a number that looks like it isn’t random.
Numbers aren't random, each individual number is a very specific value, once you have chosen a value, it isn't random, it is the specific number you picked, hindsight is 20/20 randomness is a quality of foresight and unknown variables not of discrete past choices.

>>16655494
>you need to prove something came from nothing
Nothing is something, discussing it is discussing something, only things can be discussed and named, so since we are discussing the thing named nothing and mathematically enumerated as 0 from the set {0}, it must be something and something necessarily come from nothing.
It was long ago mathematically proven that everything is a function of nothing 100% = 0! and nothing is a primary component of any random thing x = x+0, you can't make the logic of arithmetic function with the null background additive identity usually called nothing.

>>16655555
This dumbfuck actually thinks matter is conserved and still wants to try to give a shitty physics lecture anyway.

>>16655187
idk why people attack this anon , i also dk why he has to include a bunch of cringe pop words.
nothing , no rules -> something, anything, everything appears -> you faggots cannot say anything about it cuz THERE WERE NO RULES ,

>>16661823
Even with the rules of physics we have discovered, nothing is something, and its something measurable that exists at the foundation and on the border of anything and everything which is why expansion is constantly happening everywhere and the casimir effect is a thing we can exploit.

>>16655184 (OP)
>something from self
>something from other
>something from both self and other
>something from nothing

None are viable. You're better to adopt a Humean causality from mental habits and being skeptical of causality from objects themselves.

>>16661839
>something from self
>not viable
Everybody poops, silly lady, nobody believes your claims to the contrary, just let it out before you hurt yourself.

>>16661835
idk why u cannot conceive the concept, i also dk why u bring physics into this. if it does something then it isnt nothing, if it has properties then it isnt nothing. your confusion comes from physicists retardedly dubbing the thing u are talking about vacuum or whatever.

>>16661870
>if it does something then it isnt nothing, if it has properties then it isnt nothing
Not true. If it has a name, it is something.
Also you just defined nothing as the thing with the property of not doing anything, so even by your definition it still has to do something because it has to be something because you are seeking to name and define it because you recognize it as something.

>>16661878
sure im fine with nothing being this inconceivable thing that we cannot even talk about. what is ur point? nothing is this inconceivable thing that we cannot even talk about but it ACTUALLY FLUCTUATES ?

>>16656211
the numbers have spoken

>>16661806
prove you can create or destroy energy/matter. out of nothing. not borrowed from some fucking field, actually created from nothing. if you can't, shut the fuck up retard

>>16661835
but you cannot apply it to the universe existence. just because you can formulate the though doesn't mean it's a valid idea. you cannot apply it to the whole. there is no proof there ever was nothing, and then something. that is not real, never proven, no evidence for it. nothing is a human concept, which applies withing the universe, not outside it. you can talk about nothing like no something of this universe, in this universe. you can talk about no protons in a certain space, shit of that nature.
but just because you came up with the concept itself, doesn't mean you can willy-nilly apply it OUTSIDE of this fucking universe, just because. you need to prove it first, that you can apply the idea outside of the universe. you cannot just extend the concept outside our universe, just like that. that's idiot logic, only retards say shit like "well it is because I say it is". in science you need to fucking prove it can be extended. which you cannot. fucking moron.

>>16661932
No you clearly aren't fine with that since you are still actively discussing it by name.

>>16662316
Matter is not conserved retard, it can be created out of energy and destroyed such that energy of the matter is returned to the system that has obliterated the matter.

An empty field is literally just a bunch of null references to zero dimensional points in an arbitrarily sized array of nothing, quantifying an empty field with an infinite array of empty reference points is literally the first step of synthesizing an infinite array of things out of a bunch of pure nothingness.

>>16662611
Erm sweaty what does the "it" in ur sentence refer to ? Did u just activelly discuss it ??????

>>16662747
The same thing that has been discussed the entire reply chain and thread, learn to read and follow a discussion, dipshit.

>>16662764

>>16661758
>mathematically enumerated as 0 from the set {0}
no, 0={}, 1={0}={{}}

Good old probabilistic cunts

.

>>16655184 (OP)

I think you’re using the phrases “nothing” and “something” in a vague way.

Like, when people talk about matter/antimatter stuff being the explanation for “why there is something instead of nothing”, the “something” and the “nothing” are referring to different things than the people talking about first causes and whatnot.

The way you are using it is effectively just assuming your conclusion?

>>16655184 (OP)
Gottem

>>16655184 (OP)
I don't have to justify it. My opinions are already determined, and nothing you do can change them. In fact, why are you even making this argument?

>>16668661
Dumb frog

>>16670459
You’re a dumb frog

Isn’t quantum uncertainty too specific to be truly uncertain or random?

>>16655184 (OP)
Nothing is the most base thing from which all subsequent value builds upon, it is a necessary stabilizing quanta that sufficiently justifies an origin number that can reduce to nothing so that all other values avoid explosive infinite regression.

>>16655184 (OP)
We only know how to think in cause and effect terms, as how we evolved, there probably a bunch of mental constructs we cannot create or perceive, or integrate because of this. Flatlander type issue, fishbowl effect. Also, in the fleeting moments of your life here on earth, how much of it do you want to spend grasping for something fundamentally not within reach. Say we even did get some remarkable insight outside linear thinking and cause and effect, it may not better our lives or be applicable in any way, so cheers

Obviously choice is prior to time, as a dynamic system can exist statically if it is unordered, but must be ordered before it can be experienced linearly.

>>16655515
Time itself isn’t fundamental

>>16677749
No, but Shit Happening is fundamental. How is that not time?

>>16661634
lol

>Can any moon operators confirm if the tides are in control, and are all systems nominal? Skhskh over

>>16655184 (OP)
yes

Darn it

>>16655184 (OP)
Funny aint it

>>16655615
>Things that move faster than light.
yo mum for her daily milkshake fix

>>16678289
>No, but Shit Happening is fundamental. How is that not time?
I wish more would get this

>>16660635
This is just basic common sense and it still pisses off physicists.

>>16660635
Interesting idea, but parsing in this sense is a metaphor because ontology isn't strictly language or formalism and it necessarily must have some account for things that are not relations. In this sense, parsing wants for an operator over a ill-defined ad-hoc ruleset. Unfortunately, entities cannot be substituted without a kind of reflexive telesis - that is to say, that you have to know the result prior to the substitution to find a suitable replacement.
In a way, such a system is Begging The Question when making claims about things or not-things - but that it is constructed in a strange manner means BTQ too is another metaphor.

>>16655187
>If we in fact started with true nothingness, then there wouldn’t even exist a “law” that says something can’t come from nothing
This is in a way a good point. Maybe the problem for humans is that we don't really understand what nothing actually is. People see nothing as an absence of something, in the context of our experience in this world. Like people think they will continue to not exist forever when they die. "Not exist forever". Think about it. What would that be like? That's still probably the most widespread idea about death. And it's also an impossibility.

>>16678289
>>16686640
Why would shit happening be fundamental? It's basically causality plus saved states. That's a lot of stuff already.

>>16655184 (OP)
I don't believe in determinism and I think the universe is eternal. Our bubble, and thus the big bang was our area of the universe beginning to expand. There was and is no such thing as nothing, there only is, and this is is.

>>16655187
>>16655187
Upsetting post.

>>16678289
>>16686640

>>16690134
Idiot.

>>16690134
You are hopeless.

>>16655184 (OP)
hmm

>>16693987
HMMMM

>>16655184 (OP)
nothing in the quantum world is uncertain
not sure where you got that idea
anyway a fully-deterministic universe would still have to justify its own existence

>>16694770
>not sure where you got that idea
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
>anyway a fully-deterministic universe would still have to justify its own existence
It probably supports itself. It all meets in the end.

>>16655184 (OP)
What if I told you it didn't come from nothing at all?

https://iceni.substack.com/p/noetarchia-suprema-a-manifesto-that

>>16655184 (OP)
The "something from nothing" objection also applies to your "God".

They DON’T believe in it. Any belief they have is performative to fit into one of the departments who get funding to do this kind of numerology.

>>16695093
Just like in the past the king will generously reward a nutjob to read the entrails of an animal to guess the future, they now pay overgraduated subnormals to interpret ai dataming

>>16695093
They DO believe it though

>>16695093
They don't need to believe it when they have mathematically proven it and developed functional entire systems under that assumption and have retards like you buying devices built on the assumption just so you can go on the internet and question all the facts that made your life so easy.

>>16696806
>They don't need to believe it when they have mathematically proven it
Lol, lmao even

>>16696868
So you believe you can prove them wrong, but you don't even have any kind of math to prove their math is wrong?

>>16655184 (OP)
How do I moustache max like that

>>16655184 (OP)
They’re silly, aren’t they?

>>16661755
Why do people work so hard to avoid studying basic probability theory? It's not particularly difficult to learn how a probability/sample space works.

>>16655184 (OP)
…???

>>16697378
The proof is “no I’m not insane enough to think we’ve found the Root and it’s all lolsorandom”.

>>16700121
Dumb bitch

>>16655184 (OP)
It’s pretty baffling ain’t it

>>16655184 (OP)
>something coming from nothing
1. Empirically demonstrate that nothingness is a default state and somethingness has to justify being rather than the other way around.
2. Demonstrate that causality is some kind of spooky substrate rather than merely a physical property of spacetime as its own quantum field, much like other quantum fields have their own properties.
3. Demonstrate how the Bell experiments, the Casimir Effect, dark energy and radioactive decay can happen without the need to "support" (lol) quantum effects.
4. Show how to calculate the exact position and momentum of a particle if you think uncertainty needs "support" rather than merely being a fundamental aspect of the universe.

>>16655184 (OP)
Quantum mechanics doesn't mean there is something from nothing. QM is compatible with realist interpretation of the world if you discard locality and locality is not as big of a deal nowadays as it used to be because we now know that nonlocal behavior doesn't break causality.
Think of it this way. You're either a man or a woman and you can only ever experience the life of one gender. You've already rolled the dice and experiencing the life of a man prevents you from experiencing the life of woman. Once you are a man you can never know what it's like to be a woman and vice versa. That doesn't mean that the experience of living as a woman doesn't exist. Just because a particular instance is inaccessible for you to measure doesn't mean it doesn't physically exist.

>>16655184 (OP)
>something coming from nothing
I don't have enough blind faith to believe in retarded state-funded fairy tales. And if you consider the laws of the universe, you can't have an infinite/eternal universe (or an infinite past) as you'd already reach the heat death infinite years ago (no matter where you went on your timeline).

Also, buzzwords like "quantum" and "darkmatter" or "darkenergy" don't fix their creation myth.

There is a thread like this every week because people are too retarded to understand anthropic principle or think that Descartes's infinite regress argument is a valid form of reductio ad absurdum, which it isn't. It's turtles all the way down bitch.
Einstein had a valid excuse to confuse determinism with realism 70 years go. People really underestimate how much ontology and metaphysics have evolved since then. (You) today with access to all the knowledge? Not so much.

>>16703419
Shifting the burden of proof. How about you don't pretend the name of effects are the cause of the effects?

>>16704408
Dark matter and energy aren't a fairy tale but an extremely robust model with better predictive power than anything else. Midwits are obsessed with it because it has the word dark in it and you mistakenly believe it's ad hoc. I swear to God if I some egghead just called it something more boring back in the day none of you room temperature neanderthals would ever talk about it.

>>16704416
What fucking burden of proof. All the shit you don't like has been proven in a lab. If you think it's an artifact of another mechanism that better explains it then the burden of proof is on you because you're adding assumptions. And you're only doing that because factual data doesn't fit your preferred epistemology of the universe.
You're living in lalaland ignoring hard data because your monkey brain needs to relate everything to everyday phenomena because you lack the ability to think at a certain abstraction layer.
Don't like it? Give a better explanation for these results. Justify your explanation in a way other than trying to satisfy your favorite brand of epistemology!
>>>/r/philosophy will welcome you with open arms lol

Determinism says that there is always order to the difference between moments in time. Experiments show this is false. End of story, stop bumping one of 3 different determinism threads when you fail to find a rebuttal in one of them.

>>16704442
Shit still happens. That’s deterministic. Cope.

>>16704416
Nigga Bell's experiments and the Casimir Effect are the burden of proof delivered to your doorstep.

>>16704459
Is Better Call Saul a non-deterministic TV show since nothing happens in it?

>>16655184 (OP)
Empiric > imagination.

>>16704504
Oh yeah, and how do you isolate the so-called cause of the casimir effect such that you can remove it and the casimir effect disappears?

>>16704515
>Oh yeah but what if G-d was actually real and that's why fields have properties huh? Chheksmeaet aeththisiest
You right now.

>>16704523
Where did that confidence go? It is like you are brainwashed by midwit, women no-less, in education centers and have no critical thinking faculties.

>>16704524
That was my second post in this thread, the other anon probably got bored your insane ramblings, I know I am.
My first post was this one >>16704507, this one here is my last one.

>>16704515
>remove vacuum energy from existence
Negro please. The Casimir effect was predicted according to QFT, and the experiments confirm it since the plates behave as expected. If you have another model, do share.

>>16704547
So you have no means to separate between any causes and yet you are certain of the underlying cause. In that case, God did it.

>>16704547
Inshallah please respect yourself my brother.

>>16704552
>cause can be predicted according to a theory
>theory gets put to the test to see if it's false
>passes with flying colors as the results match prediction
I know it's hard to except a /sci/ nigger to understand it, but this is how the majority of experimental science is made: falsifiability. Again, propose an alternate model that leads to predictable and testable outcomes. What's your Lagrangian?

>>16704585
Shifting the burden of proof. My evidence for god is the same as his evidence of QFT. I observed an effect in my God model, therefor God did it.

>>16704417
>our model doesn't work
>let's invent something that we've never proven even exists to cope and save it
Okay reddit.

>>16704624
Explain why the observed results of the Casimir effect experiments mirror what QFT predicts, show us your counter-model, its formula, and what it predicts in falsifiable experiments, as well as replicable experimental evidence.

>>16704707
Still shifting the burden of proof. That which is reached without science can be rejected without science - as is the case with your measurement-cause duality experiments.

>>16655184 (OP)
>something coming from nothing
it's called "god"

>>16655184 (OP)
There is no compelling reason to believe everyth event has to be caused. Just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it true. The evidence suggests uncalled events happen all the time so until better evidence comes along that side my working hypothesis

I don't need a theory about particles to believe in God, I simply do, as did the people who laid the foundations of modern science.

If anything, it is my faith in God that unlocks the potential of my mind through discipline and sobriety as a Muslim. Heisenberg, the father of quantum physics, was a devout Christian. A believer in God.

>>16655184 (OP)
How do determinists justify nothing coming from nothing?

>>16705463

Nietzsche, on the other hand, was a certified madman who died in total mental darkness right after leaving some scribbles on religion. I don't think he could make heads or tails out of physics or particle fields of probability.

Your basic argument is that quantum fluctuations, something from nothing proves a prime mover of creation: God.

I see God in the songs of birds, the flowing of water, the love of those closest to me. In the infinite complexity of primes, the mathematics of nature, it does not hinder but helps me to apply my mind. I have no issue reconciling science and religion, when you peer into the unfathomable complexity of creation you will see the handiwork of something well beyond us.

It will humble you, we have barely charted our local neighborhood of galaxies. It is staggering how little we know and how much beauty we have yet to uncover. Science deepens my faith and love for God.

>>16700129
But 0 is the root to the number line, so all you are doing is saying that you are so stupid that numbers seem completely insane to you even though literal kindergartners in various countries and societies can count from 0.

>>16704416
>pretend the name of effects are the cause of the effects?
Not a single one of the effects he named were called the Nothing Effect, so your comment is completely unrelated probably stemming from the fact that you don't really know what you are talking about and english is not your primary language.

>>16704507
Imagination is empirical, it may be the one and only empirical thing there is where all the other senses are just an extension.

>>16704552
So if you remove nothing, what remains?
Isn't something already itself plus nothing?
How do you remove the nothing and still have the thing that depends on being itself and nothing else?

>>16704624
>I observed an effect in my God model, therefor God did it.
Except you don't have a consistent quantifiable effect to describe, your god model is in a constant state of change and according the the book there are very predictable effects you should be able to achieve simply by invoking the name of god, but you can't make meat spontaneously combust by naming a desert fire god, so your effect is a fail.

>>16704835
No, in the beginning, god came from the words and the waters, not from nothing, if god came from nothing and nothing was the beginning, then there would be no beginning, by definition, but the book of god says there was one, so it could not have been notihng.

>>16705464
Law of Identity, first order logic.

>>16655184 (OP)
It really is hilarious the more you think about it.

>>16705463
Quantum quacks believe they’ve found God in the form of quantum uncertainty. There is nothing before it. This is their belief. This is the beef I have with their belief.

>>16655184 (OP)
lol

ok

>>16655615
>There are things that defy relativity as we know it. Things that move faster than light.
Zero proof of this.

>>16655184 (OP)
God throws a dice.
>but how does the dice work? All real random number generators aren't random, wah wah I love Jews
The dice does not exist in this universe and its workings are therefore irrelevant.

>>16710061
The whole locality test proved it.

>>16655184 (OP)
>something
>nothing
monke think things

>>16710672
Faster than light means it has a speed. Speed is distance/time.
In quantum entanglement, there's no time involved, since it's instantaneous. Time is zero. You cannot divide by zero, therefore there is no speed.
There's no FTL information transfer, only correlation at a distance, which does not violate relativity.
QM does not need to violate locality.

>>16655184 (OP)
Sure in basically every way measurable the universe and everything in it are a ball deterministically rolling down a hill. But what started that motion in the first place, and why so confident in the assumption that it stopped exerting independent influence entirely after the first shove? Even if we say its all cyclical, the entire universe gets sucked up by a black hole and then big bangs over and over again or whatever, if you reverse that video infinitely back, you find... what? Time is a circle? That's literally just a guess, and not even a good one

>>16711997
>But what started that motion in the first place
There is no original turtle. It’s a loop of turtles, supporting itself. The ‘prime turtle’ is just the gestalt turtle - the turtle chain.

There is no original universe when the whole collective of universes feeds other universes. To say a universe just popped into being fully formed is asinine.

The multiverse is still just a universe btw.

Sometimes I imagine the classical agora to have been just like this.

N=1
you'r observation of a universe existing is insignificant

>>16712750
You have zero evidence for any of that. Quintessentially midwit

>>16712845
The evidence is not being a retard. A universe wouldn’t form without forming. It’s obviously some sort of fucking loop, if it’s universes all the way up and down.

>>16655328
Truly.

>>16656146
If you could read you would know OP said he wasn't going to elaborate or answer any posts so why did you take the time to respond?

Try answering why you're here to begin with OP.
You might say I was born because my parents fucked, but that gets at the how, not the why.
And you might further shine that well my parents belong to such and such a religion or social status that reproduction was either desirable or imposed on them or made possible, but that's still only gleaning some of the how, not answering why.

>>16714272
big if
there's no evidence of parallel universes either

>>16714316
No, it gets at the why, you just want to keep asking why to the why like a toddler.

>>16714510
why /wī, hwī/
adverb

For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive.

Anyway moving on. How do you internally justify that if all things are knowable that you don't know all things?

My point of course being that you seem to have an answer for everything, but that can't be, because by definition determinism has an answer for everything, and you have come along at some point during the deterministic creation-existence-uncreation timeline and therefore don't know all things.

The only reasonable way to to internally justify that, to me, would be to "not" internally justify it or to say "I don't know how to" which is really the same thing as "not" internally justifying it.
I'm fascinated to hear your opinion though.

>>16714728
Yes and you explained the reason/cause of your birth, parents fucked.

Limited perspective, the same reason its that all visible light is viewable and all audible sound is hearable, but not all rays of light can be seen by my eye and not all waves of sound heard by my ears at this moment.

So your internal justification boils down to I can't or I won't sir? When you say "limited" do you mean self limited or externally limited?

>>16655184 (OP)
We can’t and don’t know everything. The best we can do is come up with an explanation that covers everything we do know. When we learn more stuff we update our models. If your model includes stuff that you cannot observe in anyway then your model will return incorrect results even if it’s right some of the time.

>>16714744
Way to burst the balloon

>>16687572
Nothingness and stuff arise together.
You can't have stuff without nothingness, you can't have nothingness without stuff.

Try to define "stuff" or "nothing" without the other.
Pro tip: you can't.

>>16715133
Why can't you have a state of nothingness?

>>16655184 (OP)
It really is that embarrassing.

>this bullshit again
<yawn>

It is funny how I solved a these questions and posted all the proofs here yet the people here are still too stupid to understand, 10 years later, even with it being spoonfed to them. Humanity is not an "intelligent" species, it is a sea of literal retards with a few intelligent sprinkled in here and there

>bodhipost
<yawn>

>>16716844
Those posts are retarded and you should feel really bad that it has taken you over 10 years and you still have not figured it out or realized that you yourself can even hold, hear, taste, feel, see, and experience nothing on your own.

>>16655184 (OP)
Either something came from true nothing (quantum foam is still something) or some fundamental something always existed. Take your pick, both are equally unhinged.

>>16718364
>or some fundamental something always existed.
Nothing is something, so those are the same thing if the fundamental something that always existed was true nothing.

>>16655184 (OP)
>How do anti-determinists justify something coming from nothing, which is essentially what they believe when they support quantum uncertainty
Nigger, that argument goes both ways.
How do determinist justify something coming from nothing?
Go ahead, let's see how you deal with this nonsensical question.

>>16716844
>Atheist are wrong because something can't come out of nothing
>However this somehow doesn't apply to God, because we don't want to play by the same rules we imposed upon the other side
Okay retard.
Cool story.
All that text that nobody is going to read anyway.
>"I solved it guys! Trust me!"
LMAO.

>>16718431
>How do determinist justify something coming from nothing?
Nothing is something, so something automatically results from nothing.
0!=1, it is a deterministic formula that a function of nothing necessarily yields a unit of something.

>>16718447
You're 100% bullshitting.
"0! = 1" is a mathematical convention chosen for consistency in formulas and combinatorics, not a statement about physical or metaphysical reality.
All it does is it ensures that mathematical patterns and equations work smoothly, especially in counting problems and recursive relations.
The factorial function and its definition for zero do not describe a physical process or causation. They are abstract rules within mathematics, not statements about the creation of matter, energy, or events in the universe.
You're totally off.
Your post makes zero sense outside of abstract math.
Fuck off, you absolute Dunning-Kruger nigger.

>>16718453
>"0! = 1" is a mathematical convention chosen for consistency in formulas and combinatorics, not a statement about physical or metaphysical reality.
No, its both, it is completely necessary to make the calculations work because it represents something true about physical reality.

>All it does is it ensures that mathematical patterns and equations work smoothly
Yes because for multiplicative value to "work smoothly" you have to reach a point where even the terminating value is a valid configuration.

>The factorial function and its definition for zero do not describe a physical process or causation.
Wrong, it applies to any physical process and is necessary when considering the combination of various physical processes.

>They are abstract rules within mathematics, not statements about the creation of matter, energy, or events in the universe.
No, mathematical formulas are mathematical discovers about how to assign and compare the value to units of matter energy and events in the universe: matter, energy, and events are just as much abstractions as any other type of value.

>Your post makes zero sense outside of abstract math.
Combinatorics isn't about counting abstract things like quantum mechanics or color grading, it is about counting the actual real combination of real physical things and to do so, you have to understand that 0!=1 or you wouldn't be able to count the combinations of things we have discovered with combinatorics.

>>16705465
>Science deepens my faith and love for God.
yes

>>16661823
He preempted their responses. They're literally too low IQ to understand. It wouldn't be the first time a human model of understanding, taken as gospel truth, turned out to be limited in scope and failed to explain simple phenomena. We've already had to throw out the notion of simultaneous events and acknowledge the relativity of simultaneity. I understand clinging to the notion of causality. I truly do. But it seems these drooling retards cannot fathom that causality is an artifact of a late universe and need not apply in the early universe.

>>16714341
It’s not a matter of if, it’s just common sense.

>>16718431
>How do determinist justify something coming from nothing?
They don’t. Everything everywhere every when exists all at once.

>>16718434
Why can't something come from nothing again? That's an observable "law" of our universe presently, but who was there to observe the beginning of the universe and say that law has always existed?

>>16718318
>>16718434

>retarded gurgling noises
you are a mental midgets, you and I barely even speak the same language your IQ is so low

It has been read, and a handful of people on this board, who arent drooling morons like the rest, did finally understand it. Stay aggressively retarded though, the ladies love it

>>16718509
No, God being the prime mover of existence is common sense. And not just to retards on the lower end of the bell curve, but also geniuses like Newton or Robert Hooke whose intuition mogs yours into oblivion. Your idea is just a silly atheist cope to avoid the actual most reasonable explanation.

>>16718463
>No, its both, it is completely necessary to make the calculations work because it represents something true about physical reality.
False.
Just because you write an equation on paper doesn't make it true in physics, you midwit.
You can write whatever shit you want, that doesn't make it automatically true outisde of mathematics.

The equation "0!=1" is simply : How many ways is there to arrange "Zero objects", and the answer is 1, because there is only one way of arranging "no objects".
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement "Something arrises from nothing".

You are the absolute PEAK example of a Dunning-Kruger retard.
You THINK you have mastery over the subject but you absolutely do not.
You don't even seem to understand the meaning of "0!=1".
You seem to think you can turn a 0 into a 1 but that's not the case.
All you did is describe how many different ways the number zero can be arranged, and there is only one way it can be arranged, because it's fucking zero.
So no, that equation doesn't describe how nothing can become something.
You're fucking retarded, cunt.

>>16718511
>>How do determinist justify something coming from nothing?
>They don’t. Everything everywhere every when exists all at once.
That doesn't really make any sense because it doesn't respect causality.
If everything is simultaneous, then can be causality.

>>16718712
>Why can't something come from nothing again?
Not saying it's impossible that something can come out of nothing, I'm simply throwing the same argument back at determinists.
If determinists can use this arguments against their opposition, then their opposition can use the same exact argument against them.
That's all I was tryng to say.
>That's an observable "law" of our universe presently, but who was there to observe the beginning of the universe and say that law has always existed?
When you dive into the actual theory around the Big Bang and the beggining of the Universe, there is no claim that "Something came out of Nothing".
That's not what it says.
The Big Bang is the start of Space-Time, not matter or energy itself.
The theory is that all the matter in our Universe was concentrated into a singularity, and the start of Time and Space allowed to burst open and create our Universe.
So I'm not arguing that something came out of nothing, the something was already there at the start.

>>16718920
>I'M MUCH SMARTER THAN ALL OF YOU!
>SEE MY SOURCE :
>ESOTERICA AWAKENING . COM
>THE OCCULT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NUMBER 6
Fuck off retard.
This is the Science board.
The board you are looking for is
>>>/x/

Now shut up, the adults are talking.

>>16719577
>source
I wrote it you stone cold retard. I am the source.

>Now shut up, the adults are talking.
Dont even have the IQ to come up with an original insult. Imagine my shock. Scurry off back to the kiddie pool

>>16719595
>I wrote it you stone cold retard. I am the source.
That's even worse LMAO.
Listen kiddo, esoterica is cute and everything, but this is the science board, for scientific discussions.
The board meant for the things you discuss is /x/ not /sci/ you absolute retard.

Also the pics you posted are an absolute garbage of bullshit wordsalad that came out straight out of a schizos head.
So we COULD be talking about Science, but you descided to make it about your own weird interpretation of God and univserse and shit.

So go ahead, put forth an actual argument, scientific or not, and we'll see how it holds up.
I'm clearly being nice, even if I expect an absolute wall of text full of bullshit , because you're not here to talk about Science, you're here to talk about "God", so yeah, go ahead, spout your silly schizo word salad so we can get it over and done with already.

>>16719629

>>16719574
>That doesn't really make any sense because it doesn't respect causality.
Of course it respects causality. The turtles all the way up and down argument doesn’t make sense any other way.

>>16719068
I don’t align with theism or atheism. That you call me an atheist is suspect.

>>16719567
>Just because you write an equation on paper doesn't make it true in physics
The fact that it is used for physics calculations because physics can't falsify it makes it true to physics, dimwit.

>You can write whatever shit you want, that doesn't make it automatically true outisde of mathematics.
Its isn't just written down, it actually predicts combinations of physical objects and you can't possibly falsify it with physics because physics assumes the truth of the math it is built upon.

>How many ways is there to arrange "Zero objects", and the answer is 1
Yes and since you can physically arrange it that exact way, it is a thing, a predictable quantifiable physical thing, by definition.

>It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement "Something arrises from nothing".
Except to prove you can physically arrange nothing in a very particular way because it is something.

>You don't even seem to understand the meaning of "0!=1".
Says the nitwit retard who doesn't even understand the physical application of combinatorics.

>You seem to think you can turn a 0 into a 1 but that's not the case.
No, I know it proves that 0 is something because it has exactly one physical arrangement.

>All you did is describe how many different ways the number zero can be arranged
If it wasn't something it couldn't be arranged at all, describing the exact physical arrangement proves that nothing is something that can be physically arranged in a particular physical configuration.

>So no, that equation doesn't describe how nothing can become something.
It proves that nothing IS something, retard, learn to read, it doesn't need to become something, it already is something, something very fundamental to the rest of the things as the smallest possible amount of anything and everything.

>>16719663
>Expects people to read his 10 000 words TLDR shcizo rambles
>Can't even be bothered to read a few lines of well written text
LMAO, good one you massive hypocritical retard.
Good luck wth your Esoterica research.

>>16720306
>No, I know it proves that 0 is something because it has exactly one physical arrangement.
Ok lmao.
"Zero is something", well yeah, it's a number, a word, a concept.
But it represents "nothing", as in "the asence of something".
>describing the exact physical arrangement proves that nothing is something that can be physically arranged in a particular physical configuration
No, all it proves is that "Zero is a number".
Zero is a number, and because it's a number, you can arrage it.
This STILL have NOTHING to do about the creation of the Universe, the Big Bang or anything physics related.
All you're doing is counting numbers, you absolute mongoloid.
"Zero, is a number, so I can count it." is not an argument for Determinism.

>It proves that nothing IS something
By definition, Nothing is the opposite of something.
But let's push your idea to it's natural conclusion :
If "Nothing is something", then that applies to negative numbers.
You can arrange negative numbers, the same way you can arrange 0, so I guess according to your logic, that proves that the Universe started out with a negative amount of matter?
Checkmate retard.

>>16720318
>"Zero is something", well yeah
Concession accepted

>No, all it proves is that "Zero is a number".
Yes a number that can be applied to anything like zero physical space.

>"Zero, is a number, so I can count it."
I can hold a zero amount of things too, so zero is tangible.

>By definition, Nothing is the opposite of something.
No, that is like saying 0 is the opposite of 1, they aren't opposite, they are complimentary since 1=0+1.

>If "Nothing is something", then that applies to negative numbers.
Yes something that goes in the opposite direction as the positive thing, negative space is just the space behind instead of in front of you.

>the Universe started out with a negative amount of matter?
No it started in a central location and expanded out omnidirectional where some direction negate the other and those are called dimensions.

>>16720315
>replying to namefags

This poster >>16655187
>since there's nothing, there's no law preventing something from coming from nothing
And this poster >>16655494
>there never was nothing, there was always something

Are both right at the same time. No I will not elaborate further.

>>16720315
I dont give a fuck what you do or dont read. I never addressed you peasant, you addressed me. You can jump off the brooklyn bridgte for all I care mate

>>16720323
>>"Zero is something", well yeah
>Concession accepted
Love how you have to cut the phrase to take what I said out of context o make a point.
Truly the peak of intellectual honestly, LMAO.

>I can hold a zero amount of things too
You're holding nothing then.
So zero is nothing.
Thanks for the concession.

>>By definition, Nothing is the opposite of something.
>No, that is like saying 0 is the opposite of 1
Not what I said.
Nothing = Absence.
Something = Presence.
If you're too low IQ to understand that, there's no helping you.

>Yes something that goes in the opposite direction as the positive thing, negative space is just the space behind instead of in front of you.
No, because you decided arbitrarily that zero is a specific point in space.
Instead try to walk -100 meters.
Go ahead.
Walk a negative distance.
Once you've managed to do that, you can give me a call.

>No it started in a central location and expanded out omnidirectional where some direction negate the other and those are called dimensions.
Again, not how physics work.
If you ask a physicist "where the center of the Universe is" or "where did the Big Bang happen" they'll answer everywhere, because the expansion of the Universe didn'ty happen like you say it did
>it started in a central location and expanded out omnidirectional
Not actually true.
There is no objective "center" to the universe, that's one of the main elements of General Relativity.

When will you realise you're not nearly as smart or knowledgeable as you think you are?
Probably never, because such is the life of a Dunning-Kruger specimen like (You).

>>16720326
My bad.
Didn't realize he was a namefag + pajeet.

>>16720337
>I dont give a fuck what you do or dont read.
That's not how you were acting earlier ITT.
>. I never addressed you peasant, you addressed me
PAJEET PLEASE!
You're a dirty brownoid faggot, there is no lower lifeform than your kind, niggerfaggot.

>You can jump off the brooklyn bridgte
And you can step in front of a train, streetshitter.
You claim to be smart, but all you have is schizoid bullshit that blongs on /x/.
You're a waste of space with delusions of grandeur.
Go eat some cow dung cakes and cow piss cola you absolute animal.

>>16720443
>Love how you have to cut
Its the relevant part that was an explicit concession which I was thanking you for, the rest was not relevant since it just specified the various type of things it can be.

>So zero is nothing.
Yes, I have said that all along, zero and nothing refer to the same thing, you are the one conceding by accepting.

>Nothing = Absence.
No it is the presence of only itself, 0 = 0+0+0.

>Something = Presence.
No something is that which can be named, valued, and/or measured, all of which apply to nothing, its entirely empirical, you can hold it yourself, you can see it at any time with your own two ears.

>you decided arbitrarily that zero is a specific point in space.
No, its not arbitrary, zero is the origin point of lines in space, the zero point expands to an entire zero field in qm to allow for relativity where each point in space is separated from every other point by nothing.

>Instead try to walk -100 meters.
>Go ahead.
>Walk a negative distance.
There are backwards walking competitions, I am assuming by your temperament that you lack the hand/eye coordination to walk backwards yourself, but that doesn't mean its impossible for most people without cognitive disorders to walk backwards, I am sure you can find plenty of videos, maybe watch Tom Green's backwards man and then you can just call yourself.

>If you ask a physicist "where the center of the Universe is" or "where did the Big Bang happen" they'll answer everywhere, because the expansion of the Universe didn'ty happen like you say it did
Since I described exactly what you just said physicists would say, do you just not understand what omnidirectional means or you don't understand how dimensions work?

>There is no objective "center" to the universe, that's one of the main elements of General Relativity.
Except you literally just confirmed what I said that the whole thing is the center because the center spread omnidirectionally in both directions of every dimension.

>>16721022
So you really are genuinely retarded.

>Instead try to walk -100 meters.
>Go ahead.
>Walk a negative distance.
>There are backwards walking competitions, I am assuming by your temperament that you lack the hand/eye coordination to walk backwards yourself
If you walk backwards you're still walking a positive amout of distance.
If you walk 10 meters backwards, you "walked 10 meters", you didn't "walk -10 meters".
Checkmate again retard.

I don't really have interests in debating your bullshit semantics that don't actually translate to real world physics so I'm just going to leave you sitting in your own misery and retardation.
Good luck with that.

>>16720452
you seem to be awfully upset about me not caring about you and what you read. Are you that starved for attention little buddy? Also, didnt read

>>16655192
>Die.
You will.
Remember when the time comes.

>>16721237
>If you walk backwards you're still walking a positive amout of distance.
No, positive is the forward direction, backwards is the negative.

>If you walk 10 meters backwards, you "walked 10 meters", you didn't "walk -10 meters".
If you take the absolute value, sure, but you walked 10 meters in the backwards direction is a negative because negative just refers to directionality, you are only checkmating yourself that you don't even understand the basics of negative numbers and the spatial domain.

I accept your concession, you can't argue your point because you don't actually use any math in practice, you don't understand what negative numbers even are or how they are used in physics, so no wonder you are so confused about numbers. You seem to have been called a lot of mean names in the past and have collected quite a database of insults, but none of them have actually helped your argument or explain why physics still assumes 0!=1, you have just made yourself look like a spaz with tard rage who doesn't even understand the implications of basic equations.

>>16721731
LMAO.
You can't walk a nagative amount of distance.
Even if you walk 10 meter backwards, you walked 10 meters.
Nobody ever says or said "I walked minus 10 meters today".
That's not how physics work.
You can't travel a negative distance, that's just not how the real workd works you absolute ignoramous.

>why physics still assumes 0!=1
Math, not physics, dumbass.
" 0!=1 " doesn't prove that something came of nothing.
You put your entire ideology on a math trueism.
- You made a list of numbers.
- The only number on that list is "zero".
- There is only one way to arrange thje number "Zero"
Congrats, that's making an arrangement of numbers on a pice of paper.
It doesn't prove shit about physics, let alone that "something came of nothing".

You're not even honest enough to admit that what you're talking about is making lists and arrangements on a piece of paper and does not represent shit about physics or how the Universe started.
Stay in your lane you absolute mongrel.

>I accept your concession
The only concession I accept is that you clearly don 't know what you're talking abojut and you don't even understand the difference between math and physics.
0!=1 is math, not physics.
Every single scientific source on the internet says I'm right and you're wrong, so I'll accept your concession that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, midwit.

Uh

We don't know if quantum events have a cause because we don't know much about it in reality so it allows us to believe that these events have one

I think quantum quacks are in denial that there are things that move faster than local relativity / light

>>16723121
>there are things that move faster than local relativity / light
Congrats you've just violated causality and thus refuted determinism.

>>16723123
It violates local causality, dimwit. Jesus Christ, leave this board.

>>16723125
If you violate local causality, you create closed timelike curves and retrocausality meaning the future can now determine the past.

What quantum theory has shown us is that finitude and locality are illusions. Nothingness is demonstrably impossible. The only alternative is that infinity is real, not just imaginary. This plays into the hands of anti-materialists and anti-determinists, who have traditionally simply been religious people. But theirs is a small victory. For all they have wrested from the hands of determinists is an acknowledgement of the reality of the idea of infinity. Nothing more. There is no room for a personal god in this. Should you wish to call this "god", you are perfectly welcome to do so. But you should know that this term is but a mere synonym for an impersonal, uncaring infinity.

>>16723135
Wait where exactly are you getting "infinities"? Quantum mechanical phenomena only challenge local realism, which means that no model which assumes both that information cannot be transferred faster than light and that that quantum systems must always have definitive properties even when unobserved (this doesn't mean you looking at it with your eyes btw) cannot explain things like Bell inequality violations.

>>16723127
And? Time(space) is a spook fabric.

>>16723143
Determinism is married to causality. It requires a single straight domino chain of cause and effect. The moment you create loops, self-causing-causes, uncaused causes etc, determinism ceases to work.

>>16723121
But if everything is made from the exact same quantum part, then everything would be subject to the exact same laws of speed, only determined by the quantity of base quantum building blocks an object contained.
The quantity of quantum building blocks increasing, would not increase the speed that an object would be able to travel, nor would it lower it.
Merely increased the surface area, which increases the likelihood of a collision with stray particles (except for photons which have the quantum parts assembled in a straight line like a bar magnet).

The faster we run our nose through the coke particles, the closer the coke particles appear together, and the more it looks instead of just coke particles, we start to get a fucking bump of coke, and the faster we go, the more the bump turns into a rail, then a fucking line.

It would all simply be a singular ratio of a single quantum part, and the movement of that part in ratio against itself, and the total quantity that existed.

>>16723135
imagine being so ignorant while acting like you have the high ground to preach from a soap box, lol

>>16723146
There are bigger spaces idiot

>>16721960
>Even if you walk 10 meter backwards, you walked 10 meters.
Yes because the absolute value of -10 is 10 and you are measuring absolute value instead of magnitute. If you were in a 10m race, went halfway, then walked 1m backwards, you would certainly be -1m from the goal compared to when you were halfway.

>Math, not physics, dumbass.
Physics is built on math, numbskull.

>" 0!=1 " doesn't prove that something came of nothing.
It proves that something is a function of nothing which is why nothing is the smallest amount of anything.

>- The only number on that list is "zero".
I accept your concession, 0 is some number just like nothing is some thing.

>- There is only one way to arrange thje number "Zero"
Yes there is a way to arrange it because it is a value that needs to be considered just like nothing is a thing that is necessary for everything else.

>It doesn't prove shit about physics, let alone that "something came of nothing".
it proves nothing is something, and it is the smallest amount of anything and everything since 0!=1 even applies to something that doesn't have a metric.

>You're not even honest enough to admit that what you're talking about is making lists and arrangements on a piece of paper and does not represent shit about physics
No, you are the one being dishonest that physics is anything more than just more math and drawings on paper to represent value and form over time.

>Stay in your lane you absolute mongrel.
Physics is built on math, mongoloid, you can't do physics without math.

>you don't even understand the difference between math and physics.
Physics is just a math of empiricism.

>0!=1 is math, not physics.
its both.

>Every single scientific source on the internet says I'm right and you're wrong
Sure they do, physics degrees just require so much math to trick you, and you just can't present any sources that say math has nothing to do with physics because reasons, not because you are retarded and barely literate.

>>16723135
>Nothingness is demonstrably impossible.
Holding nothing is literally as easy as opening your hand. You can literally see nothing with your own two feet, its an empirical phenomenon that anyone can experience through each and every sense.

>>16655184 (OP)
what came before the isolated system that has nothing outside of it lmao

>>16724170
>if you cant see something it means "nothing" is there

>>16724440
Its unrelated to seeing something, it has to do with actually holding nothing when your hands are open in a way so as to be unable to grasp anything. The only way you can even touch anything in the first place is if there is nothing in between it and you plus your hand can only accommodated a finite number of things and nothing else, so nothing plays a very important whether you are only holding nothing or other things too.

>>16724440
I think he’s referring to the fact that a hole isn’t made up of anything. Just space.

>>16724440
If you can see nothing, it means it is a direct empirical sensation unless you are saying you can see something else with your two feet.

>>16726644
One thing to keep in mind is that nothing is both positive and negative, so not only is empty space made of nothing, but nothing also composes that which has no space, you can hear the sound of two hands clapping when that kind of nothing is directly between them and when there is enough nothing between the hands and the ears for the sound to move through.

>>16655187
That same logic could used to bring a creator being into existence.

>>16704405
Lol trannies btfo

>>16727455
Only in the case that the being is nothing.

ground state in a quantum field always has fluctuations even at the lowest levels, because the uncertainty principle prevents energy and momentum being both known with increasing certainty in any region of space or time as they are canonical canonically conjugate variables. like time and frequency are. they are the fourier transform of one another, which means local sharpening of any measured variable leads to the decoupling of its conjugate. this is a fundamental, logical constraint, which doesn't require further justification. to abandon it is to abandon experimental data on quantum mechanics, on the nature of particles, on waves, on all of physics going back to kinematic laws of conservation.

determinism is a classical concept born from intuition of the macroscopic world. the subatomic world doesn't need to adhere to your intuition. it merely needs to be studied and modelled. determinism leads to contradictions. what do you do when you encounter contradictions in your scientific experiments? do you close your eyes and delude yourself? or do you adapt?

No one?

>>16655184 (OP)
Subatomic particles come from nothing, I read this in JOJO

Does potential energy count as nothing?

>>16730010
Potential energy is basically negative energy as the thing that combines with kinetic (positive) energy to get the energy count back to the original 0 state.

>>16730017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

>>16655184 (OP)
Gottem. That's essentially what they believe.

>>16731106
>>16655184 (OP)
>if you reject determinitroon dogma it means you believe in quantum woo which means you believe in something coming out of nothing
I especially like the part where OP tries to misattribute a flaw with HIS worldview to the opposition. Something from nothing is for those to explain who treat cause and effect as absolute, chief among them are determinitroons themselves.

>>16731136
Do you REALLY think we’ve found the Root of Everything? Do you REALLY believe this?

>>16731160
Did you reply to the wrong post? I'm just posting a threadly reminder that "something out of nothing" nonsense is at the bottom of the determinitroon worldview. OP is projecting.

>>16731160
The root of every number is 0, by definition, x=0+x as a necessity of stability of value.

>>16731619
Yes, but do you REALLY think quantum uncertainty is that root level zero?

>>16731136
You're replying to a schizo who doesn't understand what determinism actually is and thinks it's not dependent on cause and effect.

>>16732022
Uncertainty is about the temporal impossibility of trying to simultaneously measure two codependent things at once, not about any root level of reality, its more like trying to assign an excel value that is dependent on its own state and getting race condition results than trying to find the base equation of the cell.