Thread 16655184

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.

>>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

>>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


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

>>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.

>>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.

>>16732471
Answer my fucking question.

>>16732471
>impossibility of trying to simultaneously measure two codependent things at once,

I can measure my dick and balls at the same time with no problem. It is your technique that is the problem pleb

>>16733393
I answered an invalid question as best I could, by showing why it is not logically sound, like asking if I really think apples are at the root level of oranges, it doesn't make sense and just shows you don't quite understand what apples and oranges even are.

>>16733586
Those are not two different things like position and speed, they are just arbitrarily labeled parts of your body.

>>16655187
Very good anon very eloquent and nice I like it lmao

>>16733586
Lmaoooooooooooooo that was funny as fuck

Probabilists believe in conjuration?

>>16736631
Yes.

>>16734036
>I can't answer your question because I'm a psued
FtFy

>>16738692
>I can't formulate a coherent question because I am a complete dipshit.

>>16735394
just realized it was false analogy o well

>>16736631
free will doesnt really exist conjuration does exist and most of this board thats over 105 FSIQ with a phd is satanic af and uses their energy from their uni to be smarter in norm activity and what not lmao

>>16739115
well free will doesn't exist regardless of whether the underlying universe is deterministic or not

>>16739335
Cool nigga I’m just confirming logic based on presuppositional notions of axioms + exposing institutions

Do you struggle choosing a flavor of ice cream? Do you eventually decide on one? Then you have free will.

>>16655187
based

>>16739543
>digestion doesn't occur over time to eventually make someone who wasn't hungry hungry enough to eat something that isn't ideal

>>16661758
Nothing is a concept we invented used to describe the inverse of something. One point is not a location, but two points is, you need more than one thing for there to be anything, and since, we have many forms of things, we have something. It may very well be that all that is exists is everything, naturally. Meaning arises out of context... Without context, there is no audience for anything to mean anything

>>16740260
>we have many forms of things, we have something.
The only way to have multiple things ever come into contact is if nothing is between them, nothing is a prerequisite for something since the only way something can be is if it is itself and nothing else, nothing is a prerequisite for multitudes, it is not the inverse, nothing is the smallest possible amount of anything and everything.

>>16740260
>One point is not a location, but two points is
No, two points form a line segment, one points is just the location reference of the point in question.

>>16740726
Location reference is while minimal, a location lol

>>16742204
That is what I was saying, one point is referencing the location while two points is the range of locations that are all within a line segment defined by the two endpoints rather than a single location, take it up with >>16740260 if you think one point is a minimal location rather than not a location at all.

>free will doesn't exist
then why do people try to justify how "not gay" they are

>>16743478
???

>>16743478
IDK but i wish you well on your way out of the closet.

>>16655184 (OP)
I would guess it makes the most sense to simply assert everything has always and will always be.
Do you have proof of this nothing you speak of?

>>16703419
OK

God what an awful thread.

>>16716844
so what's the newest date for the end of the world?

>>16740714
yes so you cannot have nothing without anything. nothing exists as long as there is something. I mean the concept itself. it is invalid outside of "anything", which is always something we can detect, directly or indirectly. and by nothing we mean not-that. whatever "that" is. there can never be nothing, as it would make no sense. so there was never nothing. another thing supporting that (quite strongly) is the fact that time started with the "big gang", thus "there was always something" is a valid statement.

>>16655184 (OP)
unknown unknowns create a potential for there to be a way to make something true despite the known facts currently available, if you make written in stone facts based only on what you know despite not having all the information and solutions you're pretty much being a academic tard who is only good for parroting the knowledge others have discovered to a class full of snot nosed freshmen

>>16655184 (OP)
Honestly i just find it funny that determinism convienently shits the bed right around the threshold where our measuring equipment becomes inaccurate.

>>16746764
>nothing exists as long as there is something.
>there can never be nothing
Make up your mind, first you said nothing is necessary, they you said it is impossible.
But nothing is something, so if it exists, it exists, but for other things to exist, it must first exist.

>>16746762
when did they release you from the mental ward again this time? Believe me everyone on this board knows when are institutionalized because the amount of agonizingly moronic posts and screeching psychopathic screeds drops to zero.

>>16748628
hes right tho nigga
theres a spec of truth with schizios jesus is coming back i bet your ass doesnt even believe in climate change lmaoooo

>>16655184 (OP)

If you're a determinist then you were pre-determined to make these stupid post and lack free will. Shut the fuck up you midwit pseud.

>>16655184 (OP)
I like Sir Roger Penrose. He came up with a mathematical conjecture that the universe is cyclic and the big bang is not the beginning of time.

Simply put, once all matter in the universe decays into black holes, those black holes will eventually evaporate and then only massless photos will remain, which very approximately recreates the conditions of the big bang, so at that point the universe just repeats, but some information from the prior universe still remains, so every iteration is slightly different.

No hidden variables, no multiverse, no consciousness causing collapse, etc. No uneeded bullshit. Occams Razor.

It seems like a lot of the misunderstanding surrounds having a clear definition of "nothing" and "something". In this case, I would suggest, since we're talking about physical reality, and thus the domain of physics, "nothing" just means something non-physical, something outside the domain of physical reality. Such a thing is actually pretty obvious, it's called consciousness. Or, if you prefer something less hippy dippy, sentience. Sentience isn't a physical system, or even refer to a physical system, it's a complete abstraction made up of conceptual parts of language that we use in orderinary speech to describe immediate experiences, so it's definitely non-algorithmic in nature. It can be deterministic, or non-deterministic, but that really doesn't even matter when we're talking about something purely imaginary to begin with.

So, in short, there is no "something from nothing" argument coming from phycisists who understand why some variables demand some amount of indeterminacy exists, i.e., that you cannot, simultaneously, with one measurement, measure both position and velocity of an object. It simply cannot be done, not even in principle, for very straightforward and obvious reasons that a child would understand. I think anyone disagreeing with this is unironically retarded and should just be disregarded as a complete idiot. You're not even being a contrarian or some kind of troll if you want to argue with the uncertainty principle, you're just being a fucking schizo at that point and nobody should give you any attention.

>>16751643
>I would suggest, since we're talking about physical reality, and thus the domain of physics, "nothing" just means something non-physical, something outside the domain of physical reality.
Nope, physics refers to that stuff as dark, unknown or undefined, nothing is generally an empty area of space where other material can be placed.

>it's a complete abstraction made up of conceptual parts of language that we use in orderinary speech to describe immediate experiences, so it's definitely non-algorithmic in nature.
How ignorant are you? Are you really not aware of the over 9000 different chatbot algorithms in existence that can be used to allow machines to provide adhoc linguistic descriptions of physical systems?

>So, in short, there is no "something from nothing" argument coming from phycisists
Yes there is, physics necessarily depends on math constructs including 0!=100% and it specifically orients the origin point of spacetime to t=0.

>>16751681
Fucking kill yourself.

How can Ø = 1? How can there be "something" from true "nothing"?

Let us consider one way (anticipated by Cantor and promoted by the distinguished mathematician John von Neumann) in which natural numbers can be introduced merely using the abstract notion of set. This procedure enables one to define what are called ‘ordinal numbers’. The simplest set of all is referred to as the ‘null set’ or the ‘empty set’, and it is characterized by the fact that it contains no members whatever! The empty set is usually denoted by the symbol Ø, and we can write this definition Ø = {}, where the curly brackets delineate a set, the specific set under consideration having, as its members, the quantities indicated within the brackets. In this case, there is nothing within the brackets, so the set being described is indeed the empty set. Let us associate Ø with the natural number 0. We can now proceed further and define the set whose only member is Ø; i.e. the set {Ø}. It is important to realize that {Ø} is not the same set as the empty set Ø. The set {Ø} has one member (namely Ø), whereas Ø itself has none at all. Let us associate {Ø} with the natural number 1. We next define the set whose two members are the two sets that we just encountered, namely Ø and {Ø}, so this new set is {Ø,{Ø}}, which is to be associated with the natural number 2. Then we associate with 3 the collection of all the three entities that we have encountered up to this point, namely the set {Ø,{Ø}, {Ø,{Ø}}}, and with 4 the set {Ø,{Ø}, {Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø}, {Ø,{Ø}}}},whose members are again the sets that we have encountered previously, and so on. This may not be how we usually think of natural numbers, as a matter of definition, but it is one of the ways that mathematicians can come to the concept. Moreover, it shows us, at least, that things like the natural numbers can be conjured literally out of nothing, merely by employing the abstract notion of ‘set’.

TL;DR

{ } = 0
0 = 1
00 = 2
000 = 3

Etc. So even in total void you can still imagine partitions so you can still employ the axiom of choice, as per standard ZFC set theory, even on "nothingness".

>>16655184 (OP)
why do you argue there was a default state of nothingness
im not saying i was an 'anti-determinist'
but you just assume there was a default state of nothingness
why? explain it

>>16751681
I dont think this nigger has heard of random processes

>>16751643
everything you said requires particles to manifest. so...something. there's no consciousness without particles manifesting it. there's no information with particles storing it. information is written/encoded in particles, be it hdd/ssd/paper or whatever method you fancy.
unless you can point to consciousness without particles manifesting it, you're pretty much clueless.

>>16751416
yeap, there is no reason to expect matter/energy "was created", or that there was a point in time where it didn't exist. unless you can create or destroy it, there is no reason to think such an absurdity.

>>16748586
those statements are not contradictory. you can never have nothing without something, they come together. and you can never have absolute nothing, you can have lesser nothings, like not something somewhere/somewhen. no milk but in your fridge, today. but you need milk to exist somewhere/somewhen for "no milk" to even make sense.

>>16753386
This retard thinks computers can generate random, rather than pseudorandom, processes.

>>16753397
>you can never have nothing without something
Yes you can, see>>16752375

>but you need milk to exist somewhere/somewhen for "no milk" to even make sense.
No, if I am not looking at anything, I am looking at nothing which means I am also looking at "no milk" as much as I am looking at "no klim" even if neither of use actually knows what klim is.

How the FUCK is this thread still alive? 3.5 months. Might as well make it a fucking sticky at this point. LMAO

>>16754356
you know python rand library is based on a pre-specified algorithm that isnt actually random this goes deep into consensus algorithms and node topology order in which sorting block producers arent capable of random production since an algorithm can be used to attack the learned suppositions of the network in its current state nigger

>>16755184
Retard, why else would I have implied that only retards think computers use random processes instead of algorithms that approach pseudo-randomness?

>>16754358
>anything
>nothing
>any - thing
>no - thing
>thing
you need the thing so you can have it or not have it. without the thing itself the concept of not that thing makes no sense.
>seeing
that's just a small amount of data about things around you

No really.
Isn’t quantum uncertainty literally just that?
Something coming from nothing?

“Don’t tell God what to do” - Bohr

So do quantum quacks really believe in a variant of God?

>>16755778
no. it's not from nothing. everything already is, it's coming from a pool of what is possible. nothing is invented. imagine a tic-tac-toe game. do you invent each game each time you play it? or are you merely making certain allowed moves? in a sense, all possible game moves already exist, as possibility. thus none are invented, but merely manifested.
so does randomness give rise to things that are possible, like tic-tac-toe possible moves. it's just a way more complicated tic-tac-toe game, in 3D.

>>16755781
>no. it's not from nothing. everything already is

Everything everywhere every when isn’t exactly a probabilistic argument more than a deterministic one, although I’ve encountered probabilists who claim that it is. Hm.

If we assume that going into the past is a true possible possibility, then by such a point you just have to assume the many worlds hypothesis is the correct one, and if all loops or wraps around to support itself (there is no original turtle more so than the chain of turtles - the universes inside universes (and so on) eventually become the universes containing the universes within the loop).

>>16755796
and it* all loops

>>16755796
the world is 100% deterministic but it's not deteministic 100%. in all of my debates I found this to be the most confusing concept for my interlocutors. I never really understood why. for me it's one of the simplest concepts to grasp.
either they're brains cannot process the concept, either their brain rejects apparent understanding of the concept because it fucks with a lot of their beliefs.
a *fully* non-deterministic world would make no sense, would support no life, nor any kind of material structure. would just be random chaos with no laws.
thus every time I talk about random/stochastic processes, it's always on top of an otherwise deterministic universe.

>>16655184 (OP)
It doesn't come out of nothing, just from one state into the other.
Also everything is determined, we just can neither calculate nor even measure it.

>>16655184 (OP)
There are people out there who are completely comfortable with the notion that something (god) came from nothing, yet it is impossible that something (the universe) came from nothing. These same people rebuff these critiques by saying God is timeless, hence nothingness didn't exist before him... yet completely seethe at the notion that prior to the universe existing, the "universe" was timeless hence nothingness didn't exist..it's all a thought terminating cliche.

>>16756247
Who thinks like this? The divine is one solution to grounding a universe that can't have come from nothing.

>>16755747
>that's just a small amount of data about things around you
Yes and nothing is the smallest amount of data possible, klim doesn't have to exist somewhere else to have 0 klim in the small area of discussion.

>>16755781
You can't play tic-tac-toe without first having a blank slate to draw on, the only way you can let each iteration manifest is by resetting to nothing after a completed round.

>>16756247
>These same people rebuff these critiques by saying God is timeless
I can respect different opinions but they wilding out almost every single time

>>16756168
>I never really understood why.
You are trying to contradict the commutative property which removes the mathematical sense of your claim.

>a *fully* non-deterministic world would make no sense, would support no life, nor any kind of material structure. would just be random chaos with no laws.
Proof?
Also by that logic, a 100% deterministic world would only support 1 life, 1 type of material, 1 structure, and would just be 1 perfect unchanging form dictated by its own immutable law.

>otherwise deterministic universe.
So not 100% deterministic, something otherwise?

>>16756310
Keeping the same analogy, the game started with the big bang, with one possible move, and then the board kept expanding ever since.
Was the wheel invented or merely discovered in the possibility space?

>>16756315
>So not 100% deterministic, something otherwise?
The problem with this vague claim is it is always used to attack deterministic aspects of the universe. A sort of you're either left or right, no inbetweens are allowed. You know very well which are the deterministic qualities of our universe, you rely on them in your everyday life. You do this so that happens, because of the deterministic part of our universe. But on top of this, there's some non-deterministic events that end up affecting us large scale.
As I said, people go to crazy efforts of misrepresenting or misunderstanding this. They dedicate brain power and time to come up with ways of completely misunderstanding it. Exactly because it fucks with their world models and narratives. I know this, you know this, everybody reading knows this, yet you still do it. It's just awkward at this point. Stop acting like children

>>16756247
I addressed this in excruciating detail here >>16716844. You are arguing for God but arent smart enough to realize it. You are arguing that at some point causality was broken by a supernatural force. Deists argument makes sense, as they admit it was broken by a supernatural force. Your argument does not make sense because you are simply waving your hand and invoking "magic" without a magician as the explanation, because you arent smart enough to realize that is what you are doing

>>16756175
>just from one state into the other.
*With the original state at the origin point being the total nothingness of an empty zero dimensional point.

>we just can neither calculate nor even measure it.
We can calculate how an origin of nothing functionally explodes to everything, though — 0!=100%.

>>16756320
>one possible move, and then the board kept expanding ever since
Your analogy is terrible, that isn't how tic-tac-toe works at all, there isn't a uniform expansion since you can start with the corners, the corner remain the corners for the entirety of the game and it begins with 9 possible opening moves rather than one starting in the center.

>>16756330
you can't go back to t=0 with math. you cannot go back to what you like to call "nothing". mostly because no such thing ever existed. it couldn't have, because time started with the big bang. when there was something. so...the words cannot be used in this form "first there was nothing". that's nonsense, just words put together, with no meaning.

>>16756333
You attacking my analogy doesn't mean you have a valid point against the idea behind the analogy. If anything it's telling you have no argument, because you'd have completely skipped my analogy and would have had an argument for the main idea behind the analogy.
I find this rather pathetic on your part. If I were you I wouldn't have posted that, it looks way worse than not having an argument. Makes you look like you are seething. Have some fucking dignity anon.

>>16756321
>vague
Its not vague at all, its self-contradicting, you initially claimed 100% deterministic, but then implies there is some otherwise value beyond 100% of the universe.

>A sort of you're either left or right, no inbetweens are allowed.
Yes, that is how 100% works, there is nothing outside or inbetween, it it were x% otherwise, you would have (100-x)% of the world being deterministic rather than the 100% you claim.

>You know very well which are the deterministic qualities of our universe
If you are claiming 100% determinism, then all of the qualities of the universe are deterministic, by definition.

>there's some non-deterministic events
Then its neither 100% deterministic or deterministic 100% even if you originally incoherently tried to claim those are two different values.

>misrepresenting or misunderstanding this.
You are the one who clearly doesn't seem to understand the commutative property of math.

>Exactly because it fucks with their world models and narratives.
Yes your illogical incoherence and ignoring the commutative property will fuck up any mathematical model you try to apply.

> Stop acting like children
Most children beyond the first couple of grades are smarter than you because they are intelligent enough to understand and explain why the commutative property is logically necessary.

>>16756322
>Your argument does not make sense because you are simply waving your hand and invoking "magic" without a magician as the explanation,
Nope, the logical arithmetic physical explanation is that nothing is its own opposite, so magical things are allowed at that point when you get down solely to something paralogical that is necessarily its own negation.

>>16756339
Your analogy doesn't make any sense, though, tic tac toe boards don't expand, if anything they contract since there is always only 9 positions on the board, but the playable positions decrease by 1 every single play until you have 0 open spaces available.

>because you'd have completely skipped my analogy
No, you skipped making your analogy reasonable since tic-tac-toe doesn't start with only 1 possible move and has nothing at all to do with perpetual expansion as you tried to claim.

The fact you didn't even try to defend your retarded analogy and just went straight to namecalling is what is very telling and just demonstrates that u mad. Have a logical argument next time, retard.

>>16756341
>Its not vague at all, its self-contradicting, you initially claimed 100% deterministic, but then implies there is some otherwise value beyond 100% of the universe.
Yes it was a play on words. If you ask "is the universe deterministic?" answering "yes" is correct. Because it is, but not only.
It's like asking if a red car with a black top is red. Yes it is red. Is it black tho? Yes it is also black, but in smaller part.
I said quite a few times, the lengths you weirdo are willing to go to completely miss this point is pure evil. You know damn well what you are doing. You are trying for quite a long time of coming up with an argument and nothing seems to work so you need to default to this childish behavior where you act like you don't understand. Weird. And quite pathetic to be frank. I expected people here would have more backbone.
>If you are claiming 100% determinism, then all of the qualities of the universe are deterministic, by definition.
I said it is deterministic, this is a correct claim. You cannot say the world is not deterministic, unless you are trying to use this play on words as some kind of disingenuous argument, misrepresenting reality in debates. You know what I'm talking about, and what I mean.
100% deterministic = yes it is.
"It's not deterministic 100%" means it's not only deterministic, it also has non-deterministic events.
The question itself is dumb, if you want to go there. Reality "isn't" one way or another. The correct questions are
>are there deterministic events in this reality?
and
>are there non-deterministic events in this reality?
And both can be answered with "Yes".
Literal highschoolers get my point, quite easily. Again, you trying your hardest to completely miss my point points to your lack of any real argument against it, so you go after scraps. This is pretty much pathetic behavior, you should feel ashamed for debasing yourself like this.

>>16756349
Stop talking to me you brainlet.

>>16756353
Stop making retarded analogies using terrible logic that is begging to be exposed.

>>16756344
show me this magical substance you call "nothing"

>>16756351
>Yes it was a play on words.
No, it was illogical nonsense.
>Because it is, but not only.
Then its not 100% like you said.
>It's like asking if a red car with a black top is red. Yes it is red. Is it black tho? Yes it is also black, but in smaller part.
Then its not 100% "red" (ie deterministic) as you were trying to say.
>the lengths you weirdo are willing to go to completely miss this point is pure evil.
No, the lengths you are willing to go to pretend its not pants on head retarded to claim 100% determinism is different from determinism 100% is incredibly stupid.
>You know damn well what you are doing.
Trying to demonstrate the commutative property to someone aspiring to be the biggest retard ever likely in order to get an old thread to the bump limit.
>I said it is deterministic, this is a correct claim.
No, you said it is 100% deterministic, a false claim.
>100% deterministic = yes it is.
No, its a stupid way for you to say that some unknown amount of the universe appears deterministic.
>And both can be answered with "Yes".
Not if your claim is that it is 100% one or the other.
>lack of any real argument against it
No, you clearly just don't understand what the commutative property is, what 100% means, or both.

>>16756359
Go to the bathroom, turn off the lights and close the windows to block out extra light, empty your hands and get in a bathtub full of lukewarm water to dampen the sights and sounds, cover your left eye with your right hand while your other hand lays outstretched and unclasped outside the tub, now hold the position for a few seconds and in no time, you will be able to see nothing with your own right foot and you will be holding nothing with your left hand since nothing is an empirical phenomenon and every single traditional human sense has a word for sensing nothing — blindness, deafness, numbness, tasteless, odorless.

>>16756365
No amount of mental gymnastics and word play will ever fill that IQ void anon.

>>16756370
Been there done that, you have the colors just replicate in lab

>>16756370
that's not what nothing is. you keep saying "not this" and "not that". so you need 'this" and "that" for your nothing to even make sense.

>>16756371
Agreed, no matter how much you try to cope with a bunch of words you think sound smart, the commutative property shows that you are incredibly stupid for trying to say that 100% determinism and determinism 100% are different values or that 100% somehow means a smaller part of the whole rather than the whole thing completely.

>>16756372
What colors did you see with your right foot? What colors do blind people see?

>>16756373
>"not this" and "not that"
Nobody ITT said "not this" and "not that" until you came along.
That isn't how nothing is mathematically defined, nothing is the base container value that can hold any other value without changing the other value, so you need nothing to be somewhere before you can place this or that there, otherwise the space is already occupied.

>>16756375
I do not need to "sound" smart. I don't care about it. Weird and unhealthy obsession you have there anon. Most likely rooted in you knowing you're not as smart as you portray to be. So you're trying to compensate through your vocabulary. But that doesn't work past some level.

>>16756379
>That isn't how nothing is mathematically defined
Mathematics is not reality anon. Wake up.

>>16756383
>I do not need to "sound" smart.
Great job then since you sound absolutely retarded and unable to grasp grade schooler math lessons.

>Weird and unhealthy obsession you have there anon.
You are the one who brought up IQ, retard.

> But that doesn't work past some level.
Yes the level of person like you who can't even understand the commutative property is going to have no use for other math jargon.

>>16756384
Maths are much closer to reality than whatever colors you think you are seeing with your right foot.

>>16756388
Some mathlets are pretty fucking based. Then there's weirdos like you who start rambling about math, completely unprompted, like vegans.

>>16655184 (OP)
You are conflating the abstract concept of nothing with whatever is nothing in this universe, as a physical concretion.

>>16756392
>unprompted
kek, you don't even understand that 100% is 100% mathematical in nature, so you are complete confused about what prompted me to try to help you understand the concept of 100%

>>16756394
No, those are the same thing, x=x+0, abstract null nothingness (ie not adding anything), is the same as real concrete nothingness (adding exactly 0).

>>16756391
but it's not reality tho, that was my point. discussion was about nothing and the universe. you can use carpentry concepts for it but it's still not reality.
again, you keep trying to escape the sandbox but it's not really possible, at least not from what I've seen so far. humans try to use chimp concepts to get outside of the universe, which is pretty dumb. everything, including nothing, only make sense inside this universe. why would you think a human brain is even capable of mustering some kind of concept that makes any real sense, outside of our universe? or that an "outside" even exists, or makes any fucking sense?

>>16756400
but there was always something
>(adding exactly 0)
to what? you cannot even define an absolute 0. because you cannot rule out that which you do not know.
it's like saying "no water in the bottle", but there is air. "ok no air either" but there are fields. "ok no fields" which ones? "all of them" do you know all? do you know there's nothing else even more abstract? it wouldn't be nothing, it would be something which you did not yet discover as being there.

>>16756401
So you are just irrationally trying to change the subject to (Me) because (You) are too embarrassed to admit that I was correct and blind people see nothing just like what your foot sees?

>including nothing, only make sense inside this universe.
I accept your concession, nothing is inside the universe and math developed in the universe is the most precise way to describe it.

>that an "outside" even exists, or makes any fucking sense?
I didn't say anything about going outside of the universe you hallucinating retard, I answered >>16756359 about exactly how to see exactly nothing from the comfort of your own bathroom which is inside your home which is inside the universe.

>>16756409
>So you are just irrationally trying to change the subject to (Me) because (You) are too embarrassed to admit that I was correct and blind people see nothing just like what your foot sees?
no, I say your nothing is lesser in this case, it's not-light. your blind people need people with vision so "not seeing" makes any sense.
>nothing is inside the universe and math developed in the universe is the most precise way to describe it.
quite clearly, nothing means not something. it makes no sense without something. thus it cannot exist outside of something, say our universe in this case.
>I didn't say anything about going outside of the universe
ah good, because saying "there was nothing, and then our universe popped up" is pure nonsense. because in this case nothing needs to somehow go outside our universe, which I say it's not something that makes any fucking sense. glad we agree on this.

>>16756408
>to what?
to 0 itself or any other value that follows
>because you cannot rule out that which you do not know.
Math uses undefined for unknowns, not 0.
>you cannot even define an absolute 0
0 is absolutely 0 per the law of identity.

>fields
empty fields is just when nothing is arbitrarily expanded to fill an arbitrary empty space of nothingness

>do you know there's nothing else even more abstract?
That is what x is for.
> it wouldn't be nothing
So? There would still be nothing, x would still be exactly x+0.

>it would be something which you did not yet discover as being there.
So? We have discovered a lot of things after discovering 0, 0 is the smallest possible amount of things that can be discovered, how exactly can someone make less discoveries than 0 discoveries.

>>16756418
>how exactly can someone make less discoveries than 0 discoveries.
so you need the concept of discoveries for "0 discoveries" to make any sense. 0 by itself makes no fucking sense, it's always related to something whatever that something might happen to be. by itself is a meaningless concept.

>>16756417
>I say your nothing is lesser in this case, it's not-light.
I didn't say it was light, I said it was nothing, it is the least thing possible, of course it lesser than light, I never said anything about light, that is just you trying to change the subject again after your argument got BTFO.

>quite clearly, nothing means not something.
No, it means null something.
>it makes no sense without something
No, something doesn't make sense without nothing, nothing is itself, so the something necessary is itself 0=0 primarily, but because something can only be itself if nothing separates it from itself, you get 0=x-x to be able to define anything and everything else.

>ah good, because saying "there was nothing, and then our universe popped up" is pure nonsense
No, more nonsensical than you saying the universe always existed because nothing preceded it.

>nothing needs to somehow go outside our universe
No it doesn't, nothing is the smallest possible amount of universe, its not outside, it is foundational.

We obviously don't agree, you are clearly just making up bullshit again because you think the universe had to have come from nothing since it doesn't make sense to say it started with nothing.

>>16756423
>so you need the concept of discoveries for "0 discoveries" to make any sense
How many glunkaroobieos have you made, if not 0?

>0 by itself makes no fucking sense
So your apex argument is that 0 definitely makes exactly 0 sense, so it can't possibly exist, you are using the necessary existence of the thing to justify its own nonexistence?

>by itself is a meaningless concept.
So 0 can't exist because you know for a fact that 0 has exactly 0 meaning?

>>16756437
>How many glunkaroobieos have you made, if not 0?
Cute but glunkaroobieos is something, even if made up, it's a made up something.
>So your apex argument is that 0 definitely makes exactly 0 sense, so it can't possibly exist, you are using the necessary existence of the thing to justify its own nonexistence?
There's many kinds of zeroes, depending on what they are related to. Zero money is not the same as zero clues. They are different zeros. Your absolute zero makes no sense in the real world.
>So 0 can't exist because you know for a fact that 0 has exactly 0 meaning?
Absolute 0 cannot exist because it makes 0 sense. The latter 0 is related to sense. You can use "not" instead. The only thing you can relate absolute zero to is everything, and not-everything makes no sense, because you cannot prove such a thing is possible. It's just wordplay with no real meaning in this universe. Unless you can prove this universe wasn't, which you cannot.

>>16756447
So the thing that isn't real is actually necessarily real because it has 0 conceptualization which isn't a thing because 0 itself is nonsense, so you can't have 0 since you have to have at least 0 things?

>Absolute 0 cannot exist because it makes 0 sense.
So while it makes 0 sense it does not make absolutely 0 sense because glunkaroobieos are real since they are completely made up?

>Unless you can prove this universe wasn't, which you cannot.
But you just proved outside universes aren't possible which means you have positively proven 0 outside universes because you know the outside universe wasn't and can't possibly be.

>>16756459
>no argument
Now you are just acting like a faggot. Or better said like 0 man.

>>16756459
>But you just proved outside universes aren't possible
No you brainlet, I merely pointed to the fact that you cannot prove this universe wasn't. I did not prove other universes cannot be, I just pointed to your inability of proving this universe wasn't. You are such a weak loser lmao

>>16756460
Its still the same argument about how you are using something's necessary existence to prove its own nonexistence, you just don't understand since your tiny brain can't comprehend recursion.

>>16756464
No liar, you said you proved that outside the universe is entirely nonsensical.
>>16756417
>nothing needs to somehow go outside our universe, which I say it's not something that makes any fucking sense

Without outside universes being logically impossible, you have not disproved nothing since your disproof depends on nothing being outside universe and outside the universe being logically impossible.

>>16756472
>No liar, you said you proved that outside the universe is entirely nonsensical.
that is not proof other universes can or can't exist. I just said it's nonsense to discuss with what is known. that doesn't mean you can extend anything else, outside of our universe, since we do not know. you can speculate, but that makes your absolute zero concept some theory. unless you can prove it, it's not valid. unless you can prove our universe wasn't. in which case you can extend it, and say "well since our universe wasn't, and then it was, that means others can not be, and then be.
my whole point is that we cannot go to t=0, so this absolute 0 outside of our universe is nonsense. or some theory. you cannot escape our universe with any concept because as it stands it's pure nonsense, no reason to consider such a thing.
>Without outside universes being logically impossible
but they are. you do not even fucking understand what outside this universe even means. this is the crux of the issue, it stems from your mathematical absolute zero nonsense. you extend it to reality as if it makes some fucking sense, that's the whole problem we're discussing right now, you extending it outside of our universe like that makes any fucking sense. unless you can prove our universe wasn't, you cannot talk about "outside". it's pure brain rot. thus any possible concept is tied to the inside of it. including your brain, coming up with such nonsense ideas like absolute zero. all happening inside this universe.

why tf would there be an outside of our universe? what does that even mean? it's just retarded words

>>16756484
>since we do not know.
So now your argument is that because you don't know about a bunch of things, nothing must be impossible?

>your absolute zero concept some theory
Its not my theory, the concept of absolute zero has existed since before either of us was born, but of course since your whole argument devolved to the fact that you don't know things, of course you don't know that.

>unless you can prove it, it's not valid
0 is proven by definition, it is a foundational axiom and all mathematical values and proofs depend upon its existence.

>my whole point is that we cannot go to t=0
Take tn to be the time now since t=0, tn-tn=0, so we can calculate t=0 based only on tn without any outside factors.

>but they are
Then your evidence is nonsensical since its based on your claims that you know all about outside universes because outside universes can't be known.

>you extend it to reality as if it makes some fucking sense
No, my claim is that 0 is the origin point of the universe I never said 0 is outside of the universe, that is your nonsensical claim that you think you have proven because you say you can't possibly know anything about outside universes.

>unless you can prove our universe wasn't
No I just have to logically show how the universe started with nothing and 0 is the origin point, not that it wasn't and doesn't exist.

>you cannot talk about "outside".
You are the one basing your entire argument on outside of the universe, you pure brainrot retard, I said 0 is the foundation of the universe, not the outside.

>>16756494
>So now your argument is that because you don't know about a bunch of things, nothing must be impossible?
I'm saying your concept makes no sense
>the concept of absolute zero has existed since before either of us was born
there's many concepts that make no sense. how are you struggling with this?
>0 is proven by definition
but you cannot determine reality with your definitions. you are a dense mf
>Take tn to be the time now since t=0, tn-tn=0, so we can calculate t=0 based only on tn without any outside factors.
more dumbfuckery. how do you even know there was a t=0 you absolute buffoon? this is exactly what I am talking about, these inertial extensions your primitive chimp brain is making without even questioning itself. how tf do you know there is a t=0? what if what you call t=0 is actually t=9....99998 and we can only go to t=9....99999? moron or t=infinite? you have no fucking clue, that's my whole point you gorilla moron, unless you KNOW what happened before where we can go right now, you cannot SAY anything, it's pure speculation, nonsense.
>Then your evidence is nonsensical since its based on your claims that you know all about outside universes because outside universes can't be known.
you keep building idiotic ideas "you said that which means this" no it doesn't you brainlet lel, your brain is on auto-complete
>No, my claim is that 0 is the origin point of the universe
what a retarded fucking claim. how the actual fuck do you know this?you cannot prove this you moron. how can you make such idiotic unfounded claims?this is hilarious. you have no clue what I am even talking about do you? your brain is absolute mush anon
>No I just have to logically show how the universe started
you cannot.you just cannot extend your logic because you DO NOT KNOW.that's not how reality works anon wtf is wrong with you?you just have no fucking clue what was before the last point we're able to mathematically go.you're just filling in the blanks with random bullshit

>>16756494
>You are the one basing your entire argument on outside of the universe, you pure brainrot retard, I said 0 is the foundation of the universe, not the outside.
you just don't get it do you? your absolute zero nonsense IMPLIES outside the universe. because it means "not-everything" moron. which is nonsense, it means outside the universe is possible, eg no universe. how the fuck is this so hard on your brain? why does it wreck this havoc among your three neurons anon? this is not happening lol
absolute 0 is nonsense because it implies shit which is not proven. you just suppose random shit and declare that as being real based on the fact that someone said something about some bullshit concept which is helpful in some imaginary math framework humans came up with to somewhat describe reality.
you have made so many mistakes, this is hilarious

>>16756505
Filtering concepts through your nonsense makes no sense, you haven't really addressed any of my claims since you just insert your own nonsense about outside universe instead.

>there's many concepts that make no sense
For people like you who indulge your own ignorance, yeah, its very hard to makes sense of things.

>but you cannot determine reality with your definitions
They aren't my definitions, they are the axioms of math and plenty of nonretarded people have used math to make things like the internet and device you are using to brag about your ignorance.

>how tf do you know there is a t=0?
Because 0 is the first number, so if there is any number of t, there must be a t=0.

>what if what you call t=0 is actually t=9....99998
It wouldn't be, t=0 would be tx-tx and 9...9 doesn't make any sense, you clearly don't even understand what ... indicates.

>it's pure speculation
Again you are just debunking yourself and appealing to your own igorance, but if you don't know then you can't possibly know it didn't start with 0, the only logical starting point.

>how the actual fuck do you know this?
By definition, it is how 0 is defined, to use any subsequent number, you have to define 0.

>DO NOT KNOW
IF YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING HOW CAN YOU KNOW OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW THINGS ARE WRONG?
It is nonsense to claim that you know because you can't possibly know just like all your other nonsense about how 0 can't exist because it has 0 meaning.

>>16756507
>you just don't get it do you?
>t. the anon whose entire argument is that it is impossible to "get it".

>>16756510
>They aren't my definitions, they are the axioms of math
they are not fucking reality holy shit
>Because 0 is the first number, so if there is any number of t, there must be a t=0.
in your shit framework, not in reality. you just cannot extend it to reality and expect it to hold up. reality doesn't fucking work like that moron. it doesn't give a fuck about your expectations based on your retarded ideas of what was beyond a point when you cannot go and probe, not even mathematically
>It wouldn't be, t=0 would be tx-tx
you took the bait, leaving out t=∞ shows you are afraid of addressing it
>starting point
lol, as I said, clueless, filling in the blanks. you cannot do that moron. I know your brain shits itself considering this so you just error out like "muh has to be t=0"
>By definition, it is how 0 is defined,
reality doesn't give a shit about your definition moron, it means nothing, has no effect on reality lmao. your statement is utterly useless. it's like me saying "let there be intergalactic 5 titted femaliums" and actually expecting one suck my dick. you're that fucking imbecilic with your "but I said so so it must be true" bullshit
>IF YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING HOW CAN YOU KNOW OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW THINGS ARE WRONG?
nobody knows dipshit, that's my whole point

>>16756507
>absolute zero nonsense IMPLIES outside the universe.
No, I have told you many times it means that the smallest possible amount of universe is absolute zero, no outside of the universe is necessary, the axiom that defines 0 is not outside of the framework of logic or math, it is foundational to it just like logic and math is foundational to physics and higher orders of abstraction.

>absolute 0 is nonsense because it implies shit which is not proven.
No, it applies the axiom of the additive identity which is proven through rigorous logic.

>you just suppose random shit
No you are the one invoking random outside universes and other nonsensical shit, I am the one trying to stick to the laws of logic and arithmetic and physics.

>humans came up with to somewhat describe reality.
Which is a much better description than your impotent, ME DON'T KNOW WATTABOUT OUTSIDE DA UNIVERSE, retardation.

>>16756516
>they are not fucking reality holy shit
They are the basis of real number and of physics.

>in your shit framework
No in the framework of math and physics.

>You just cannot extend it to reality and expect it to hold up
The only way you can send your retarded messages to the world via the internet is because math extends to reality.

>leaving out t=∞
I addressed it, but you don't even understand the concept of infinity, you think 9...98 is valid, you don't even understand that infinity is just a limit, not a number like 0.

>filling in the blanks. you cannot do that moron.
The only thing that can be filled in is a blank space because if it isn't blank, its already filled in with something else.

>reality doesn't give a shit about your definition moron
It doesn't give a shit that you don't know anything either, it still starts with 0 and there is still 0 difference between a thing and itself.

>nobody knows dipshit, that's my whole point
How do you know what other people know if you don't know anything, retard?

Is that still the apex of your retarded nonsensical argument that you know 0 is impossible because you can't possibly know anything?

>>16756520
>it means that the smallest possible amount of universe is absolute zero
so a planck unit is 0 units?
>No, it applies the axiom of the additive identity which is proven through rigorous logic.
this is bullshit. conjuring up a start of the universe is not rigorous logic, it's unfounded. you have no other observed start of any other universe, so you cannot extend it to THAT, to the "start of the universe" whatever the actual fuck that means...and implies. do you realize what your statement even IMPLIES? you are legitimately insane, if all mathlets legitimately think the universe had t=0 and "started", with no proof, you are all utter failures of humankind and you should all be fucking ashamed
>No you are the one invoking random outside universes
no such thing, again, I only said any statement about "outside our universe" is pure nonsense, wild theories that may make no sense. you cannot even explain what that even means. you think you do, but you don't, you will just repeat some bullshit other humans SAID. you cannot PROVE it.
>description
not reality, don't care

>>16756524
>math extends to reality.
sometimes you dumb turd, not always. this is unreal this is not happening lol

>>16756525
>so a planck unit is 0 units?
No, that is the smallest measurable, not the smallest possible, if you say it is the smallest possible than you are saying that something can't have a speed and a position just because it can't be measured at the same time.

>conjuring up a start of the universe is not rigorous logic
It is if you rigorously test it with logic as has been done with 0 to the point it is one of the two necessary numbers to perform all logic digitally.

>it's unfounded.
Wrong, it is founded in the axioms of logic and arithmetic that were used to make the models of the universe that you don't know anything about since your entire argument is that you know what you know because you know that nobody can know anything.

>if all mathlets legitimately think the universe had t=0 and "started", with no proof
Yes it can have always existed of it started as an infinite void of nothing because there are 0 dependencies for an infinite void of nothing whereas everything else that comes after has dependencies that converge at 0, the foundational dependency and only necessary being.

> I only said any statement about "outside our universe" is pure nonsense
It was your statement to begin with if you want to chew out someone do it to yourself on your own time since you nonsensically brought up the idea in the first place.
> you cannot even explain what that even means
Because you brought it up just to say how nonsensical it was like when I brought up glunkaroobieos to show that even if I don't know what they are, I can know I am holding 0 of them right now since I am holding nothing in my hands right now.

>not reality
You already said that you don't know what reality is because no one can, so you can't even say if it is or is not reality because you can not possibly know.

>>16756528
Yes and you don't know when, so you don't know if 0 can extend to reality or not, it is unreal how much your move the goal posts, take pride in your own ignorance, and conceded your points without actually admitting to the concessions.

>>16756541
>It is if you rigorously test it with logic as has been done with 0 to the point it is one of the two necessary numbers to perform all logic digitally.
no, you cannot. you just cannot pull it out of your ass just because "it makes sense". quantum shit doesn't make any logical sense. bell's inequality makes no fucking sense, you take them for what they are, hence no reason for how/why the universe exists to make any fucking sense to you. stop forcing your dogma on reality. it's pure nonsense and religion.
there is nothing, NOTHING, that resembles what you are trying to imply. just because you have the start of your puberty doesn't mean the universe must have a start moron. your transitive bullshit is conjured out of your ass. you mistake ideas and concept. there is NOTHING that is remotely related to "creation" or "destruction" you absolute imbecile. nothing. everything you ever, EVER, considered begining/end was purely based on stuff which already exists. cars? all made from particles. ideas? all conjured from particles (brains). math? yes...particles, conjured by brains. cities? all made with the same fucking stuff you idiot, particles. everything you think you know, is a fucking confusing clusterfuck mess in your shit-for-brains. you have no fucking argument, for anything "starting" you absolute fucking gorilla idiot, you pretentious piece of shit. you are uterly fucking clueless about everything, a complete mess of fucking nonsense. you CANNOT talk about matter creation or destruction without fucking proving it you imbecile. you utter failure of everything you have ever fucking studied. you waste of resources. how can you be so fucking dumb???
you cannot fucking extend the shit your monkey brain creates with fucking particles, to the creations of the particles themselves, you idiot! all your axioms make sense for shit created WITH fucking particles, you cannot go outside of that, moron.
you also cannot extend human fucking logic "outside" the sandbox

>>16756552
>there is nothing, NOTHING, that resembles what you are trying to imply.
Yes there is nothing, nothing is nothing it resembles nothing because it is nothing, thanks for the concession, no matter how retarded it was and how much you had to appeal to your own ignorance in the process.

>>16756558
your systems are primitive

>>16756570
Yes 0 is the most primitive system of value in the universe which is why it is foundational, thanks for the further concession.
You seemed pretty angry about not knowing the difference between physical evidence and logical proof, though, good luck dealing with that.

>>16756591
there is no evidence for matter creation or destruction. you have no standing for that statement. you can simply prove this by creating some matter, or destroying some of it. you'd get an insta-Nobel so go ahead
just because you can make various particle arrangements, and change those arrangements, does not mean you can "create" or "destroy" matter/energy. that's a ludicrous unfounded statement

>>16756593
>there is no evidence for matter creation or destruction
Yes there is, matter is not even a conserved quality, they know how to do particle pair creation and annihilation in the lab and people have already won prized for that.

>>16756596
not borrow shit from some field you brainlet, actual matter/energy creation/destruction. do you even understand what that means? because I don't.
ah, let me guess, you'll again conjure this absolute 0 innit, that totally makes sense

>>16756599
Matter and energy are different things, putting a / between them doesn't make them the same, matter is not conserved, particles of matter are created and destroyed through particle-pair creation and annihilation.

>>16756600
yeah no shit einstein, you know what I meant, I even figured you'd go there so I mentioned both later in that comment. stop the faggotry

>>16756602
No I know you didn't know that matter was not conserved and you don't seem to understand the difference between energy and matter since your whole schtick is not knowing things.
You mentioned both later because I pointed out that you were wrong about matter being conserved, so you tried to conflate energy and matter when they are two different things.

>>16756603
matter is a form of energy wtf is this arguing style you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel at this point. you should be making some serious arguments
>since your whole schtick is not knowing things.
that makes you look like even more of an imbecile, having your ass handed to you like that by some nobody. I'd just close my computer at this point if I were you, and completely try to wipe last hours from my memory.

>>16756606
>matter is a form of energy
No, matter is substance with volume and mass, energy is the transfer of work between massive bodies, only energy is conserved, matter is created and destroyed through pair production and annihilation.

>>16756611
matter is made from energy dude, it's stored energy, in matter form. e=mc^2 for conversion. stop fucking around and destroy it.
what would creating/destroying energy even mean? explain. quite curious. what do you actually understand by that?

>>16756613
>matter is made from energy dude
No, matter is made of massive bodies that contact each other and transfer work between the particles.

>it's stored energy
Its not stored, they are constantly interacting with each other and causing vibrations and energy transfer between the particle that make up the volume of mass.

>conversion
You don't have to convert things that are the same thing.

>what would creating/destroying energy
It would mean that all the things in motion transferring work in opposite directions of each other all cancel out and achieve perfect balance (0 movement) in a zero sum game.

>>16756618
>No, matter is made of massive bodies that contact each other and transfer work between the particles.
and how do they happen to exist tho?
>Its not stored
can I convert matter to energy?
>You don't have to convert things that are the same thing.
I kinda do depending on need. instead of supplying you with some low entropy energy I can simply give you a speck of dust instead. enjoy. hope you figure out how to power your home with it
>all the things
what things anon?

>>16756322
Irony: the post. The biggest irony is your projection.

>>16756626
>and how do they happen to exist tho?
Particle pair creation created the particles and particles attract to the point of collision because of gravitational and nuclear forces caused by the electromagnetic properties of the particles.

>can I convert matter to energy?
Would you have to convert from one to the other if it were the same thing and there weren't some factors of conversion that differentiated them?
You can release energy from matter in the process of particle annihilation, not really convert matter to energy.

>I kinda do depending on need.
No, if you needed the thing and had the thing, you wouldn't have to convert it to something else, you would have it.
>instead of supplying you with some low entropy energy I can simply give you a speck of dust instead.
WTF are you even talking about?

>what things anon?
Everything that is currently transferring work between itself (potential energy) and outside of itself (kinetic energy).

>>16756626
So you have completely given up on trying to demonstrate your own claims and are just asking a bunch of high school physics questions? Is high school these days really as bad as people make it out to be?

>>16756638
>Particle pair creation created the particles and particles attract to the point of collision because of gravitational and nuclear forces caused by the electromagnetic properties of the particles.
what does that have to do with an apple? you're deranged
>You can release
>not really convert
holy shit you're retarded, you just start changing what words mean lmao meds
>No, if you needed the thing and had the thing, you wouldn't have to convert it to something else, you would have it.
mf doesn't understand nuclear bombs now
>Everything that is currently transferring work between itself (potential energy) and outside of itself (kinetic energy).
and why tf would that happen? why would they cancel out and achieve perfect balance? you can reframe it anyway you like, you are still unable to explain how that would happen, it still doesn't make any sense. it's like conjuring up ghosts, as stupid as that. it's the same thing as saying "shit just popped out of (absolute) nothing" which still makes you sound like the dumbfuck that you are.

>>16756644
I have no claim to demonstrate, idiots claiming absolute zero makes sense in this universe, or the universe "starting", need to prove it.

>>16756650
>what does that have to do with an apple?
Apples are made of particles.

>changing what words mean
I didn't change anything, you release water from a destroyed dam, you don't convert water from one form of dam to another when the dam is annihilated.

>mf doesn't understand nuclear bombs now
If the nuclear bomb was energy, you wouldn't have to trigger it to release the energy.

>and why tf would that happen? why would they cancel out and achieve perfect balance?
It wouldn't, they can't, its based on your retarded hypothetical nonsense.

>you are still unable to explain how that would happen
You didn't ask how it would happen, you asked what it would mean if it could happen, learn to keep track of conversations, even if your ultimate conclusion will be you don't know anything because of the retardation.

> it's like conjuring up ghosts
It was your hypothetical, get mad at yourself.

>shit just popped out of (absolute) nothing
0!=1, that has a pretty high standard of logical proof, can you prove the formula is wrong?
Also nothing is something, it didn't just pop in, it always was, it is foundational, it just gets converted to units of other things because of the formula I just provided.

>>16756651
So anon told you god was dead?

>>16756651
Oh right, you already proved that you don't and can't actually know anything since you actively refuse to accept logic and proofs.

>>16756651
The universe itself didn't "start" its default state is absolute nothingness and if you go backward until everything else stops, you will still have nothing, so the start of other stuff begins when nothing stopped being absolute, the start of the big bang universe is when the expansion of matter resulted from the conditions of initial default state, the absolute extreme of which is just nothingness.

>>16756671
>I didn't change anything, you release water from a destroyed dam, you don't convert water from one form of dam to another when the dam is annihilated.
you literally convert the potential/kinetic energy of the water to electrical energy in a dam. you're exhibiting galactic levels of faggotry
>It wouldn't, they can't, its based on your retarded hypothetical nonsense.
it's your hypothetical nonsense you dipshit, you said the universe started and all energy came from literally nothing. that is your motherfucking claim you dissonant twat
>You didn't ask how it would happen
that was pretty much implied you disingenuous prick, you not addressing it and faggoting around the subject makes it clear you have no fucking idea how the energy can come out of "absolute zero" or go away to this "absolute zero". yet you are shamelessly claiming it did. you have no idea how, but you once built a sand castle which means the universe had a beginning
>to release the energy.
what energy?
>It was your hypothetical, get mad at yourself.
no, you said the universe had a beginning and energy just popped out of absolute nothing, you kept melting down about it, you kept advocating for ghosts that conjured energy through literal magic
>Also nothing is something, it didn't just pop in, it always was, it is foundational, it just gets converted to units of other things because of the formula I just provided.
you gypsy mf

>>16756680
meds

>>16756644
>high school these days really as bad as people make it out to be?
It's even worse. You get a free 50% in the course for literally existing. You can submit all the work for the semester at the last week. You can retake tests as many times as you want until you pass. And this is all the tip of the iceberg. Believe it or not, graduation rates are still shockingly not as high as you'd expect.

>>16756674
your logic does not apply you morons. you are misusing your framework for something which it does not apply to. you're all fucking failures of education. future humans will study this, forever ingrained in the records, and laugh at your stupidity, and weak genes. imagine actually studying shit and failing so hard, in a debate with a literal brainlet with no studies on the topic. kek

>they thought the universe "started" because their netflix slop started and had an end
>logic
>lmao even

>>16756683
>you literally convert the potential/kinetic energy of the water to electrical energy
No, a dam doesn't do that when destroyed, you need a functioning turbine to convert mechanical energy to electrical energy.

>you said the universe started
No, I said it starts with nothing because nothing is the base foundation, nothing didn't start to exist, it is eternal, but anytime you follow an object to its starting point, you will eventually find 0 as the source and stabilizer.

>you said the universe started and all energy came from literally nothing
No I said starts at nothing (and it still does to this day, nothing is still foundational, its not something that only exists in the past, you need nothing in order for something to be something instead of everything) not that it started in some time in the past at nothing, other things started and continue to start and stop to this very moment because nothing necessarily exists.

>that was pretty much implied
No, you asked a completely different question, projector of your own prickishness.

>how the energy can come out of "absolute zero"
Except of course when I provided the exact formula that describes how it happens numerous times 0!=100%.

>what energy?
The nuclear energy from the nucleus of atoms that gets released when the atoms are split via fission and/or fusion instead of constantly bumping into each other in steady ways that maintain a solid mass.

> you said the universe had a beginning
No I said it has a foundation.

>energy just popped out of absolute nothing
No, I said any unit could have popped out of absolute nothing because 0!=100% is unitless. Energy is not primary, it is a derivative of mass, without mass there is no transfer of work.

>you gypsy mf
You illiterate retard. All your issues is because you want to paraphrase and keep trying to convert words like foundation to other things like beginning.

>>16756684
concessions

>>16756688
So your now your argument of ignorance is that you must be correct because you are a brainlet who hasn't studied anything and doesn't know what you are talking about, so you can't possibly be proven wrong since you won't accept the framework of being wrong about something you don't know anything about?

>>16756691
Your post is the first mention of netflix, you are just misinterpreting start to be beginning rather than foundational, and nobody has even said anything about an end of the universe, but obviously some illogical maniac who finds logic to be laughable isn't going to care about anything logical.

>>16705512
awww shieeeet

>>16718434
indeed anon god of the gaps fallacy and special pleading


philosophy is so simple why do niggas get degrees in this? also dont waste time with retards i just do this for fun because my algorithms are trading ES for MFT shieet

what fucking retard has been keeping thsi dead thread afloat foe literally months

>>16756882
All the retards who didn't see through their end of the discussion until the bump limit was reached.

>>16756889
I'd like to take credit for killing this thread. I made my first post (out of fewer than five) around post number 150, and then within a day it blew up past the bump limit with over 200 posts. You're welcome

>>16756830
you salty coz you got your ass whooped lol

>>16756844
no such thing, you cannot apply the logic to it, because there's nothing like that in nature. there is no creation of anything, at any point, only transformation. that is all that ever was, and that is all that was aver observed by us humans. just pointing that out. no matter your mental gymnastics and what all but one humans "decide" on, that can never change reality.

>>16756830
your whole argument is "this mf doesn't know what I know" which means fuck all. you had many replies to make one relevant point, and failed each time and went after how I'm dressed. which is pretty much pathetic. doesn't matter how much you studied if you cannot do jack shit with it. nobody cares. you study so you come up with something useful not to stroke your dumb ego.
as I said, you are a failure.

>>16757573
Concession accepted.

>>16757575
>there's nothing like that in nature. there is no creation of anything
Except of course particle pair creation which you keep ignoring since you don't understand matter is more than just energy and you just want to seethe and namecall instead.

> that can never change reality.
Kind of like how you can never change the fact that particle pair creation happens no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

>>16757577
>your whole argument is "this mf doesn't know what I know"
No its not, my argument is that logic and the whole of math proves that nothingness, 0, is the basis of value and reality.

>went after how I'm dressed
What?

>>16757682
what does particle pair creation have to do with anything? requires existing energy. if they annihilate, energy is the result of that.
this doesn't change what I said, energy creation has not been observed. only energy transformation. you can talk about transformation of energy, whatever, apply your logic to that, it's the only thing that we ever witnessed. not energy creation

>>16757682
>Kind of like how you can never change the fact that particle pair creation happens no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
but that is not energy creation. which is the only thing that really "exists" in this universe, everything else is in your head. anything else you consider as "existing" are various energy arrangements, it's virtual. the only thing that really exists is energy, nothing else. and it always existed, it was never "created".
creation is not even a real concept btw

>>16757690
>energy creation has not been observed.
But matter creation has, this entire sideline started >>16756593 with you saying particles and matter can't be created or destroyed.

>>16757696
of-course you can transform energy in matter what's wrong with you? you cannot create energy tho
which is your claim, that energy was "created". through magic

>>16757694
No, energy is a second derivative, so 1 unit of energy is 1 kg⋅m2⋅s−2, energy is not a fundamental metrics, it is with respect to other more fundamental metrics interacting.

>>16757700
you still cannot create energy tho. nobody ever could.create energy and I'll agree the universe wasn't at some point

>>16757699
>of-course you can transform energy in matter what's wrong with you?
I accept your concession, you have been wrong this whole time, >>16756593 was completely wrong and you clearly don't understand the basics of matter and energy.

>>16757706
you're trying to get me on technicalities and use me using the wrong particular word to disprove my point, which is pretty low and weak.
you particle pair bullshit makes no sense, you are left with energy from them recombining. there's no energy created out of nothing

>>16757701
You still moved the goalposts, energy is not fundamental, if matter did just pop into existence, energy would come along for the ride because energy is a derivative of mass over distance and time, not the other way around, energy just gets transferred because mass shares a field of space.

>>16757708
Thanks for the concession again, yes I am technically correct and yes your irrational argument has been gotten by logical facts.

>the wrong particular word t
It wasn't wrong, you need matter to be the one that could be created because you were trying to say that particles can not just be created, but they can.

>there's no energy created out of nothing
Energy is dependent on mass, there is creating mass out of nothing since 0=1-1 and 0!=100%.

>>16757708
and then there's maybe the hawking radiation with the virtual particle pair with negative energy for one so you're left with 0 after the recombine but those haven't been observed and they also don't result in extra energy. at most you can borrow energy from some field to make particle pairs but that has to be returned
>Particle pair creation, or pair production, is the process where a particle and its antiparticle are created from energy, typically involving a high-energy photon interacting with matter near an atomic nucleus. This process conserves energy and momentum, and examples include the creation of an electron and a positron.
I keep saying you cannot create energy and you keep going after anything you possibly can from my posts instead of directly addressing that you cannot create energy out of nothing.
that is what I meant you're going after my clothes, you are willing to pick at literally any retarded detail but completely avoid addressing the elephant in the room, namely that you cannot create energy out of nothing (at most borrow it), which means creations has never been observed, which means you have no standing in stating "logically" the universe was created/wasn't and then it was.

>>16757714
>Particle pair creation, or pair production, is the process where a particle and its antiparticle are created from energy
create FROM energy. you need energy. that already exists. address creating energy please.

>>16757720
>from energy
You intentionally misquoted because you don't understand what a neutral boson is.

>address creating energy please
>All other conserved quantum numbers (angular momentum, electric charge, lepton number) of the produced particles must sum to zero – thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1.
Energy is a zero sum game that results from mass, energy is not fundamental it is a second order derivative.

>>16757725
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production
and from wiki:
>The photon's energy is converted to particle mass in accordance with Einstein's equation, E = mc2;
you again avoided addressing creation, and you're trying to gypsy me on words
this is you btw: https://youtu.be/yP-OvorryAU

>>16757731
>CTRL+F from energy
>Phrase not found
Lying again, I see.

>you again avoided addressing creation
I didn't avoid anything, energy is a second order derivative of mass and distance over time, there will always be energy if mass, distance, and time are involved, energy is created by the interaction of mass in space over time.

>>16757736
ok and if I ask you how to create matter you're gonna go like "from energy". I told you you are a gypsoid faggot weakling

>>16757767
No, you are the one who hallucinated the phrase "from energy" (which doesn't appear in the link or the wiki page) and keeps intentionally misinterpreting everything I write, you lying retard.

You are the first one to say "from energy" >>16756613 and I immediately debunked it >>16756618

>>16757773
you still failed to address how matter and energy were created, all of it, as a total in this universe. you keep juggling between them, like a gypsy, without addressing the main question. how did it all came to exist? which is what I mean by "creation". stop fucking around you pedantic gypsy. you cannot avoid the loss by pointing to me using some words the wrong way, that means nothing because you haven't explained shit.
>>16756494
>No I just have to logically show how the universe started with nothing
you can't. your logic doesn't apply to that.
you said the universe started with nothing. two wrong statements:
started - this is fucking retarded, coming from a fucking retard of-course
with nothing - this is also retarded
you're a sore loser imbecile, who society wasted resources in educating, for him to proceed to spew bullshit later in his life. you absolute good for nothing failure

>>16757785
>you still failed to address how matter and energy were created, all of it, as a total in this universe
No, I have given the exact formulas that quantitatively describe exactly how numerous times 0!=100%.

>you keep juggling between them
No, you keep trying to change the question when you get an answer you don't like and then you will just lie about what was said or what the wiki page says, you are a completely disingenuous liar who still doesn't understand that energy is the derivative, not a fundamental unit.

>you can't. your logic doesn't apply to that.
It does, the rigorously arithmetically proven logical formula I keep providing is a clear direct relationship between nothing and everything.

>you said the universe started with nothing. two wrong statements:
Yes because the lowest base initial foundational level is nothing, and start specifically refers to the lowest base initial foundational level.

>you're a sore loser imbecile
>t. the retard who already admitted that you are technically wrong and don't even understand what energy is >>16757708.

Amazing thread.

Best thread on /sci/ currently. Really exposing all the brainlets with zero ability to conceptualize.