Does quantum uncertainty prove that something comes from nothing? Have we found the Root of everything?

God I hate this dogshit board.

We have a lack of information about certain properties, but we can assume these particles always have properties. Things are still conserved.

>>16679089 (OP)
No. Bohr is a fag.

>>16679089 (OP)
Yeah

>>16679089 (OP)
What does Aleister Crowley have to do with science?

>>16684339
I believe he treated 'magick'/psychology as a science of sorts, which is sort of poetic, or ironic, when you realize that psychology is not a hard science at all. It's soft. You can't exactly get inside another's head to verify solipsism. Yet, the ability to mind rape the masses has been demonstrated for thousands of years.

>>16679111
>God I hate this dogshit board.
It's a Samsung phoneposter filename. Why even bother to bump?

>>16679089 (OP)
Freaky deaky bald sex magique man

>>16679111
God I hate you.

>>16685608
iPhone, akshyaylly

>>16679089 (OP)
How does something come from nothing? The riddle of steal.

>>16679089 (OP)
No, formal factorized permutation proves that nothing is the form remaining when all other forms are removed (0!=1) and it is the empirically foundational thing for everything else which is why there is a word to describe the experience of nothing which each and every sense.

>>16689490
Nothing is something and per law of identity, things always are of themselves, so something necessarily comes from nothing because nothing is something.

>>16679089 (OP)
Quantum uncertaintly doesn't actually describe reality, the physicists just come up with the best available mathematical models to explain observation. They're not better than the folks that want you to believe a penguin is actually a perfect cylinder.

>>16679089 (OP)
From outside it looks so insignificant it could as well be nothing. From inside is everything.

>>16679089 (OP)
No.

That would mean the nothing is not inexistant , pure inexistance is impossible because of logic , as said earlier by >>16689556 , but now we can ask a much more interesting question , what is the nothing, knowing that this can NOT be inexistance ?

You need to connect the past with the future in a circuit loop. Once you do that, then the question becomes is the past building the future, or are they building towards one another and the observers are the wave function collapse points where the immersive uncertainty comes and goes....it comes and goes. Karma karma karma karma karma kameion.

>>16679089 (OP)
>Does quantum uncertainty prove that something comes from nothing?
no, it doesnt. time/energy uncertainty is pop sci nonsense and doesnt exist btw

>>16691098
>pure inexistance is impossible because of logic
no it isn't

>>16691098
If you don't like nonexistence as a concept, then you could just consider it to be smallest possible amount of existence, but you find you would still have to treat it as 0 existence to balance your equations.

>>16693310
>If you don't like nonexistence as a concept, then you could just consider it to be smallest possible amount of existence
They really don’t want to acknowledge this though. They don’t want to acknowledge that even an absolute nothingness, a zero, is a still nonetheless a one, by such a point. You cannot separate math (1s and 0s) from anything. Failure to acknowledge this means one doesn’t grasp existence at a basic level. Acknowledging it means you fathom that existence is just… existence…

>>16694723
Existence is beyond the grasp of the existent, its like asking a one handed man to hold his own hand.

The only way to make a formal system like math that is large enough to account for endless states is to rely on a logical explosion that results from a paradox and that is exactly how they formulated arithmetic by making the origin number, the smallest numeral, its own opposite number 0=-0 and allowing an infinite logical explosion to radiated from that source.

Sigh

>>16697090
You about to cry or something?

>>16697431
No…

Weird sex addicted drugged out bald guy

>>16679089 (OP)
No.

>>16679089 (OP)
Define "nothing". Is it a scientific or a philosophical term? vacuum states? the absence of matter? Or it is a rhetorical “nothing”: no space, no time, no laws, no potential, no structure, no shit? Physics doesn't deal with that.

>>16689556
0! = 1 is just a mathematical convention, not metaphysics. It’s defined this way. It’s a formal trick and doesn't imply anything about "nothingness".

>Nothing is something

is this entire thread a bait or just a bunch of retards talking to each other?

"nothing" is a label for absence. There is no logical proof that "nothing" is foundational.

"Nothing is something" is a pathetic attempt to hammer in existence into non-existence by treating "nothing" like a thing that "is". But a thing can't both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. It is like saying zero is a number, and numbers are things, so zero is something, so absence is presence. /sci/ is obsessed with nonsensical shit.

>>16679089 (OP)
Niggers come from poop.

That is all.

>>16679111
lol, I entered this thread exactly to write something like "fucking kill yourself OP".
I seriously can't distinguish rage bait from profound mental retardation anymore.

>>16679089 (OP)
What do we think about the work of Dean Radin?

>>16695821
Good points.

>>16700442
Wtf

>>16700442
Why are you like this

>>16679089 (OP)
>something comes from nothing
Something can only "come from" something else in the context of spacetime, as it has locality and the passage of time, leading to causality. There's no reason to assume that everything must necessarily happen within spacetime; it's just a quantum field like any other. Annihilate a positron-electron pair into photons and the energy just fucks off from both the Higgs and electron fields into the EM field. So perhaps under certain circumstances energy can be transferred away from (or into) spacetime, and without spacetime who the fuck knows what kind of dream logic nonsense happens when you don't have causality. We can already observe clear indicators that strictly deterministic causal chains do NOT account for everything in the universe through quantum nonlocality, dark energy and virtual particles.

>>16700414
Nothing - 0 amount, the smallest possible amount of anything and everything.

>>16700423
>0! = 1 is just a mathematical convention, not metaphysics. It’s defined this way.
No, its not just some arbitrary definition that we could simply change willy nilly over night and still have a functional system, it is logically defined because it is the only thing that makes sense in the greater context of the number system and trying to change the definition would break the rest of the factorial function and falsify the whole of combinatorics.

>It’s a formal trick and doesn't imply anything about "nothingness".
No, it is a necessary definition that establishes and confirms that nothing is a unit of 0, it is a physically measurable and countable amount.

>"nothing" is a label for absence.
No, it is a description of emptiness (hence {0}= empty set) negativity is the label for an absence.

>There is no logical proof that "nothing" is foundational.
The empty set is the foundational set. 0 is the origin number. So, logically nothing is the foundational quantity.

>But a thing can't both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way.
It can if it is nothing which is why 0 and -0 are the same thing at the same time in the same way despite being opposite numbers by definition.

>It is like saying zero is a number
It is.
>numbers are things
They are.
>zero is something
Yes, it is a number, the origin number, the smallest possible absolute value in existence.

>absence is presence
Total emptiness is the presence of total absence which is why {0} = |0|.

>>16679111
You don't even understand the question

>>16705526
>{0}= empty set
no, {}=empty set with |{}|=0, we could use then 0 as a short hand for {}, in which case {{}}={0}, and |{0}|=1

>>16705526 >>16705527
also (0!)=1 due to empty product, which is trivial

>>16705526 >>16705560
also (0!)=1 due to empty product

>>16705560
>{{}}={0}
Yes, that is what I said.

>|{0}|=1
Did you forget a factorial symbol there or are really trying to say the absolute value of 0 is 1 instead of the factorial of 0?

>>16705565
Exactly, 0!=1 is not because of arbitrary conventions that can easily be changed like using * instead of x for multiplication, it is because it logically follows from the consequences of the base axioms of arithmetic.

>>16705572
>Did you forget a factorial symbol there or are really trying to say the absolute value of 0 is 1 instead of the factorial of 0?
no, i just said that we could use 0 as the shorthand for the empty set, in which case the cardinality of the set containing the empty set(that is to say {0}) is 1

>>16705572
>it is because it logically follows from the consequences of the base axioms of arithmetic.
ye

>>16705526
Positive and negative zero aren't the same in certain branches of mathematics further proving you're abusing mathematical convention to extract meaning that isn't there.
I'm not a formalist, I just don't think writing "0" is enough to invoke a particular Form if you don't elaborate what exactly do you mean by that. It's the same reason why certain expressions like 1^inf are invalid because it's unclear what exactly you're invoking or what process you're describing.

>>16705897
>Positive and negative zero aren't the same in certain branches of mathematics
So what is negative zero plus positive zero in those branches of math, if not zero?

> I just don't think writing "0" is enough to invoke a particular Form
It is the representation of null form by way of the additive identity, it is fundamental arithmetic axiomatically defined in such a way so as to fit any container, so no wonder a midwit would be confused by something more liquid than what they are used to.

>>16679089 (OP)
Not quite. Quantum uncertainty doesn’t imply “something from nothing” in the philosophical sense. What it actually describes is the probabilistic behavior of systems governed by the wavefunction—where the vacuum state is still a highly structured quantum field, not “nothing” in the metaphysical sense.
The root of everything—if we’re talking ontologically—likely lies deeper than quantum mechanics. QM is predictive, not explanatory; it models outcomes, not ultimate causes. If anything, the fact that uncertainty is embedded in the structure of reality hints at a deeper informational substrate we haven’t fully uncovered yet.

TL;DR: We haven’t found the root. We’ve found the noise in the branches.

>>16707141
>not “nothing” in the metaphysical sense.
Yea its nothing spread over empty space through time and when you do that, perturbations and fluctuations occur throughout the empty nothingness over time that results in other things at various points in space.

No the quantum foam is obviously just measurement noise and model error

>>16679089 (OP)
Does quantum uncertainty prove that something comes from nothing?
No
Have we found the Root of everything?
No

>>16679089 (OP)
It’s all consciousness anon. That’s the root.

bumpo

>>16679111
I love you too, anon.

>>16679089 (OP)
>something
>nothing
again these stupid monkey words

>>16710680
Yes everything in your post is a word, good job finally figuring out that words exist and you are just as stupid all the same, no matter how many words have come in contact with your little monkey brain.

>>16700442
lmfaoooooo

>>16708065
mmm gonshousness

Consiousness is mathematical in essence, and it interact with quantum mechanics (which is logic).

Search "Penrose/Hameroff on microtubules".

Bonus : Also search "AdS/CFT by Juan Maldacena".

Once those two studied, do a synthesis.

Determinism. Wins.

>>16679089 (OP)
As far as we're concerned, yes, it's the base code. Hidden variables do not exist.