>>950074734 >measure Our systems of mathematics are not inherent to the universe, yet we try to project them onto reality while expecting them to fit perfectly. We try to hard to contrive truth, and try to little to understand. Fix that, and perhaps you will get your wish. However, there are so many layers of faith and trust and money wrapped up in this I doubt you could.
>>950075222 Triples checked. If it is a universal truth, it has always been, and it is part of the united wholos of our natural world, and therefore by the logic associated with Occam's razor, we can deduce it is likely very simplex. It may take some innate wisdom to understand, but it shouldn't be incomprehensible either. It should align with the phrase: >"Simplicity is Divinity." My take. Yours may vary.
>>950075471 i too find this annoying not him obviously, but it's like stfu already stop shoehorning that meaningless non-answer into everything even in the book/movie it was basically outlined as an error in interpretation by the machine answering the question iirc
>>950075573 if you think searching for a unified theory is a "stupid pseudo intellectual pursuit then you are only proving you are what you claim others to be cope more then because your "answer" is only proving you don't know anything >log-fat-faggot oh right you always pretend to be dumb, but you're never capable of acting intelligent either which outlines the fact you really are this dumb
>>950075826 you do take me and this thread too seriously and in your effort to undermine the concept you've only proven your own ignorance and malice cope moar
you have no point to make and your spam is only proving what you are and what you lack you've already proven yourself to be an anti intellectual by virtue of the fact you dismiss pursuits of truth in favor of pop-ssci media quotes it's shameful and telling
its not ad hominem it's a statement in fact roven by your actiuaons and you inability to change i am not dodging an argument by making personal attacks on you] i am pointing out something you agreed with the fact you cannot change coupled with something you cannot seem to see the fact you're promoting dumb ideas while dismissing a pursuit of truth cope more all you seem to have is ignorance and lies, so I see why you do tend to cope instead of trying to argue a point nothing to say head empty syndrome, a.k.a. retardation or mental deficiency of some variety
mods try to make this place less appealing by sabotaging it with spam and i wonder if this is related even if it's not it's equally as repulsive not lulzy or fun just kinda sad more than anything else
>>950074828 The answer is 42. It's always been and will always be. We can't escape it and it can't escape us. The cognitive dissonance between us is also the catalyst of congruence.
the guy spamming the number doesn't know and he failed to demonstrate anything more than dismissal of interest in the pursuit of truth he's an anti intellectual and a spammer so why should anyone care
>>950091662 Not him, but that's only a theory based on limited observations, and if I must remind you there's no "center" to the universe, and so to presume dissolution into nothingness is more than a bit absurd. The further we look into the universe, the more we see, and the less likely it seems we would ever simply fade into "nothing". Whatever the source of matter is, it may not be so fleeting. The theory is founded on presumptions and limited observations, so while I know it "feels good" to doomspiral and doomsay, in a sick way, it's not really a theory that holds water either.
>>950092097 It's an absurd thing to cling to. A theory of death centered around observations made in ignorance. For all we know matter is generated from the special physics found in black holes. Perhaps at certain scales and under such extreme conditions, matter simply manifests into being. Regardless, even if the universe ends, it doesn't matter much. Enjoy your life while you've got it. Don't dwell on doom anon.
>>950093066 dubs "Dark" "matter" is a nonsense term for something scientists don't understand, and since the universe has no center, t"the big bang" doesn't hold water. It's a ridiculous theory. Almost as ridiculous as the spam ITT.
>>950093671 >>950093711 doubles though Point at the universe's center. You can't because there isn't one. This isn't a perfect representation, but it does demonstrate the scale of things, and the fact there's no center to the universe. What kind of foolish thinking led you to that erroneous conclusion? >so get 42 You don't know how to communicate, at all.
>>950093887 There are centers to objects, but there is no center of the universe. Ad hominem and deferral to nonsense does not help your point, and you cannot refute my own point either.
>>950094081 You fallacies and innate stupidity speak loudly anon. Prove there's a center. Point at it or reference it. You can't do this because it doesn't exist.
>>950094162 You think there's a center to the universe, and that fact alone tells me you are what you're claiming I am. You don't know up from down lol
>>950094225 >You claimed there was no *center* and that disputes the big bang The fact there's no center disproves the theory, yes. The fact there was never any real proof of the theory to begin with somewhat dismisses it too, yes. >got any proof? The fact there's no center, and the fact "the big bang" was never proven or related to any empirical evidence states it has no merit.
>>950093238 That's because you are picturing the big bang and the universe in 3+1 dimentional space time. If you allow that the universe has additional dimensions, then dark matter which adds to the universal gravitational field while being invisible to the human eye makes more sense.
>>950094416 >the shape the universe Ridiculous and a false supposition, but it is somewhat radial from every point of material interaction and dispersal of energy. Still, the universe itself has no shape, and no definite center. Star-systems have relative centers. Objects have centers, but the universe has no center to point to, because it is practically infinite in scale. you're asking the shape of something which has no shape to speak of. Now, let's ask you a question. Point to the center, and explain why you believe the universe has a definite "shape". Please, elaborate. >number spam You have no point to make, and you're not saying anything by posting that number. >>950094567 there isn't one to point to. it is absent. That's my point. >>950094591 Wrong concerning my thought process. >the universe has additional dimensions illogical, and this defies Occam's razor. the simplest explanation cannot be this contrived nonsense. >dark matter which adds to the universal gravitational field No,. but considering a universal medium which is not this explains much. I think sci-fi got to you too deeply.
>>950094885 The evidence is the center you claim exists does not in fact exist, and if it did exist you could point to it, which you cannot. Quod erat demonstrandum. Point to the center, then, if it exists. I will wait.
I am not sure humans can every comprehend everything. We are still 99% the same genetically as a chimpanzee. Are you every going to get a chimp to do calculus? Why would an animal 99% the same be able to solve the meaning of the universe?
>>950094937 The fact the center does not exist proves it in fact does not exist. Now you point to the center you claim exists. You can't? then you cede your point.
>>950095053 You claimed a center exists. I claimed something does not exist by virtue no-one can see it. You're the one making the claim, and so the burden of proof is on you to display. The fact we cannot see or abstract a center is self evident.
>>950095123 So nothing? I accept your concession, yet I anticipate your continuation of fallacies and feigned ignorance, or genuine stupidity. Some people should have been beat more in their formative years.
>>950095240 Gibberish. If you use nothing but fallacies and "no u's", then you have nothing of importance to say. You can't point to a center, and so you are ceding your point.
>>950095344 Doubles You can't point to a center, and so you have no point. I already pointed out there is no center, which is self-evident by virtue no-such-thing exists.
>>950095497 No point? You can't poi9nmt to a center? then you cede your argument. until you point to a center, you have nothing valid to argue in relationship to this line of dialogue.
>>950095544 Dubs though Show us a center. I see no center to point to, so please, elucidate us. Show us "the center of the universe". I will wait for you to produce the evidence you claim exists.
>>950095617 You're the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. You claimed something exists. A center to the universe. Your ad hominem fallacy is terribly funny, because it's clear you're only projecting your own failure.
>>950095773 You're the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. You claimed something exists. A center to the universe. So show us said center.
>>950095877 Dubs of coping >no u Is there a center to the universe? If yes, then were is it? >>950095866 Dubs. I think he's tweaked out or drunk honestly. If not either of those, it's profound mental retardation.
>>950095945 You made a claim, I pointed out it doesn't exist. You have yet to prove your claim, and yet the burden of evidence/proof is still on your shoulders. Produce evidence for your erroneous claim the universe has a definite center, or cede your point once more. >>950095950 It is most likely. Can you point to these imaginary extra dimensions, or are they like unicorns? Prove your point, or concede it. In theory, you may state many things. In hypothesis, even more, but these claims do not fit common sense, Occam's razor or our actual observations. So, your claim is exciting to consider, but completely detached from reality,. and that's the point I am making.
>>950096117 If there is a center, you could point to it. that's the point. Quod erat demonstrandum. >>950096134 I do in fact know the theory you are pointing to, and your claim of ignorance is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. Your "faith" in this speculation is not reality, anon.
>>950096210 >>950096244 dubs of cope It isn't "time" and time isn't a thing unto itself. It isn't some extra dimension outside of our universe which you cannot prove real. It is an idea. You're right it's less than a theory. its a weak hypothesis which doesn't hold water, figuratively speaking.
>>950096408 Another appeal to the person instead of the argument? Aka ad hominem fallacy. You have nothing of substance to say, and you can't prove your idea has any merit or basis in reality. There are no extra dimensions outside of our universe you can prove or point to, and I think you're samefagging another anon's ideas because you realized you couldn't prove there is a center to the universe. Even if you're not him, you sure do type and argue identically. Interesting.
>>950096876 So you're screaming in rage now? Either prove there are extra dimensions outside the universe, or prove a center as you were previously arguing, or cede your claims. Your personal attacks are nothing but fallacies unrelated to the argument, and it's clear that's why you keep deferring to them You have nothing else. Your signature is saging and a willful inability to understand others. I know you well enough, as anon.
>>950097041 I know the concept well. Still, you can't provide evidence of your claims in relationship to the idea. Otherwise, you would have done so by now. It's clearly not about what you're claiming to argue, but instead a pursuit of a feeling of false power over others. Likely pursued because you're so weak both mentally and physically. I truly pity you, but I would help heal you if I could. I mean that.