File: IMG_1453.png (256.8 KB)

256.8 KB PNG

>>16946965
Obviously some supernatural force beyond physics is what created the universe and earth.

The things you listed aren’t fake they are real because they have a physical existence.

The way we describe them aren’t real or is just pure abstraction. You cannot actually see atoms or electrons so we come up with clever formulas and techniques to describe and measure them.

Which are abstractions. The word abstract means no physical existence. An idea is an example of an abstraction because it doesn’t exist in the physical world.

We will never understand everything in the context of how the universe works/created because there are physical limits with what we can observe or see.
So it’s impossible to have all the answers. It’s just better to accept we can’t have all the answers and work with that.

>>16946965
lol it’s mostly modern physicists and mathematicians who say everything is fake

>>16946965
Define nothing. Define fake.

>>16947005
>Obviously some supernatural force beyond physics is what created the universe and earth
Why is that obvious?

>>16946965
0 = -1 + 1

File: IMG_0205.jpg (48.5 KB)

48.5 KB JPG

>>16947031
Because there is order and structure to the universe which is why the universe is intelligible in the first place.

Christianity came up with the theory of the intelligible universe in which modern science derives from. But I digress..

A better explanation is to challenge your idea of language and semantics and ideas and treat them as human made constructs only humans use.

Now with that blank slate ask why is there something rather then nothing?

You can go back and forth with endless feedback loops of logical parameters that are unknown because that’s not a question humans can realistically answer. Because truthfully we don’t know.

Or we can look for simple explanations you say an iPhone never assemble itself into existence. There was an intentional actor that was an artist who learned his environment that he may assemble an iPhone. Nothing has ever just appeared out of dust. Everything has intent for its existence.

>>16947055
Something and Nothing are the same

>>16947055
Honestly it's not even worth starting with you. First paragraph is already wrong in so many ways.

>>16947076
>nothing caused.... nothing!
>now give me a nobel prize
You're retarded.

>>16947031
Existence is the most /x/ thing there is.

File: 403844bc62afed41991eaa78e3e0ca8f.jpg (193.4 KB)

193.4 KB JPG

>>16946965
>Anyone can explain how can something exist out of nothing?
Same way "something" exist out of your monitor. From start to end there has ever only been the monitor. Nothing was created, nothing was taken away, only your perspective of it changed.
With reality, it's just a movie of 3D frames played out on a timeline, with the displaying "monitor" been your consciousness. The "laws" of physics are persistent patterns that we have observed so far in said frames.
The real question is, who/what determines said patterns and how can the limitations be broken. I think we'll find soon enough.

>>16946965
>Anyone can explain how can something exist out of nothing?
0! = 0^0 = 100%
>How can something be created out of nothing? Nothing is the smallest possible amount of something, if you already have nothing, then you have seeded the potential for everything else.
>If time is fake, matter is fake, energy is fake, fields are fake and made by thing beyond our comprehension
Your mind?
>who made the things that created these fake things?
Your parents and teachers when they applied lies to children that you ran with to form your own unique worldview.

>>16946965
It has multiple symmetries to break point.

>>16947055
>Because there is order and structure to the universe which is why the universe is intelligible in the first place.
No, you can only make a small subset of things intelligible, the rest of reality is entirely out of your reach and beyond your comprehension, you can not possibly prove that every single true object is bound to the exact same container because a universe is mathematically impossible via incompleteness.
Christianity also came up with the idea that you should rip your appendages off if you might be tempted to sin, but I don't see a whole lot of christian quad amputees since christians don't tend to actually believe anything they report.

>Now with that blank slate ask why is there something rather then nothing?
But that doesn't make sense, it is mathematically impossible to have something specific without nothing since it is a absolute necessity that x = x + 0 because if x=x+x, it would infinitely regress before any x could be coherently measured.

>There was an intentional actor that was an artist who learned his environment that he may assemble an iPhone.
So The Grand Canyon couldn't have possibly been formed by water over time, god would have had to have worked out some deal with his poseidon like angel to get it made?

>Nothing has ever just appeared out of dust.
Nothing surrounds dust and is inside dust keeping it as a stable mote instead of instantly regressing to infinite dust.
What did god appear out of, if not nothing?

>>16947076
Kind of, nothing is the smallest possible amount of something.
>>16947093
>nothing caused.... nothing!
No, nothing is nothing and functions of nothing mathematically must have caused everything else.
0! = 0^0 = 100%

There was never nothing.

>>16947038
what a beautiful, elegant demonstration

>>16947798
uhm ahckshwually the gods are a polyamorous council we call atoms and all of reality follow atoms because they are the hip new gods of the new world unlike your old weak gods. The power of tiny inert law makers is very scientific and confirmed multiple times through consensus. Also, consciousness doesn't exist, there is no awareness, and it is true that true things are unknowable
heckin sciencarino

>>16946965
>How can something be created out of nothing?
It's a difficult or even impossible premise if presuming total, inactive, nothing. It's easier to work off the presumption that the universe is eternal, substance is without origin, and our sense of it beginning and ending is an arbitrary application of properties we see in our own life to something which transcends it.
>If time is fake
Time isn't fake, you can only have a fake perception or understanding of it. The most we can say about time in a general sense is that it's the implicit structure of ordered events of undefined epochs and their subtraction assumes an undefined duration (vector space over time, value is undefined but has order, origin and sign); non-general time systems are made by attaching a metric to duration (typically from a quantum, for example the time it takes light to travel a planck-length relative to anything else) and then offset the events by some origin (big bang).
>matter is fake, energy is fake, fields are fake
pretty much the same as above, you can only have a fake perception or understanding of it.
>and made by thing beyond our comprehension, who made the things that created these fake things?
This reality is trivial, it just happens to be one of many stable configurations which supports our existence and thus our ability to observe it. If it wasn't we wouldn't be capable of observing it to know that. You can make arguments that it was made, but you can just as well make the argument that it wasn't (so as to suppose it exists and was never 'born' in any sense).
The only difference between accepting a creator and an eternal universe is that accepting a creator supposes a problem (whom created the creator) which only terminates by "nothing created it, it's eternal", it's easier to assume there's no creator and the universe itself is eternal because it requires less assumptions.

File: 1413511246888.jpg (8.9 KB)

8.9 KB JPG

>>16947005
Invoking a deity to explain the creation of the universe today is no different from cultures thousands of years ago deciding the sun must be some kind of god, because they didn't yet understand what it really was.

>>16947038
>>16948840
but where'd the 1 come from?

>>16949553
Do you understand what it really is?

>>16950423
The sun? Yes.
The creation of the universe? No, and it's possible no one ever really will, but I still don't need to invoke a supernatural designer to fill that gap in my understanding

>>16948977
Nope, atoms can only fill points in space and points are the 0D objects I was referring to.

>>16946965
cats wanted to exist and they made it happen

>>16950532
Cats were made by demons to aid and abet witches while carrying around mind controlling brain worms.

If 0.9999 = 1. Nothing = something

>>16950556
Close.
Nothing = FLOOR(something)

>>16946965
>Be empty headed OP faggot
>Produce gay OP
>Hurr durr how emptiness produce non-empty??
You're so meta op.

>>16947038

>>16948840
The official scientific term is particle pair production.

>>16949628
It came from the harmony of 0 to balance out the -1 just like the -1 came from the harmony of 0 to balance out the 1.

>>16950479
>The sun? Yes.
I don't think you do.

>>16951348
Obviously... that is how psychological projection works, you tend to think that others suffer your personal limitations.

>>16951348
Of course an astrophysicist would understand it better than I do.
But it's not hard to grasp, in a general intuitive sense, an object having so much mass and gravitational pressure that fusion occurs at its core

>>16947031
In a causal universe what created the first cause?

File: 82sxyz.jpg (154.6 KB)

154.6 KB JPG

>>16946965
>It is IMPOSSIBLE for something so basic as physical matter and energy to just occur out of nothing!
>OBVIOUSLY a hyperintelligent, sapient and sentient being capable of visualizing and fabricating matter and energy in extremely specific patterns according to a specific brief about what it'll look like after 14 billion years just formed from nothing, and then made matter and energy.
>Cope and seethe PhD holder! Your 'science' cannot answer what my fundamental truth and logic, which fits into an A5 book to carry on your person, can!

It is one of the great natural wonders of the world, that so many people like this exist, and they can't comprehend how ridiculous they are.

File: images (11).jpg (42.1 KB)

42.1 KB JPG

>>16957621
So why cant your prescious big bang theory answer what came before it?

If it is so simple sir?

And your so knowlegable.

Tell us. What came before big bang?

>>16957629
Big bang theory is nonsense invented by priests to justify god with spurious physics. A universe is a mathematical impossibility since its not possible for one system to contain all true objects.

>>16957621
do you ever grow tired of communicating like this?

>>16957629
>>16957794
You have an incomplete video clip of a balloon being inflated and expanding.
If you play it backwards, you can deduce that it started with an empty balloon, without seeing that part.

That's all the big bang theory is- seeing expansion and concluding that the universe was smaller and denser in the past. It doesn't pretend to know or try to explain what the true beginning was or where it came from.

>>16958059
>You have an incomplete video clip of a balloon being inflated and expanding.
No, we have incomplete video clips of light extending indefinitely in all directions and inferred expanding inflation and balloons from that.

>seeing expansion
But we don't see expansion, we infer it from multiple measurements that are inconsistent over time by a fudged red shift factor.

>>16946965
It can't
It didn't
It isn't
It isn't
They aren't
They aren't
Nothing, they always existed, time is only a meaningful concept when entropy appears and will stop being a meaningful concept when entropy maximizes

>>16956462
The zeroth cause.

>>16957845
Did you just see the template without actually reading the text? It is pretty clear the poster was voicing their frustration with that style of communication.