Hey /sci/ I was watching some atheist/Muslim debates and I think

>>8393090
>0+0=1
It doesn't though. There isn't a valid proof that says it does.

I'm not saying 0+0=1
I'm saying 0+0=1-1
I'm saying everything that exists could sum to zero and we could still be here

>>8393165
>everything that exists
Existence isn't math.

>>8393180
lol then by that logic the whole premise of this argument is flawed and 0+0 might as well be 1. You can change the frame if you want...
there are lots of physical examples of what I'm talking about, just look up the heat death of the universe

>>8393188
I think you're getting caught up in an argument that is constructed to fit a narrative rather than simply examining nature as science has intended.

>>8393196
I mean I guess so... I don't really know what your point is. And I don't see you making a convincing counter argument

>>8393188
>lol then by that logic the whole premise of this argument is flawed
You can stop there you know.
Saying the universe can't come from "nothing" because 0+0 =/= 1 isn't a fucking argument.

>>8393180
>inb4 philosophy lel
It can be tho. Famous scientists have given the thought some serious weight - i.e. we don't just use math as a language for reqlity , it is reality. A pleb example would be the 80/20 rule and fibonacci sequence

>>8393200
my point is this whole nonsense about a "0+0=1 question" is just nonsense. It is impossible and fruitless to debate someone proceeding from a false premise.

>>8393205
>I can make something exist purely with ideas.
Okay, do it. Take a picture, show us results and tell us how to replicate the experiment.

>>8393210
Wat. I did not imply anything of the sort.
I'm just saying that reality might be more mathematical than mysterious. Meaning math is not a human invention but a fundimental property of the universe.

>>8393206
I guess that's a reasonable stance to hold. Math aside, do you think you can get something from nothing then?

>>8393212
But you did "it is reality". Just now too, "fundamental property of the universe".
Mathematics is not matter. One can use it to describe reality, but one cannot use it to create reality. As an idea, it cannot be a property of the universe. Fundamental or otherwise. There's just no way to math something into existence.

>>8393214
We already know that stuff can come from nothing.

Plus that's not the right question. We don't know what was before the big bang, because there was no before.

>>8393226
>because there was no before
And you know this how?

>>8393226
Give me an example of something coming from nothing

>>8393249
casimir effect

>>8393247
>>8393249
Virtual particles, Casimir effect applications, Lamb shift. "Nothing" isn't the right word, because "Nothing" doesn't exist. There's always something, even in the vacuum of inter-galactic space. The argument creationists make when denying the big bang hinges on them affirming they know what was before the big bang, which nobody knows. In short, the term "Something coming from nothing" can't apply in reality, because nothing doesn't exist, the only place it could have existed is before the big bang, but nobody knows what was before the big bang, because time itself didn't exist before the big bang, there was no before. The whole argument is not an argument.

>>8393254
whaht is quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field

>>8393260
As close to nothing as it gets. If you're using some other definition, I literally do not know what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either.

>>8393254
Not something from nothing, that's an emergent property of quantum mechanics. The particles pop in and out of existence from our perspective, but there's no evidence that they are created from nothing

>>8393266
Who are we to claim that those particles that popped out of existence are not in just another "place" with set of rules and laws of it own from which particles are going to jump back in to our existence

>>8393271
yeah sure I wouldn't deny that hypothesis, and my statement didn't exclude it

>>8393271
We are scientists and study everything that exists. If you want to make up places and get scientists on board, you need to provide evidence they exist.

>>8393276
He wasn't saying it was fact, he was saying you can't prove it's not, lol. Just like you can't prove Zeus isn't my roommate

>>8393280
I was merely answer his initial question, "Who are we". Scientists don't make such silly claims.