Since pretty much everything in this universe is quantized, what

>>8717016
The universe is finite.

That it is based on pure information it is an objective reality and is as real as it can get.

It is simply arranged in a certain manner, there may be other realities arranged differently. But they are all equally real as long as they are based upon pure action upon pure information.

The only difference is how the information is interpreted or stored.

>>8717016
Is it though. The first question you should always ask is, do I trust my own judgement. My own perception of results. Should you?

File: piequals4.png (48KB, 350x494px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 350x494px

>>8717016

>>8717016
Everything is information. Once you measure it, you actualize the potential from a probability distribution. That means the universe isn't deterministic, see zeno effect.

>>8717132
this shit is no better than voodoo, measure imparts nothing, statistics can never really be 100 wit chu, you need cold heartless goddamn facts, as we can tell it's deterministic particles on a substrate, any other conclusion is a projection of imaginary guesswork, not reality, just some people wish they were god, and this gibberish makes it kinda like true, and they don't want a hebrew creator god to be one of the few sensible options left along with the matrix trilogy, they already got the D from STURP tho, so athiestards have been evidentd to be out of their gourds for a while, just like the muzzies, and other nonbelievers in God incarnate as Messiah, Eashoa.

>>8717201
it is the only truth

>>8717132
>you actualize the potential from a probability distribution
>That means the universe isn't deterministic

Do you even know what you're talking about?

>>8717016
Quantum computers

File: elon-musk-20837159-1-402[1].png (132KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 300x300px

>>8717016
>what does it imply for reality?

it implies lots of stuff about a simulated universe.

>>8717028
No, our perception is biased to survival, basically selfish.

With this in mind can one come to non-selfish conclusions? Or is the best the mind can do is a dyadic projection from which it forms a conclusion trapping our ideas to a relm purely our own.

>>8717037
brainlet here; why doesn't this work?

>>8719528
The arc-length function is not continuous in the topological space of functions in [math]\mathbf R^2[/math] that have a derivative whose set of discontinuities is at most countable, with the topology induced by the uniform norm.

>>8717016
>Since pretty much everything in this universe is quantized
Examples of 'pretty much everything' being quantized besides quantum numbers?

>>8719528
The total area between the square and the circle never changes.

>>8719528
The "circle" made of the black outline isn't actually a circle. It contains an infinite amount of minute angles. Circles don't actually have an infinite number of angles, even if some people insist on that being true.

>>8719560
building blocks of the universe such as protons, electrons, gluons, muons, atomic energy levels?

But not everything in the universe is quantized.
The most accurate model we use to predict phenomena asserts that everything is quantized.


That's way different.

>>8717019
how so?

>>8719656
Particle numbers aren't exactly strictly quantized considering shit like vacuum fluctations. Even if, it's still very weak when you compare all the shit that's far from being quantized to the few things that appear quantized. Atomic energy levels also are not really strictly quantized in the real world. It only is in your introductory course to classical quantum mechanics.

>>8719672
Which is supposedly?

>>8719627

It just means you havent zoomed far enough to see the angles.

>>8719678
electrons are tho. The reason other particles don't appear to be quantized is because of their different subparticles.

Nothing, the universe is what it is.

Terrible thread the OP is wondering if probability (statistics) is real.

well, yes. Experienced people used probability to predict weather (from millions of data points entered by sci). to give people genes through injections (based on probability it WILL be injected to the correct gene and not create tumors in ur blood vessels kek)

>>8720675
What about electrons is quantized? They have Spin 1/2 and charge -1. That's pretty much about it. Everything else is not quantized. It's basically the opposite of quantized.

>>8717016
Struxel>>Voxel

>>8720981
>Struxel>>Voxel
Every electron has the same mass. Not similar or close masses though, they are all identical which 9.1 x 10-31 kg
Meaning they are all instanced elementary particles and identical anywhere in the universe

>>8721189
So?

>>8717016
tfw there are 2 AO4s

>>8721274
So they are instances and are precisely quantified like 1s and 0s

>>8721285
No, they are not. That makes no sense. Particle state are precisely NOT quantified in QFTs. There are virtual states that only exist for very brief moments, but their interactions still infuences real quantities. The only thing that's quantized in a way is the fact that there appear to be discrete values for quantum numbers (i.e. charge, spin, flavor, color, parity).

>>8721025
u mean strudel ?

>>8722297
Pixel=picture+element
Struxel=Structure+element
Voxel=???

>>8722518
volume pixel. Same thing picture + element

>>8723466
But structure is the 3d equivalent of picture and it even has its own "ct" to turn to "x". Why use volume+picture+element?

>>8717019
Wrong. Finite means not changing and limited. As the universe is constantly moving and changing it is infinite

>>8723673
the empty space is infinite, the matter inside of it is finite

>>8717016
>what does it imply for reality?
Basically all measurable quantum effects that can't be easily explained using classical physics

>>8717016
The values you apply to reality may not be applied by others.

File: ehhcewjz4cwhj8bx1xfo.jpg (43KB, 396x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 396x450px

What does /sci/ think of doctors? Are they as intelligent as people think?

>>8722518
Then elementary particles would be pixels of the universe.

>>8723795
No. But they are pretty smart.

>>8723680
That's not true at all. Our current understanding is a flat universe with infinite matter.

>>8723949
Is there any evidence that the matter is infinite? Because that makes no sense from the classic big bang theory point of view.

>>8723957
Trying to find good sources that put it simply... but it's complicated. Just read more about the big bang, because you're picturing it wrongly. Basically the big bang was infinitely big, but I'm bad at explaining things.

>>8724179
To see why it's not possible with big bang, try to think like this:

If matter was suppsedly infinite, you should always be able to show me more matter than there currently is, which is quite possible in an infinite space.

But imagine the blast of the big bang. It's a spherical composition of energy and mass expanding faster than anything. If you were to stop the time and examine this sphere, you would have a finite space to fit an infinite amount of matter which wouldn't work.

Dunno if it comes across properly but theres a logical incompatibility between infinite matter and big bang

>>8723909
Struxels (or voxels if you're a pleb) but yes. This is one of the supporting arguments of the idea that we live in a simulation

>>8724207
Time being infinitely divisible puts the simulation idea into the trash.

>>8724207
So there are basically no actual supporting arguments of that idea, ok.

>>8724209
Irrelevant, but sure. I'm only arguing the name of the item, nothing more

>>8724216
yeah I know. Just wanted to address the simulationfags out there.

>>8724205
>spherical
Nope. The big bang encompassed everything. The big bang was everywhere at once. The big bang is simply going from a dense state to a less-dense state, no volume involved.

File: bb_theory[1].jpg (609KB, 885x554px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 885x554px

>>8724261
The classic big bang theory indicates an expansion (or explosion) with an origin of the size of an atom, expanding in a spherical form. And then gradually spreading across the space.

>>8724296
"expanding from the size of an atom to that of a grapefruit" is an analogy - you don't think the universe is the size of a grapefruit, do you?

>>8724334
It says it started from the size of an atom, then expanded. which at one period was the size of a grapefruit.
But it doesn't matter if its the shape of a sphere or a box. You can't fit infinite matter into a finite space, which was the main part of the problem that you didn't respond to.

>>8724354
I see what you mean. I personally don't believe anything is infinite - certainly not space.

>>8724354
All references to previous sizes are talking about any present finite volume, typically that being the observable universe. The observable universe used to be the size of a grape, yes. The universe was always infinite.

>>8724430
To add to that, the reason they do that is because anything outside that "grape" may as well not exist to us, because there is no causal connection.

File: dwarfheaven.png (20KB, 750x510px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 750x510px

>>8723673
How is contantly moving and changing in any way correlatable with infinity? Please tell, because I'm dying to see the steps you used to derive this bunch of bullshit. You reek of being a philosophy major pulling stuff out of your ass without axioms or anything.

>>8725452
what is this?

>>8717019
universe is finitely large

universe is infinitely small

op pic proves it: the blocks only get broken down into smaller and smaller pieces, giving the image more definition.

>>8725701
Dwarf Fortress. Great game; many ways to die, no way to 'win'.

>implying there are implications

>>8725747
>implicating there are no implifications

File: ocd-1355510399817.jpg (37KB, 400x611px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x611px

>>8717016
>A02
>A03
>A04
>A04
>not A05
triggered

File: 1463951047017.jpg (34KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 650x366px

>>8723795
Tfw met someone who got bored being a doctor and then became physigger

>>8719554
If he understood what those fucking words meant, he wouldn't be confused in the first place

>>8719563
yes it does.
the area of the outer figure gets smaller and the circle inside continues the same.

>>8723949
Nothing is infinite. Infinity is a mathematical concept, nothing more. It doesn't exist in any form within reality.

>>8717019
Incorrect. You assume universe doesn't have infinite extent in some dimension. For example, with infinite space, you will have infinite possibilities even if you have finite amount of energy to distribute to space.

>>8717016
Everything is quantized in our literature but most of my senses aren't literallty quantized. How do you quantize the taste of my girlfriends tears as we make love and I tell her I've love I love you hold me? How do you quantize the motion my friends bodies make when I crack a good joke out? How do you quantize something that does not exist (zero); definitely it is NOT a one quant, otherwise it would exist.

>>8728415
Yet the big bang was infinitely small, hot, and dense?

>>8728556
>infinitely
thats a figure of speech...

>>8717019
>finite
your proof?

>>8729193
Proof that you can't show me infinite amount of matter ? are you stupid or something ?

>>8729333
You're looking at it right now, it's your fault you can't see it.

>>8729348
Which matter is infinite. Show it to me right now with measurable, testable evidence.

>>8725714
If the universe were infinitely small movement would be impossible. For any movement to occur, the subject would have to pass through an infinite number of points.

>>8729358
You are moving through infinite number of points right now.

>>8729358
>points
points are a mathematical concept, therefore they can be infinite in its own terms, unlike reality which doesn't have any "points" or "vectors" or "infinite" bullshit

>>8729353
Start collecting all the matter around you into a box. Come back when you run out of it.
Protip: no one ever did

>>8729367
>I can't prove it.
case closed

>>8717016
That we perceive and detect things in a quantized manner

>>8729370
>no boundaries on the amount of matter were ever observed
>they must exist because they must
Yours too, my dude.

>>8719528
Because you would get something that looks like an octagon; there is no curve when you repeat that and you eventually just end up with straight edges. Changing the length of the squares would change the perimeter to something other than 4

>>8717016
Wildberger is right.

>>8729377
>no boundaries on the amount of matter were ever observed
You can't see the boundaries of the pasific ocean so you think then it must fills the entire universe?

You finite-tards are really dumb and need to leave. The matter in the universe may be finite but you retards are still completely misunderstanding this, neglecting higher dimensional geometry. The big bang was not a point in space. The whole "nothing is actually infinite" argument shows you have no idea.

>>8728556
It was not.

>>8729633
not an argument nor evidence
0/10 try again

>>8723673
Finite universe having finite states. A finite state machine able to be subdivided into smaller finite state machines, in finite ways.

Think of every "instant" of the universe as a frame of a flipbook. If you get hung up on relativity and simultaneity, keep thinking.

File: Screenshot_20170307-204106~2.png (84KB, 1440x341px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1440x341px

>>8729636
Show me your evidence. No description of the big bang refers to the magnitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size_and_regions

To say it's impossible to be infinite is to misunderstand everything.

>>8729633
Infinity doesn't exist in reality anon. It's just a mathematical concept, nothing more.

>>8730029
And you don't get it either. The universe doesn't really care about your "reality." The laws of physics didn't even exist in the first moments of the big bang.

>>8730030
Infinity doesn't exist period. In any reality. Like I said, it's only an idea, like a triangle with two sides. It doesn't exist, has never existed, will never exist. End of discussion.

>>8730034
Better go tell all the physicists and cosmologists because they are very open to that possibility.

File: Screenshot_20170307-210424~2.png (193KB, 1440x586px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1440x586px

>>8730034
>>8730029
>>8729636
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

>>8730038
I'd be surprised if they really were open to that idea because an infinite universe is just pure retardation. It means there is an infinite number of Earths. It means that the number of Cows and Cows with two heads is the same, infinite. It means there is a Hubble Volume out there somewhere that is filled with nothing but chocolate pudding. It means there is an armada of disembodied brains experiencing an illusion of reality, in fact if the universe really is infinite then it's almost certain you are NOT a real person but one of those Boltzmann brains floating around.

The idea of the infinite universe is a dead end because it means literally everything you can think of actually exists somewhere with absolute certainty. It means everything that is possible, no matter how probable, has happened or exists, and exists an infinite number of times.

If you think the idea of an infinite universe is in any way realistic or reasonable you're just retarded.

>>8730083
Too scary to be real, gotcha

>>8730091
If you want to think Star Wars is a documentary and somewhere out in the universe there is a man named Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader on a moon sized spacestation, be my guest. I'll live in the real world, thanks.

>>8730083
Just because there a universe is infinite doesn't mean that all physical laws break down; aleph null does not contain '&'.

>>8730098
There is no physical law that says a Hubble volume couldn't be populated exclusively by globs of pudding. Pudding exists. All it would take is for all matter in a Hubble volume to arrange itself in a form that creates pudding, voila. Not only is it possible it is certain that this exists in an infinite universe. In fact not only does it exist it exists an infinite number of times. Anything that matter and energy can create exists in an infinite universe and in an infinite quantity.

>>8730069
Still waiting for a citation that states the matter is infinite rather than the infinite space they sit in.

>>8730038
Nobody who believes in big bang claim there are infinite amount of matter in the universe since they understand big bang.

>>8728431
The number of Na+ ions that come in contact with your tongue

>>8729427
A (not really but still) 2D section of a 3D sphere is alittle different than a 3D section of a 4D structure

>>8730523
>>8730620
The next line after (the passage about the FLRW model) states it also predicts a homogenous universe.

>>8731070
homogenous but not infinite in matter

>>8731672
If it's infinite in extent AND homogenous, then that means it has infinite matter.

>>8731698
Doesn't say anywhere that it has infinite amount of matter. Things are usually homogenous and finite, hence how we use it for every homogenous mass on earth we use to describe

>>8731714
Okay, time for YOU to provide the evidence/proof that the universe is finite. Show it to me. Show me the source that says infinite matter is impossible and that the universe MUST have finite matter.

>>8731757
Because every matter we observe so far is finite and big bang theory is incompatible with infinite matter meme.

>>8731769
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the is matter beyond the observable universe... And again, you don't understand the big bang in that context.

>>8731775
Big bang doesn't have any other context, and you still can't show me an infinite amount of anything.

>>8731809
I did.... I gave you sources showing infinite extent with homogenous matter. You ignored the first part of my post. There is matter beyond the observable universe. I can also find sources that day the big bang isn't a location in space.

>>8732187
>I did
Where? Where is your evidence that proves there is an infinite amount of matter in the universe.

The fact that you think this is provable with our current technology pretty much shows you don't know what you^re talking about.

>>8732215
I showed you the theories and models that allow for an infinite-matter universe. I don't know what else you want... The won't be any definitive proof because we can't directly test this. All we have are the models and theories, both which support that possibility, in addition to all sorts off other scenarios (bounded/unbounded, finite/infinite, connected/unconnected). The infinite vs finite debate is up on the air as far as astrophysics is concerned.

Now. Show me something outside your personal feelings that say how an infinite-matter universe is impossible. Otherwise, you are literally forming your own theories, which is fine I guess.

>>8732277
You cn show me a model that allow for flying pink unicorns in alpha centauri.

For further discussion, please look up what 'proof' means. Because you seem to be confusing it with theories.

>>8732405
Read my post again. You ain't getting proof, and you are not providing any either. The models allow for it, as do most theories. Your preference is a personal theory.

>>8732417
>You ain't getting proof
There you go. That wasn't so hard was it?
>you are not providing any either
I can't prove a negative. You had to prove your claim that every finite matter we see around actually has more of it somewhere, where you failed.

>>8732423
>the observable universe is all there is
See, that's not disproven either, but widely disagreed with and, most importantly, not predicted by our models.

>>8732440
And what makes you even think there are infinite amount of matter outside the observable universe?

>>8732472
Because it's one of the predictions of our models. Along with an unbounded finite universe. Both equally valid beliefs at this point.

>>8720981
>Everything else is not quantized. It's basically the opposite of quantized.

What? You think mas isn't quantised?

>>8721295
>The only thing that's quantized in a way is the fact that there appear to be discrete values for quantum numbers (i.e. charge, spin, flavor, color, parity).

What do you think quantised MEANS, moron?

>>8724209

Good thing time ISN'T infinitely divisible, then.

>>8730020
>To say it's impossible to be infinite is to misunderstand everything

No, it's to understand elementary logic. Infinite heat requires infinite time to cool, the universe isn't infinitely hot, therefore neither was the big bang. Same thing applies to mass and gravity, infinitely massive Universes can't expand, our Universe isn't infinitely small, therefore the big bang wasn't infinitely massive.

>>8730107

In theory sure, but in practise time has a direction and what you suggest will never happen. Why? Well, there's probably a good physical reason for it, but no-one has found it yet.

>>8732549
time is infinitely divisible tho

>>8717016
Tell your layman about the difference between the euclidean metric and the "taxicab metric". The euclidean length of a segment Δz=(Δx,Δy)Δz=(Δx,Δy) is Δx2+Δy2−−−−−−−−−√Δx2+Δy2 whereas the "taxicab" length of this segment is |Δx|+|Δy||Δx|+|Δy|. "In the limit" this implies that the euclidean circumference of the unit circle is 2π2π, whereas the "taxicab circumference" is 44.

>>8733464
"taxicab circumference" is 4

>>8717016

Quantization implies that the Universe is finite. It behaves like a Discrete Event Simulation.

>>8717016
>quantized

By whom?

Don't confuse our model of reality with ACTUAL reality. They're not the same thing.

>>8733656
What do you mean by whom? Do you think the laws of the universe is written by an intelligent being? If not why do you ask such a questoin?

>>8717016
>tfw Wolfram invades your board

Computing space theories and the lot are insane, the universe is obviously not discrete.

File: oSWi7FM[1].png (409KB, 744x1392px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 744x1392px

>>8717016
You know what it means

>>8717132
More like by measuring you alter the information because at the very least you changed its "its been measured" state from false to true

>>8726095
holy shit so did I, he was a child prodigy who became a practicing doctor before he was 20 but got bored with medicine and is a theoretical physics undergrad now