The Universe

Not him, but this kind of speculation is the kind of thing one should only undertake with a solid basis in the sciences involved. I know I'm not equipped to help, though I'll offer what little I've heard: as far as we know, there are several quantum processes that are indeed random, and even attempts to account for some manner of unseen cause behind them have come up with nothing.

I am not trying to affirm my ideas or a expound cosmology in which the same humans exist in a recurring, cyclical universe. In fact, I want you to prove to me that I am wrong without saying "You aren't ready for this discussion". The best way to do that would be to answer my question about the nature of "random", or explain how the universe is not a closed system.

>everal quantum processes that are indeed random,
Where can I find out more about this?
Thank you.

>Does random exist in nature or is it just something that seems like randomness from our perspective?

The universe from the perspective of this dimension is indeterminate, not random.

The Wikipedia entries on Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics would be a good start. They'd probably include links to additional reading as well.

The thing about sciences like this is that they require a solid basis in multiple intellectual disciplines to really grasp.

There's so many memes in your post it's a shame.

From what I am reading, MIT physicists think it is impossible to prove absolute randomness
technologyreview.com/s/418445/first-evidence-that-quantum-processes-generate-truly-random-numbers/
I get that I might never fully grasp it. I want to hear from someone who does grasp these things whether it is completely absurd that what i posted in the OP could be a physical reality, or whether it is theoretically possible (in the case of a Big Bounce) that the following universe would match this one. I get that Nietzsche was not the greatest at physics.

Please, enlighten me as to a few of them.

>The Big Bang
>Quantum Mechanics
>Time
>Space
>Universe
>Beginning
>End
>Physical
>Laws
>Free will

I can't hold a these memes.

You're probably not going to find that person on Veeky Forums.

Also proving absolute randomness would be impossible, because there's always the possibility of a hidden cause. Hence why I said as far as we can tell.

That said, I greatly encourage you to keep looking for your answers; too many philosophers outright ignore the physical sciences these days.

ohnoitsretarded.jpg

...

>keep looking for your answers
I will try, I just keep getting told I am looking for something to affirm my "beliefs" when all I am doing is asking questions.
I am sorry if this discussion is a little over your head.

>Quantum Fluctuations

kek i really hope that the universe is cyclical so you can be a lousy kissless cunt every time

It's a little over YOUR head. I have a challenge for you. Clearly define everything that is mentioned in your post.

>Universe
>Cyclical

ignore the first question. ignore the butthurt caused by my time hypotheticals. ignore the fact that the universe will end in heat death.
is the universe a closed system? with all the information about the Big Bang and the right computing power, could you predict all outcomes of the universe?

Where are you at OP? I'm waiting.

so am i

>Time hypotheticals
>Heat death
>Closed system
>Information
>Big Bang

Clearly define everything you mentioned in your post. We've got nothing but >time.

Waiting.......

>Time hypotheticals
If you could reverse time to the moment of the Big Bang, would the resulting universe be exactly the same as this one, or could there be different physical laws?
>Heat death
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
>Closed system
are you FUCKING kidding me? in a closed system there are no external factors. If an experiment you run is in a completely closed system, you will get the exact same results every time. If you don't, its not a closed system
>Information
dude...
>Big Bang
mother of god please leave the thread. Is this idea too dangerous for you or something?

Waiting......

>Linking to Wikipedia
>dude...
>Are you fucking kidding me
>Is this idea too dangerous for you

No, these memes are too dangerous for you, kid. So much so that you had to link to Wikipedia. Clearly define everything you mentioned in your post. *To the most minuscule point*. I'll be waiting. Dude... is not a fucking definition.

BONUS CHALLENGE: Define "energy."

You are trying to derail this thread.

You were never on track.

Except you won't say why, you only post in a way that is meant to infuriate or derail.

I will continue to make these threads by the way, because I usually enjoy the discussion. I like the intersection of physics and philosophy. I hope eventually you get tired of whatever it is you are doing.

>Why
No, I'm not. I'm asking you to clearly define what you're talking about, but it seems that you're incapable.

Ok hold on. I'll try to explain the words "exist", "the", "in", "from", "moment", "big", "idea", "this" and "and" for you. But I don't feel like writing a treatise today. I'd rather someone BmeTFO without having to spend all that time.

Keep making them. Keep chasing the phantom, user. Good luck coming to any sort of a conclusion. I see my old self in you. You'll learn sooner or later. No ill feelings. Best of wishes.

>that pic

Please define the following

Meme
Kid
Dangerous
Define
Clearly
Minuscule
Point
Definition
You
No

so deep and mysterious, senpai

And where are you at now? Nihilism? MGTOW?

I can't.

/r9k/ strikes again

Nor is there any need to. You seem to be stuck on "like, what ARE words, ya know. like, is there an essence of word, bruh, yo". This is not a discussion on "soul".

>Does random exist in nature or is it just something that seems like randomness from our perspective?

There is no conceivable way it would make any difference either way, and it's impossible to determine. The definition of a moot point, like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (it's four, by the way)

>If you could reverse time to the moment of the Big Bang, would the resulting universe be exactly the same as this one, or could there be different physical laws?

This we do know. The laws of nature seem to pre-exist the Universe, but the pehnomenom known as "chaos" ensures that a "play-back" rest would play out completely differently, same basic "building blocks" but new stars and new worlds, no Earth and Milky Way.

>Nor is there any need to.
Exactly. Look at it this way. Once you remove all of the artificial constructs (phantoms, spooks, memes, ideology, preconceived notions) what are you left with?

WW1 started because Franz Ferdinand stopped for a sandwich at a shop right across from where his assassin was standing.

If he decided to skip the sandwich, the war may have happened years later when all the generals who didn't understand modern warfare had died off. Or, maybe the war would have been delayed long enough for the Germans to develop even better guns that ultimately win the war for the Central Powers. Or, maybe the war wouldn't have happened at all. Some smaller scale conflict happens instead that shows the destructiveness of modern weapons and scares the European powers into detente.

No, I don't think it's possible for the universe to play out the same way twice. Reality is too absurd for that to happen.

Not that faggot but memes are not spooks.

Nietzsche's Eternal Return is entirely hypothetical and it matters not whether you will actually relive your life infinitely because it is a measure of how you want to live vs. how you are living. It's a thought experiment entirely focused on you as an individual, in this life.

This. Uncertainty principle itself suggests no two Universes can be exactly the same.

which of these does the Big Bang fall under?

birth, taxes, death

Well said. Fiqh.
Does the universe differ from an "experiment"? So you are saying that it is actually not a closed system?

Whether it's closed or not is irrelevant, UP rules out perfect repeatability at the quantum scale. And when you reduce a whole Universe to that scale, who fucking knows what predictability means, there's at least one fundamental force that hasn't yet been discovered because it only acts at Universe-forming energy levels, maybe that unknown force somehow determines the physical laws that make matter as we know it possible.

>one fundamental force that hasn't yet been discovered because it only acts at Universe-forming energy levels
>Universe-forming
>force
>not discovered
Friend, have you heard the good news?

No, dummy, the force acts IN our Universe, it didn't CAUSE it. Or actED, rather, since the Universe has been too "cold" since the first fraction of a second for this force to be active.

So can we figure this out by figuring out everything else about the laws of our observable universe? Would you have to have an understanding of this force to know the "theory of everything" every physicist memes on about?

You joke, but wouldn't it be something if consciousness could be tied to dark matter/energy somehow? Some variable that's chaotic and unpredictable, yet fundamental to the system.