Blame mesons , they fucked up the matter/antimatter balance in the early universe from being 50/50 to 51/49
As a result, we live
Sufficient to say, this has made a lot of people angry over time
Because it can. If it couldn’t it wouldn’t but it can so it does. Be can do, so do be.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
We wiki never know. My take, which is not a thing one can prove or disprove, is that something that don’t actually exist needed something to exist in order to love. My answer is love.
Stuff exists so it can ask questions like “why is there stuff?”
Because 42.
No, that’s for “what do you get if you multiply six by nine?”"
No one knows, it’s unlikely we ever will. There’s stuff and that’s why you can even ask this question. If there wasn’t anything, you wouldn’t be able to ask anything. It happened, so now we have to deal with it.
10/10
Love it
Your last sentence should become some kind of philosophy.
Look up Phenomenology.
There being stuff is privledge.
There is no dark without light. No silence without sound. No nothing without something.
But why?
These concepts are each defined in relation to something else. Without that something else these concepts are meaningless, absurd, and do not exist.
But that assumption, of how reality works, is based on the premise that reality is, has always been, and can only work that way. Maybe opposites coexist in some other concept of reality?
There are logical impossibilities, for example in no universe does 0 = 1, and the same is true for these concepts.
Your example is wrong even in our universe lol. In the trivial ring (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_ring ), 0=1 is true.
What you are probably imagining when talking about 0 and 1 are their representatives in the “integer ring” or maybe the ring of real numbers. Both are simply definitions made by humans and in no way universal truths.
There’s no math that makes 0 = 1. When you cannot see the error it does not mean there is no error.
How many years have you studied mathematics? If you really believe that, it can’t be more than 2 after high-school.
Edit: better question: Can you define “equivalence relation”? I don’t want you to be creative, I want the standard definition you come across in any foundations class.
This is actually wrong. You can have an equivalence relation where 0 is equivalent to 1. Furthermore, in the Trivial Ring (that is, the ring algebra of a single element) the multiplicative identity (written as 1) and the and the additive identity (written as 0) are the same element, and thus in the context of the trivial ring 0=1. Isn’t that fascinating?
The fact that time is relative disproves this already. Our understanding is limited by our ability to perceive.
People say shit like this, but it’s just not true. If darkness is the absence of light, then it’s dark so long as there isn’t light. If you observe a universe where there are no photons, it’d be dark everywhere. (it’d also not have the EM force, but let’s put that aside for now.) You can have darkness without light, but if you aren’t aware of light, then you simply wouldn’t have a word for darkness; you are confusing the conceptualization of thing with the thing itself. In my circles, we refer to this fallacy as confusing the map and the territory.
Imagine a flat universe without up and down and then you might arrive closer to the truth.
I’m a mathematician. I work in multidimensional spaces. Did you know you can have coordinate systems with boundaries? You can also have universes where movement is possible in a particular direction, but not the other. We actually live in such a universe; you can only move forward in time.
Your entire argument is “I can’t imagine darkness without light, therefore it’s logically impossible.” All you’ve proven is that you lack an imagination and don’t understand logic.
You’re still limiting your thinking too much. Would you say it’s possible for something to be impossible, or that that’s simply not possible because everything is possible?
This is the least coherent thing I’ve read all year. Congratulations.
Take the "no"s out of that and it’s still true.
No it’s literally impossible.
You didnt even try, did you?
I did and then of course explained that the result is more than false, it’s literally impossible.
There is dark without light. Sound without silence. Nothing without something.
These are all true sentences.
No, it’s literally impossible.
English is probably not your first language, but still, this should be pretty clear to anyone with a basic understanding of it. Reread the sentences
Because.
Because, to maintain “nothingness” the omniverse must balance matter and anti-matter.
Well, that became unbalanced because of random fluctuations.
So theres a pocket of matter and anti-matter didn’t annihilate for some reason, I call it “plot armor” reasons, and that separated from each other forming 2 regions of space.
So the region of positive-matter, through randomness eventually formed our universe.
The region of anti-matter probably formed its own anti-verse
Ok I’m bullshitting, I’m not a scientist and I made up the whole thing mmkay? That’s my amateur explaination of the universe. Fight me.
But like, philosophically make sense.
How do you get something from 0?
0= [+1] + [-1]
See? That’s my mathematical proof.
Its my version of E=MC², but with the creation of the universe and anti-verse.
🤓
Isn’t antimatter still “something?” It’s not nothing.
There isn’t any anti-verse, normal matter won for reasons still unknown, because the big bang should have created an equal amount of matter and antimatter. So plot armour is a good enough explanation for now.
But since there was less antimatter, it was all annihilated.
That still doesn’t answer OP’s question, though, you can go further - why did big bang create more matter? Why did big bang happen? And if you one day manage to answer that, you’ll have to ask why the thing that caused big bang happened?
The question simply doesn’t have an answer.
why did big bang create more matter?
(Again, I’m not doing a scientific explanation, this is a philosophical explanation)
There is the same amount of matter and antimatter, but some mysterious energy propelled them to separate with a distsnce in between them. This is how the universe and the anti-verse are stable. But eventually, these two different “universes” will collide and annihilate each other again.
I think you’re mistaking philosophy for something else. Ignoring facts is not philosophy.
Aren’t quarks made up of the nothingness, the vacuum of space, somehow vibrating? I feel like that’s what smart people have been trying to tell me.
If that’s correct, then the nothing is the source of the something.
Fuck all this. Let’s get a second opinion from the nothingverse, maybe they know something we don’t
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” "
Douglas Adams
Have you heard of the big bang?
I have. Its the matter and antimatter thing. I wonder who put it there in the first place
Nobody. It just was.
Why not?
