Define closed system, preferable in lame man's terms.
>>16148774a closed system is where the second law of thermodynamics works. An open system is where it does not
>>16148810So how can we be certain the universe is a closed system? what's the criterion?
>>16148816It isn't, all the energy is recycled, never created or destroyed
>>16148820So you're saying matter is eternal and the universe had no beginning?
>>16148852Energy seems eternal. If it isn't, then there is some sort of energy spewing mechanism that shits out energy from time to time.
>>16148857Energy can not be eternal into the past. That would mean an infinity of time has passed since which can't happen. Likely there is just some sort of creation mechanism that does things every once in a while.
>>16148868>some sort of creation mechanism>>16148857>some sort of energy spewing mechanismWhatever it take to not consider God.
>>16148897>Whatever it take to not consider God.If a god is real, it is near 100% guaranteed to not be your kiketranny god.
>>16148917I'll pray for you, my doomed brother.
so who made God then?
>>16148926Same, real God won't be kind on you
>>16148917No shit sherlock.
>>16148929answer this
>>16148954Who said God was made?
>>16148964ah so the universe can't exist since forever surely, because science implications. but God can. got it.
>>16148964Suppose you had a dehydrated camel equidistant from two sources of water, each equivalent to the camel in every way: does the camel die from thirst because it has no sufficient reason to choose one over the other?
>>16148966Yeah, it's not that hard to understand. I'm glad you see now.
>>16148968I don't understand your objection. The camel would choose either if he wants to survive because either choice is essentially the same.
>>16148976No, the will to survive is precisely equivalent in either. As such, there is no reason for either to evolve from the base state. So why did the camelverse unfold in one way instead of the other?
>>16148774>>16148816>>16148852>another thinly-veiled religion threadMan, this board has gone to shit
>>16148999Typical materialist believes in unresolved contradictions of causality and reees about God instead of facing his ineptitude./sci/ has really turned to shit.
>>16148774>No attempt to win the game
>>16148999So far no one has defined a closed system or given a good reason why the 2nd law of thermodynamics should or shouldn't apply to the universe. It's not my fault the Occam's razor implies God.
>>16148774You can have perpetual motion machine, if it sucks energy from it's environment. Closed system is system in which system doesn't exchange energy with environment.
>>16149803>You can have perpetual motion machinea pulsing universe is that
>>16148999The jannies on here are so fucking inept
>>16149868they're maintaining the state of things. you will have thinly-veiled religion threads and you will be happy. they do it because reasons
>>16148954>>16148929
>>16148929the funny thing is when people ask this, in reality what they are doing is proving God though they arent smart enough to realize it.They recognize this is a causal reality so there must be a first cause. Oddly they are willing to accept the Universe as causing itself (though they dont really believe this or they wouldnt ask this question) but not God. They are forced to admit in a causal reality that the first cause, or prime mover is by very definition supernatural in a causal reality. They arent smart enough to put the pieces together however. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too and just look retarded in the process.
>>16148774You have a floor, the floor is everything in existance. You draw an arbitrary closed shape on the floor. Everything that enters the shape is entering your system. Everything that leaves is leaving your system. If you want to make it useful, you want to put the tape around stuff on the floor where things are rarely if ever going to cross the tape you laid down. That is your closed system.
>>16149872Imagine of jannies on /a/ were like this? Constant anime hate threads and comic rivalry threads.
>>16149873>Spend 10 minutes reading the babble of a schizophrenicI shan't
>>16149950you could have just admitted you are an idiot from a jump and saved is all a bit time. But then I already explained how stupid you are here >>16149879 so it would have been redundant anyway.
>>16149959
>>16149960
>>16149950You only have two choices1. The Universe came from nothing 2. God came from nothing (though he didnt, there is no such thing as nothing, only infinite consciousness) you soi face and suck off the first one and call the second one schizobabble because you are too stupid to understand it. Being this stupid I wonder why you would visit a science board when you are clearly incapable of contributing anything of value due to your low IQ
>>16150251>The Universe came from nothingI don't believe this.>only infinite consciousnessThis is made up nonsense with no evidence going for it, hence you are a babbling schizo.
>>16150257>This is made up nonsense with no evidence going for it,No, actually you are just an uneducated hick who calls are the Geniuses of the past "schizo" because you are an uneducated hick and have no idea who proposed these theories and their proofs for them. Sorry but anyone who says Newton, Tesla, Plato, Pythagoras, Da Vinci, Descartes (I could literally go on for hours with this list) are "schizobabble" is not someone whose opinion is tobe taken seriously. You are a knuckledragging retard insulting the heights of human intellect. In short you are a joke
>>16150266So show some evidence. Dig deep in your schizophrenic mind.
>>16150268Oh just to add, I guess they dont teach stupid zoomers that there are two camps1. Big Bag2. Steady statesteady staters are now "schizobabble" according to droolers these days. You are an imbecile and should give your STEM aspirations
>>16148852Yes, the creation hypothesis is an error in trying to apply human logic to something which defies all logic and known mechanisms of action, kind of the same problem as defining consciousness.
>>16150272*give up* your STEM aspirations
>>16150272Show your evidence, I'm interested in what you have to say.
>>16150275This is my personal video archivehttps://ugetube.com/@bodhi_mantra?page=play-listswatch in this order1. Sangha2. Introduction To The Mysteries3. Zero point
>>16150279I'm not watching your 10hour+ playlist. You can make an argument contained in a post.
>>16150288Im not personal fucking tutor you worthless sack of shit
>>16148868>That would mean an infinity of time has passed since which can't happen.According to who?
>>16150290I think you're only afraid you're gonna embarrass yourself with your soccer mom spiritualism.
>>16150292It's not an infinite amount of time if you've passed it by this point.
>>16150296Say that again in a way that doesn't sound like a 3rd grader came up with it
>>16150298You will never pass an infinite amount of time.
>>16150310You don't pass anything, time is a singular moment, the notion of past and future extends infinitely in both directions, you can walk on a road that's infinite in length, there doesn't have to be a beginning or an end
>>16150310you wouldn't know anyway if you reset
>>16150268>The “crackers in the cupboard fallacy” is a philosophical concept that refers to the idea that some people claim that the existence of God or a higher power cannot be proven or believed until there is empirical evidence or direct experience.Do you think all knowledge is perceptual in nature?
>>16150569>philosophicaldoesn't matter not science >>>/lit/
>>16150574Science is based on philosophy, so it isn't science
>>16150589Wrong>>>/lit/
>>16150627So science doesn't follow logic?
>>16150574People like you are why science is in shambles.
>>16149823Those words don't mean anything
>>16150760Nta but reality is just one singular flow/exchange of energy, it is literally a perpetual motion machine
>>16150760big bang - big crunch - big bang - big crunch - big bang - ....do you need a drawing with that?
>>16150772Even if this model is true we don't know if each big bang has the same amount of energy as the previous
>>16150781true, may have an energy/matter cost, but constants would change each cycle.where would it go anyway? weird thinking of an outside for our universe.
>>16150784It could be that some of the earliest material at the edge of our current universe doesn't get pulled back into the singularity, leaving rings of slowly expanding material unaffected by the next universe.But we'd have no way of proving that, just like we have no way of really proving anything on a billion+ year scale.
>>16148774Second law has nothing to do with closed systems.
>>16150772That is an infinite regress; it can't do that forever eternally without starting somewhere.
>>16148820>>16148816>>16148774GO TO THIS THREAD >>16152659 WHERE I TALKED ABOUT IT, thank god one thread in the catalog had people asking questions like me, doesnt feel good being a genius m8
>>16151175>infinite regresswho made the universe, who made who made the universe, who made who made who made the universeit's unavoidable one way or the other. and universe existing since forever and forever is simpler than coming up with creators for the universe, and creators for those creators
>>16153064>it's unavoidable one way or the other. and universe existing since forever and forever is simplerIt is simple logic, it is mind blowing the people here cant use the most basic logicIf is this is a casual realty (which it is) and something can't come from nothing then the only logical explanation is that 0 is not the default state, 1 is. Period, it is that simple
>>16153064>clinging to the most rudimentary argument for atheism
>>16153600fuck off
>>16148820If light redshifts under the expansion of the universe, where did that energy go? Seems like it was destroyed to me
>>16148917You don't want God to be real, but you cannot always get what you want. Of course, you can make negative claims, or say "hurr durr God can't be real because flyin spaghetti ain't real and I cannot find any teapots orbiting the sun hurr durr."
>>16153851why does it redshift?
>>16148774Sort of off topic, but can anyone explain "WHAT" gravity is? I am not talking about what it does. That's easy. What is gravity? Can you take a photo of gravity? Can you take a teaspoon of gravity? Can you hold gravity in your hand? So, what is the placeholder for gravity if we don't know what it is? We already have the placeholder of "dark matter" to explain what we don't know about the universe. You see what I am getting at? So, we have placeholders for anything, but if God is used as a placeholder, people freak out. "Hurr durr God does not exist." Well, what if I said dark matter does not exist and say that it is God that is the placeholder? What is wrong with that? You do the same thing with dark matter.
>>16150314>You don't pass anything, time is a singular moment, the notion of past and future extends infinitely in both directions, you can walk on a road that's infinite in length, there doesn't have to be a beginning or an endCool, then you can also say that God has no beginning or end.
>>16153863https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M
>>16153064It is simple because it hurts your brain to think. Intellectual laziness.
>>16153871not science >>>/lit/
>>16153879>>16153882
>>16150657any philosopher that takes a single look at humanity would thoughtfully refrain from telling anything significantly new and true to us
need better as simiulations(eyeroll)
>>16148964existence as a premise is just a red herring so whatever this is is stupid or has a point in selling booksbetter to go read about buddha and what he had to say about whether we should eat latecomer
>>16154682>existence as a premisesorry the point is to say this sentence makes no sense either the way you're currently thinking abotut or the inverted other way or any combination thereof at all is the point
also this weird thing happens with IQ where bashing things together is the only way to do anything different and not more 1001101010
and we also probably shouldn't even ever do that anyway
probably find cthulu when the angels so supposed would ... that's up to them isn't it?
No one knows if the universe is a closed system or not.
>>16148774The second law has like 10 ways to phrase it. The closed system thing is maybe the least useful.
