Why Does The Universe Exist?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Might as well ask why do planets, rocks, or birds exist.

Planets exist due to gravity. Rocks are formed by melting and cooling. Birds exist due to evolution and natural selection. The answer is out there, but given the extreme complexity of the universe it may simply not be possible for any human to understand what the universe is let alone why. Repeat, even humans who are genius simply may lack the intellect to understand why the universe exists.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/rock-cycle/

In the end, I just don't care that much right now. There are more pressing concerns and I am confident that science will further our knowledge, make mistakes, and correct those mistakes inching us closer to the answer of why the universe exists.

Here's another way to take the thread. Why does it matter if humans know why the universe exists? Well, one reason it would matter a lot is if we really are in a human farm like the Matrix and machines are feeding off our life force energy.

just_sayin

Why is there something rather than nothing?  It has been asked in various forms by many philosophers.  Most of the theories on how the universe was created can be debunked in a few minutes - don't believe me, just read the scientific journals.  The supporter of one theory will debunk another competing theory very quickly.  Here are few of the most prominent theories and why they are dismissed:

Quantum fluctuation theory (Lawrence Krauss' universe from nothing theory).  The exact length of time that a virtual particle can exist as matter in our universe is a known thing.  The time that a virtual particle with the capacity to create our universe can exist is much much shorter - far less than a second with many many decimals in it  The time is too short to allow for the fundamental forces to form that would be needed to trigger inflation.  In other words, the universe would disappear from existence before the big bang would every happen.  This is a huge problem with the theory that has never been solved.

Vacuum fluctuation models - these models also use virtual particles.  The problem with these models is that they can not answer a very basic question - if universes have been created from eternity by this method, then why  aren't we observing an infinitely old universe rather than a relatively young one.  Given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another.  This is a fairly lethal problem to this theory and most abandoned it in the 90s.

Inflationary theories - these were dealt a death blow by Borde, Guth, and Bilenkin's theorem which showed that a universe, or multiverse, eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodetically complete in the the past. There must have existed at some point int he indefinite past an initial sigularity.  

Quantum Gravity Models - Hawking and Hartle proposed a model based on this - sometimes called the shuttle model.  Essentially they believe the universe existed eternally in the space of a planck width before a fluctuation in energy triggered its growth.  For this theory the math quite literally doesn't add up.  In fact the scenario doesn't work with real numbers at all and only imaginary ones (not kidding).  Hawking claims his curved beginning, isn't a beginning, but it obviously to objective people is.  Vilenken trashed the model as 'metaphysical cosmology'. 

Oscillating models - this is where the universe expands and contracts.  Even if you grant the 75% of missing mass in the universe from dark matter and dark energy which haven't been located, the math says our universe will never contract.  Even if the math worked the theory collapses because even in the most efficient system there is some energy loss.  If even a small amount is lost, that means each expansion/contraction gets smaller and smaller.  The universe would have ceased to exist a literal eternity ago.

Ekpyrotic Models - string theory sometimes fits in this model.  This is where two branes create positive and negative tension.  It requires near perfect alignment of the two branes (10^-60 power).  This is essentially an oscillating universe in 5 dimensions.  It collapses, not just on the wildly fine tuned requirements for it, but on the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem.  They were able to generalize their results on inflationary models to ones like these and they concluded "Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions [specifically speaking of brane-cosmology], It follows ofrom our theorem that the cyclic universe is past-incomplete... This means that the need for an initial singularity has not beeen eliminated.  Therefore, such a universe cannot be past-eternal."

The universe is finely tuned to exist.  Roger Penrose, who was the co-author with Hawking on his model, calculated the probability of our universe having the low entropy needed.  He said that the special geometry arising by chance is AT LEAST as small as about one part in 10 ^10000B^(3/2), where B is the present baryon number of the universe [`10^80].  Penrose, an agnostic, said 'the accuracy of the Creator's aim' would need to have been one part in the 10^10^123 power in order for our universe to exist.  To put that number into perspective there are only 10^80 particles (not atoms, but the stuff that make up atoms) int he universe.  That's an incredibly small window.  Any slight variation, by an amount much smaller than a single particle, would have resulted in no universe at all.  Now,  you can assume chance.  But the odds are so ridiculously small, that it much more likely that the universe was created by some intelligence.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold
Why does the universe exist?
In the simplistic of terms the universe exists as it is both seen and hurd

Is the universe the last visible step in the order of magnitude?

ZeusAres42

The mysteries of our vast universe have beckoned and boggled the human mind for millennia. At the heart of this contemplative journey lies a seemingly simple, yet profoundly complex question: "Why does the universe exist?" While scientific endeavors have brought to light many facets about the "how" of the universe— from the behavior of quarks to the grandeur of spiral galaxies — the question of "why" ventures beyond the empirical, diving deep into the realms of philosophy, theology, and metaphysics.

Historical philosophical traditions offer a wealth of perspectives. The ancient Greeks, for instance, sought rational explanations for the cosmos. Plato, in his famed work "Timaeus", described a divine craftsman shaping the universe according to eternal forms. Meanwhile, existentialists of the 20th century, such as Albert Camus, explored the idea that life might be inherently absurd, a cosmic accident without intrinsic meaning. They posited that humans must craft their own purpose amidst this perceived void. Like a painter facing a blank canvas, we are thrust into existence, compelled to find or create meaning where none may inherently exist.

Theologically, the universe's existence is often framed within the narrative of a higher power or divine principle. Christianity, for example, begins its scripture with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This narrative asserts that the universe is a purposeful creation of an omniscient deity. Similarly, in Islamic thought, the Quran frequently references the heavens and the earth as signs of God's magnificence and purpose. The Buddhist cosmological understanding, on the other hand, leans into cycles of birth, death, and rebirth, hinting at an eternal universe perpetually in flux, like an endless river flowing through time.

Yet, in the face of ancient wisdom and religious conviction, stands the towering edifice of modern science. There's a sentiment among many today that science, with its ever-advancing tools and methodologies, will eventually unveil the ultimate reason behind the universe's existence. The groundbreaking detection of the Higgs boson in 2012, often referred to as the "God Particle", exemplifies this belief. Here was a particle, once purely theoretical, that was discovered and gave credence to our understanding of mass in the universe. For some, it symbolized a step closer to unraveling the universe's deeper mysteries.

However, as the shadows of our understanding recede, they often reveal even deeper mysteries. Can empirical tools, no matter how advanced, ever grasp the fullness of existential questions? It's like trying to measure love with a ruler; there are dimensions of reality that might elude empirical quantification. Some argue that science, in all its brilliance, may still find itself at the doorstep of the metaphysical, knocking but never truly entering.

Navigating the intricate interplay of science, philosophy, and theology, the enigma of why the universe exists remains a tantalizing beacon for thinkers across disciplines. Whether through the philosophical ponderings of ancient sages, the faith-filled affirmations of theologians, or the rigorous empiricism of scientists, this question unfurls a diverse tapestry of thought. As we peer into the cosmos, we're not merely observing stars and galaxies; we are gazing into the reflections of our deepest curiosities and the very essence of our quest for understanding.

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 Its all very well to go out side the circle and think about and wonder why the universe is here but people are never going to find the true answer until they answer to the true God.

If we except the true realty that God made the universe then we dont have to ask why he made it. Do you go to a car dealer and ask them why they made your car that way and do you write to the apple factory and ask why they make the iphone that way. And do you go to a restaurant and ask why they put different things in the dish you ordered. No you dont you just except it and enjoy what ever you got. Which is why we should all except the universe the way it is without having to ask dum questions about why it was made. God had his reasons just like the apple factory so why the heck should we need to know because it doesn't make any difference any way. We should get on with our lifes without thinking a hole heap of whys and where fors that have no reason behind them any way.

MayCaesar

The question is trivial: by definition, the Universe is everything that exists. If anything exists, the Universe exists as well; if nothing exists, then, as "Universe" is something, it does not exist either.

People get boggled down with these pseudo-philosophical questions: "Why does the Universe exist?", "What is the meaning of life?", "Is there life after death?", "Is the cup half-full or half-empty?" There really is nothing to talk about here once you understand the question and see that it answers itself. However, people purposefully obfuscate the questions with abstract philosophizing, making the questions sound much deeper than they are - and writing entire volumes of text trying to explore them. I have never seen the point in wasting time on this. Ivory tower philosophies are useless and wasteful: philosophy should be as scientific as physics or history, and applicable in the real world.

There are countless concrete questions that are worth pondering, that are tangible, and that are practically useful. Why is there a discrepancy between the amount of matter and antimatter in the Universe? I would like to have a better answer to this than "It is because of CP violation occurring at the early stages of evolution of the Universe... If you want more details, please read this thick book. By the way, a prerequisite to understanding it is these 5 graduate-level courses in theoretical particle physics." There is a ton of knowledge about the Universe we have that is encoded in countless equations and abstract definitions, and that has not been processed and converted into an easily digestible form yet.

I think that people waste more time on these useless questions instead exactly because they do not require much thinking. You can just unload your stream of consciousness - you can even major in Philosophy and take a bunch of courses that will teach you how to dress the stream up and make it sound deep and profound - without having to wrestle with reality, with facts, with seemingly mutually conflicting observations. And if you have a particular belief that you want to justify - belief in gods, or magic, or spirits, or reincarnation, or souls, or whatnot - then you can absolutely lead the reader there by some skillful word juggling.
It is much easier to write a tractate on how the meaning of life is hidden in some ancient words of wisdom written on the stones in a Shinto temple, than it is to explain why Jupiter does not implode and become a star.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
The question is trivial: by definition, the Universe is everything that exists.
trivial : of little worth or importance

Trivial Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

We are debating the definition of the Universe. The argument "Time" is not part of the definition of a Universe is a large part of the argument. Much in the way that Pi is not a ratio of a circle's circumference and diameter and is an argument of definition, documented fact. All ratio of a circle's circumference is made between chords and circumference using trigonometry not the division of a diameter length and circumference length. There is great cost in the debate as money has been spent on the topic and the description of scientific magnitude is called into question as a language of fact.

The fundamental argument in relevance is about plagiarism made publicly. It may even be more important as the writers’ strike in California moves forward. Yes, it is not at the top of all writers’ list of priorities such as the many arguments for fair compensation. The topic does, however, hold a place in discussion of writing as a craft and trade and is not simple philosophical nonsense. A writers right to fact check.

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

@ZeusAres42 Its all very well to go out side the circle and think about and wonder why the universe is here but people are never going to find the true answer until they answer to the true God.

If we except the true realty that God made the universe then we dont have to ask why he made it. Do you go to a car dealer and ask them why they made your car that way and do you write to the apple factory and ask why they make the iphone that way. And do you go to a restaurant and ask why they put different things in the dish you ordered. No you dont you just except it and enjoy what ever you got. Which is why we should all except the universe the way it is without having to ask dum questions about why it was made. God had his reasons just like the apple factory so why the heck should we need to know because it doesn't make any difference any way. We should get on with our lifes without thinking a hole heap of whys and where fors that have no reason behind them any way.

@Barnardot

likening a singular "true God" to manufacturers of human-made products like cars or iPhones might not capture the full breadth of the discourse. Consider the painting of the Mona Lisa: we might ask why Leonardo da Vinci chose a particular shade of color or why he painted her with that enigmatic smile. Such questions, while stemming from human creation, can be deeply philosophical and not merely about the mechanics of the painting. Similarly, questions about the universe's origin can be both profound and intricate, going beyond just acceptance.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

The question is trivial: by definition, the Universe is everything that exists. If anything exists, the Universe exists as well; if nothing exists, then, as "Universe" is something, it does not exist either.

People get boggled down with these pseudo-philosophical questions: "Why does the Universe exist?", "What is the meaning of life?", "Is there life after death?", "Is the cup half-full or half-empty?" There really is nothing to talk about here once you understand the question and see that it answers itself. However, people purposefully obfuscate the questions with abstract philosophizing, making the questions sound much deeper than they are - and writing entire volumes of text trying to explore them. I have never seen the point in wasting time on this. Ivory tower philosophies are useless and wasteful: philosophy should be as scientific as physics or history, and applicable in the real world.

There are countless concrete questions that are worth pondering, that are tangible, and that are practically useful. Why is there a discrepancy between the amount of matter and antimatter in the Universe? I would like to have a better answer to this than "It is because of CP violation occurring at the early stages of evolution of the Universe... If you want more details, please read this thick book. By the way, a prerequisite to understanding it is these 5 graduate-level courses in theoretical particle physics." There is a ton of knowledge about the Universe we have that is encoded in countless equations and abstract definitions, and that has not been processed and converted into an easily digestible form yet.

I think that people waste more time on these useless questions instead exactly because they do not require much thinking. You can just unload your stream of consciousness - you can even major in Philosophy and take a bunch of courses that will teach you how to dress the stream up and make it sound deep and profound - without having to wrestle with reality, with facts, with seemingly mutually conflicting observations. And if you have a particular belief that you want to justify - belief in gods, or magic, or spirits, or reincarnation, or souls, or whatnot - then you can absolutely lead the reader there by some skillful word juggling.
It is much easier to write a tractate on how the meaning of life is hidden in some ancient words of wisdom written on the stones in a Shinto temple, than it is to explain why Jupiter does not implode and become a star.

@MayCaesar

The assertion that questions about the universe or the meaning of life are trivial misses the mark. Let's look at Plato's Allegory of the Cave. The prisoners in the cave only knew shadows as their reality, but there was a deeper truth outside the cave. In a similar vein, while we might define the Universe as everything that exists, the underlying questions of "why" and "how" are gateways to deeper explorations, just like the journey of the freed prisoner in Plato's allegory.

Emphasizing the need for philosophy to mirror disciplines like physics and history perhaps doesn't do justice to some of the contributions of philosophy. For instance, the philosophy of science, as embraced by figures like Karl Popper, provides the very framework that helps define what scientific inquiry should look like.

Furthermore, suggesting that philosophical endeavors are mere streams of consciousness dressed in profound language might not appreciate the discipline's depth. For example, Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' isn't just a stream of consciousness but a meticulous analysis of human perception and understanding.

Sure, I concur with the call for making scientific knowledge more accessible. However, it's delving into philosophical questions isn't an escape from rigorous thinking. To imply so is akin to saying that a poet's musings on love are less valuable than a biologist's study of the human heart.

just_sayin

@ZeusAres42
However, as the shadows of our understanding recede, they often reveal even deeper mysteries.

Navigating the intricate interplay of science, philosophy, and theology, the enigma of why the universe exists remains a tantalizing beacon for thinkers across disciplines. Whether through the philosophical ponderings of ancient sages, the faith-filled affirmations of theologians, or the rigorous empiricism of scientists, this question unfurls a diverse tapestry of thought. As we peer into the cosmos, we're not merely observing stars and galaxies; we are gazing into the reflections of our deepest curiosities and the very essence of our quest for understanding.

Is this ChatGPT, or did you just come out of literature class, or were you drunk when you wrote this?  It doesn't sound like a normal person wrote this.  Just wondering.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
The question is trivial: by definition, the Universe is everything that exists. If anything exists, the Universe exists as well; if nothing exists, then, as "Universe" is something, it does not exist either.

The best observable evidence suggests that our universe had a beginning at the big bang where all matter existed in zero space (at least no bigger than 10 ^ −20 times the diameter of a proton).  If the universe is all there is, then how did the universe give birth to itself? 

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

@ZeusAres42
However, as the shadows of our understanding recede, they often reveal even deeper mysteries.

Navigating the intricate interplay of science, philosophy, and theology, the enigma of why the universe exists remains a tantalizing beacon for thinkers across disciplines. Whether through the philosophical ponderings of ancient sages, the faith-filled affirmations of theologians, or the rigorous empiricism of scientists, this question unfurls a diverse tapestry of thought. As we peer into the cosmos, we're not merely observing stars and galaxies; we are gazing into the reflections of our deepest curiosities and the very essence of our quest for understanding.

Is this ChatGPT, or did you just come out of literature class, or were you drunk when you wrote this?  It doesn't sound like a normal person wrote this.  Just wondering.

Hey @just_sayin,

I see how the excerpt might feel a bit  "out there".  I do like to have a drink at this time of evening too sometimes. But let's consider a few things.

First, the topic itself is pretty deep. We're talking about the universe, existence, and some of the biggest questions humans have ever grappled with. It makes sense that someone might lean into more poetic or thoughtful language when trying to convey their feelings about something so vast and complex.

Additionally, everyone's got their own style, right? Some folks might be more straightforward, while others get a bit flowery with their words. I've got friends who can't tell a story without making it sound like an epic saga and others who give just the facts. 

And hey, maybe I just was having one of those moments where I felt deeply connected to the topic, and that's the language that poured out. Have you ever been in situations where your usual way of speaking just didn't cut it?

In any case, while my style might not be everyone's cup of tea, it's real to me. We can all learn something when we listen to perspectives that are different from our own, even if they're delivered in a package that's not our usual style.  

PS: Have you got anything of any pertinence to the argument? Anything you think is invalid, not correct, etc.? I'd rather discuss those topics that are actually relevant to the debate. Cheers!  

John_C_87

Pardon. Vast, the subject is vast not deep. 
The universe has no visible beginning...There is a theory in which people look for possible clues to support the body of principles offered to explain. My unbelievable theory by observation is that mathematics lacks so much we as of yet are simply unable to build device or formulate the creation of the energy at such magnitude as endless.

We cannot even by formulation rule out Atomic testing has not triggered global warming. Laughing...

I need help blowing up my universal floaties life was so much easier with we just put on life jackets and fell in the deep water.

John_C_87

My argument will be consistent if not true. Time and the universe do not go together. The observable reason is that time creates Time-zones, we as people can all see this observation even if we cannot all understand it.

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;likening a singular "true God" to manufacturers of human-made products like cars or iPhones might not capture the full breadth of the discourse.

Well you could make the argument that because the universe is bigger than an iphone there must be more breath of discourse about it. Im sure that right now there would be at least a 1000 people writing thesises on why we have iphones and they could go on writing for ever about it. And proberly we can learn a lot from all the social and cultural implications as to why we have iphones. 

Sure we should keep on finding out how the universe was made so we can analize behaviors and matter to improve what were doing. But I cant see why  trying to find out why the universe serves any reason at all except to have meaningless discourse that really gets no where. 

Thats why I think that Christians have got there heads together because they except that God made the universe and we dont need to know why we just except it and get on with more discourse on how we live our lives within the universe.

just_sayin

@John_C_87
Einsteins equations showed that space and time are part of the same fabric.  So it is illogical to speak of a 'time' before the creation of space-time (the universe) because time has a beginning also.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

The assertion that questions about the universe or the meaning of life are trivial misses the mark. Let's look at Plato's Allegory of the Cave. The prisoners in the cave only knew shadows as their reality, but there was a deeper truth outside the cave. In a similar vein, while we might define the Universe as everything that exists, the underlying questions of "why" and "how" are gateways to deeper explorations, just like the journey of the freed prisoner in Plato's allegory.

Emphasizing the need for philosophy to mirror disciplines like physics and history perhaps doesn't do justice to some of the contributions of philosophy. For instance, the philosophy of science, as embraced by figures like Karl Popper, provides the very framework that helps define what scientific inquiry should look like.

Furthermore, suggesting that philosophical endeavors are mere streams of consciousness dressed in profound language might not appreciate the discipline's depth. For example, Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' isn't just a stream of consciousness but a meticulous analysis of human perception and understanding.

Sure, I concur with the call for making scientific knowledge more accessible. However, it's delving into philosophical questions isn't an escape from rigorous thinking. To imply so is akin to saying that a poet's musings on love are less valuable than a biologist's study of the human heart.

In the Plato's mental experiment there is a world outside of the cave we are oblivious to. In case of the Universe, by definition, there is nothing outside of it; it is impossible to be "free" from the Universe, unless by freedom one means death of one's consciousness (without consciousness, again, there is nothing, and there is no Universe to speak of).

To clarify, I do not at all think that philosophy is a useless field of inquiry; not at all. However, philosophy must address practical questions, questions that have actionable implications. Talking about things that are trivial as if they are deep and sophisticated misses the mark completely. Same goes for poetry: if you read a piece of poetry and it stirs something in you and changes your state for the better, then that is a piece that has served its purpose - however, a piece of poetry that does not move you and does not do anything measurable appears useless to me. At the end of a philosophical inquiry one should be able to answer the question, "What has changed in you?", with something concrete, say, "I have acquired a new method of thinking about whether something is true or not".

But take one of these questions I mentioned, such as, "What is the meaning of life?" Linguistically, one is asking what word "life" means. The answer is simple: one can look it up in the dictionary. There is nothing more to say on the subject. But people trained in philosophy the way such training is commonly done at universities or in abstract philosophy books will write entire tractates on how life has some higher purpose; they will sometimes even come up with tautologies such as "The meaning of life is to discover the meaning of life", or "The meaning of life is that there is no meaning"... All of this is absolutely senseless, has no practical value, is not inspiring - and, frankly, is just a waste of energy and time.

There are much more concrete questions to ask. "How should one live his life so it feels fulfilling?" This is a very practical question, with testable answers: "This philosopher said that I should do X, I did X, and my life does not feel fulfilling; the philosopher was wrong". These are the questions great philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle, Lao-Tzu, Locke or Nietzsche grappled with - their answers were not always satisfactory and did not always withstand the test of time, but they were seeking answers that could actually change lives of people adopting them and practicing them consistently. Kant, I think, is one of those other philosophers who went down the path of sophistry, who was interested not in improving the life of the practitioner of his philosophy, but in abstract metaphysical questions of "What does the Universe want from us?", questions that posit existence of entities that either demonstrably do not exist in this reality, or have not been / cannot be proven to exist. Are his thoughts deep? Sure. But depth means little more than random stream of high-level consciousness when it is an attribute of something having no relation to reality. I can write a tractate full of very deep sentiments on why 1+1=3, yet it will be a completely useless endeavor to anyone other than me, given I manage to find a market for my tractate and sell it to someone.

just_sayin said:

@MayCaesar
The question is trivial: by definition, the Universe is everything that exists. If anything exists, the Universe exists as well; if nothing exists, then, as "Universe" is something, it does not exist either.

The best observable evidence suggests that our universe had a beginning at the big bang where all matter existed in zero space (at least no bigger than 10 ^ −20 times the diameter of a proton).  If the universe is all there is, then how did the universe give birth to itself? 

The question of "how" is totally separate from the question of "why"; the "how" of it I have explored in the thread nearby if you are curious. The short version is, it is incorrect to talk about the Universe "appearing" out of something or nothing, and that is not at all what modern physics posits. The Universe did not "have a beginning" in the sense of there existing a moment "before" which the Universe did not exist and after which it did - there is no "before".
The "why" question though is trivial, as I just explained.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Einsteins equations showed that space and time are part of the same fabric.  So it is illogical to speak of a 'time' before the creation of space-time (the universe) because time has a beginning also. 

Time was never a class in mathematics Einstein had learned before writing his field equation for ten years. What Einstein calls Space-Time is the cobonation of the Ricci scalar and the metric tensor however the curve of  space is suggested from the deeper parts of the scalar in the Original upsilon function and the General upsilon function held inside the Ricci scalar.

What Einstein’s field equation shows is mathematically the geometry or trigonometry which calculates time was something Einstein never studied when preparing skills for ten years in mathematics needed to write his field equations. Time is plagiarized by General Relativity / Special Relativity and is only the combination of energy by way of adding Ricci scalar and metric tensor together suggesting a curve of a line as space. Newtons work on gravitation is also wrong due to Pi as a law of mathematics Newtons gravitational constant described as 8 Pi G gives a result of Pi acording to some used to yield a result as a test of common value between to different formulas. What I need to do is describe to you how Pi when solved as a ratio made between a circles chords and circumference leaves two regions of time that are in effect derived of multiple time zones. The science experiment can be performed with construction paper, a sharp pair of scissors in a way almost any one can do while being observed. No excuse.

John_C_87

@just_sayin
because time has a beginning also.

This statement is a different answer under mathematical condition. No time does not have a beginning or end, it is a geometric shape, and this is only going to complicate any misunderstanding of time. Time has also been plagiarized and due to the plagiarism harm has been done to the formulation of trigonometry. Time travel is describing in literature a human ability to travel through energy held as a duration of mass in simulation. Plagiarism does not always need to be humanly intentional.

John_C_87

@just_sayin
To much?

Space-time is the fabric of Pi not " Space or Time." Every additional number past the decimal point is an extension of a curved line. The first curved line we use 2 x Pi x r as on way to find Pi the radius forms a curved line it is fixed to the center chord better known as circumference. The diameter is used to explain the length on a " imaginary" straight line no long a chord of the circle.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

I was looking at this from different perspectives. Personally, I see this as a pointless question myself. However, discussing why people want to ask this or not is more interesting to me ironically. Anyway, there are some good reasons as to why people might ask this question. But conversely, there are also some good refutations hehe.

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;Personally, I see this as a pointless question myself.

I think you nailed that one on the head and Kornhold does have a habit of asking the quantity of questions without the quality just because he thinks its wity so thats where the clue lies. Its like asking what is the meaning of life or why is water wet and when you analize it in the end its a matter of provoking more discussion about the obvious. Im waiting for Kornhold to ask the question Why do I have a brain

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
The Universe exists as part of the science of Astronomy.