I looked deep into my consciousness last night as I was going to sleep and I came to this conclusion.
There are only 4 ways our Universe could have come about:
>1. It and the values of the laws of physics were purposely designed
>2. It came into a stable existence out of absolute nothing
>3. The energy has always existed and has been a circularly regenerating different Universes for infinity
>4. It came into existence out of an evolutionary chain of events, leading back into realms outside of time/matter/energy/laws, that defy all logic and may need no explanation
So which is most correct?
>>7861563
>I looked deep into my consciousness last night
translation: I smoked way too much weed
>>7861563
>which one is most correct?
The one making the fewest assumptions.
>>7861571
#1 assumes explanation of creator
#2 assumes "nothing" is "real"
#3 assumes infinite regression
#4 assumes infinite regression is real and infinite things you can't know
>>7861563
>implying any of these are anywhere near how physics works
They're all wrong, OP. Getting high and thinking really deep thoughts won't tell you shit about the universe if you don't know shit in the first place.
The universe is just a super position of a thermodynamic soup that is usually featureless.
>>7861576
Bro you've got to think outside the laws of physics for a moment to understand the origins of the universe
No wonder you're not getting anywhere
>>7861573
3 assumes nothing, actually. what is "nothing" and what makes you think this was ever a state of things? 1, 2, and 4 assume a lot about this concept of nothingness
this doesn't make it true a priori. but it's most likely.
>>7861563
Going by the given ways it could have happened,
Each is about 25% correct simultaneously
Also, there are infinite more conclusions as there is no 100% factual answer. So ultimately it could be anything. Science helps us understand a lot about the physical universe and we know a lot, but not everything. And the most we can do is continuie to grow our understanding.
>>7861593
>Each is about 25% correct simultaneously
This is /sci/, you're going to give someone an aneurysm with such ebin match.
>>7861589
>think outside the laws of physics
kek, good luck getting anywhere with that m8
>>7861589
Thinking inside your head gets you no closer to understanding the composition of your brain (i.e. neurotransmitters firing in patterns), let alone anything outside it.
>>7861593
>Each is about 25% correct simultaneously
Purposely designed out of nothing leading back to an infinite creator beyond space and time?
Take a sphere and implode it into a circle.
Take a circle and implode it into a line.
Take a line and implode it into a point.
Take a point and implode it into a hole.
......
Take a n and implode it into an n-1.
In the sphere universe there's always circles on the surface of the sphere.
In the circle universe there's always lines on the surface of the circle.
In the line universe there's always points on the surface of the line.
In the point universe there's always holes on the surface of the point.
....
In the n universe there's always n-1 on the surface of the n universe.
You probably live in a universe that is the logical extension of this concept.
>In the universe universe there's always spheres on the surface of the universe.
Your question has many different answers, because the method of universal dimensional explosion and implosion is not understood.
It could be you can skip from holes to circles or drop from spheres to lines, or it could be you must climb or descend the hierarchical structures in order.
>>7861563
Number 4. Is correct.
>>7861610
He is absolutely right. It doesn't mean think outside of logic. it means outside of known physics. remember gravity is just beginning to be discovered as waves in 20 fucking 16! Lame
Physics: The Wikipedia of Sciences.
Lots of Facts and some utter bullshit mixed in there.
>>7861663
You do know gravitational waves have been expected for a loooong time now, right? The recent measurements were just verification, not something completely new.
>>7861679
You do know gravity was discovered 600 years ago?
>>7861679
And we have been observing it everyday for millions of years...
>>7861704
yes, spacetime curvature manifests in what we call colloquially a force of gravity
>>7861704
Well gee nothing really exists. Its all a hologram right?
>>7861707
The point is understanding the universe is almost as far fetched as understanding the god.
The tools to do so simply don't exist... yet. If we come from that POV, we can make progress. We may know about 2% of the entire knowledge of physics, if that.
>>7861712
Or we may know next to everything. Quantum field theory is pretty much complete and describes everything we see. Assumptions about what is outside physics or other some such nonsense is just wasting time.
>>7861713
The ultimate goal is to understand the origin of the universe itself before space, time and physics.
How you you going to understand non-physics with physics?
>>7861713
Sooo arrogant...
>>7861719
>The ultimate goal is to understand the origin of the universe itself before space, time and physics.
Such questions presuppose that there is such a thing as "before time", outside the universe, and beyond the laws of physics. The universe may just be all there is, and the only way there is. Such questions are a waste of time.
>>7861724
Oh dear sire please explain Consciousness?
You have one yes? Explain it with... uh quantum theory?
>>7861724
But isn't there some "process" or event that allows t0 to begin?
>>7861727
Time is a construct of our perception. We need it. Or else we would all be late for work and get fired.
Or burn our food. It is not latent to the universe.
If you think about that. The Universe is not a trillion years old. It simply is. How did it simply is? I dunno..
>>7861725
> you have one yes ?
Prove you have consciousness please. I'm anxious to see how you will do it.
>>7861729
Now you are at least asking the right question. But you are also implying the proof does not exist. I would say the proof is far more difficult than the axioms of mathematics..
>>7861727
What do you mean when you say allows?
>>7861725
Small-scale interactions between several fields forming large-scale processes that we call consciousness. Please don't tell me you think there's a magic particle that explains consciousness when everything is perfectly explained by biological/chemical processes.
>>7861728
So if you solve t0 and unify all of physics and have a complete equation that explains everything.
Then what, close the book because there is no possible way to explain how t0 even got its start?
>>7861736
>assuming the universe has a start
kek
that aside, literally any point can be t0 in a deterministic universe, and the chances are pretty good that we are in one. you can just calculate all other states of the universe from one arbitrary point
>>7861736
T0? The eternal NEED to begin. Well it implies the eternal need to end. And we all know that ain't happening.
>>7861738
yah what he said...
>>7861739
So you're saying #3 is correct.
Universe has no beginning or end, and big bang is an illusion.
>>7861732
I don't presume to know what causes consciousness. Just as for years people were uncertain what caused gravity. Both have causes for sure. Again, gravity turns out to be easier. Its waaay more observable, than my dreams...which are v strange.
>>7861741
Yes and No. I hate answers like that. But Yes it has no 'time frame', But and event like the big bang may still have occurred. It may have given rise to the next evolution of the current state. so I was leaning towards 4. But only leaning.
>>7861746
There's no presumption needed. Every single part of what you call consciousness is explained by neurons firing in a pattern.
>>7861725
On a side note... if I had a bluray disc of every dream I have had, I might be closer to figuring out consciousness. I might know something I don't know now.
>>7861752
We believe this to be the case. The proof is still out there. And you are also reducing us to bags of meat. Which may be accurate? Boring though.
>>7861748
But the life stage of stars and galaxies shows that all of the hydrogen/helium has only been around 13.8 billion years.
So there is a time frame.
>>7861757
If you're implying it's possible to have absolute knowledge of anything, it isn't.
This is simply the explanation we have the best evidence for, and it fully explains the phenomena. Any metaphysical explanation on top of that is not necessary or relevant.
>>7861758
Fine you proved definitively, that a particular set of matter. has been around that long. What was this matter prior to that? Was it pure energy? Another form of matter?
>>7861764
I love the world meta-physics. Somehow that is separate to theoretical physics. Isn't it all meta unless its prove?
>>7861765
Perhaps the singularity was a whole other universe of it's own?
Scale relativity?
>>7861768
Theoretical physics generally refers to mathematical extensions of what we know, or things to that extent. Metaphysics generally refer to abstractions that basically cannot be found to be true even if they are.
>>7861772
Quite a conundrum isn't it? 90% of knowledge is then unprovable. Such a loss.
>>7861772
I KNOW The Shawshank Redemption is a great movie. And I know Son of Mask is not. The proof? No can do.
OP here
Here's my new idea. I looked with my third eye really hard this time.
Guth said the Universe may expand, loses track of how big it is and become another big bang.
So the Singularity was just another (smaller) Universe. At the end of it's life, runaway Dark Energy takes over (big rip), expands exponentially and that is the big bang of new universe.
>>7861775
Then and this maybe a little too radical for this thread. I would say the playing field is unfair. Its too restrictive. Anything that hints at meta-physics or such is automatically dismissed before it sees light of day. And that is what we as a species are stuck with. So no wonder the knowledge base is incrementing as slow as Miley Cyrus on a good day.
>>7861780
You have an active pineal gland? I wonder how I can boot mine up...
>>7861780
I have no issue with the recycling nature of the universe. It very probable.
>>7861776
The movie isn't objectively true to be good or bad, those are our subjective evaluations. Regardless of what you claim to know.
>>7861781
>Anything that hints at meta-physics or such is automatically dismissed before it sees light of day.
Not really. You can hint at it all you want, there are currently ~10 main interpretations of quantum mechanics that are literally all metaphysics.
>So no wonder the knowledge base is incrementing as slow as Miley Cyrus on a good day.
Kek, if you think this is slow what do you think was happening just a couple hundred years ago?
I'm actually shocked by how Rational this thread is. Cool.
>>7861785
I honestly believe Newton had more freedom to think clearly without, I dunno the fear of research being funded etc. than people today. Now is something did come out of this thread, then its not so bad.
>>7861731
then you can't prove consciousness, which makes the rest of your argument pointless :^)
>>7861789
Thank you. If I can't do something, it does not imply no else can. I certainly cannot generate the calculus. But someone out there did.
Case and point:
This entire thread is, the observation of
Consciousness.
Just as that damn apple was an observation.
>>7861790
As I said, it makes the rest of YOUR argument pointless. Now it would be great if someone else infact did prove the existence of consciousness, then the conversation would have some meaning, but I don't see anybody doing that.
>>7861796
so impatient.
>>7861774
God, I really feel bad for people who think such metaphysical questions are even interesting. I find a lot of stuff unprovable, but I luckily don't find most things I know or suspect to be unprovable very interesting. It's a shame for those who feel otherwise. Must be frustrating with how few people work on those problems. Learn to get satisfied with maths and physics like the rest of us :D. You get to see satisfying progress every day! I'd legitimately be more intellectually curious in knowing a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis than in knowing the nature of consciousness.
>>7861792
Isn't consciousness just self awareness?
A rock isn't aware of anything, but the atoms respond to stress and heat.
A venus fly trap is aware of bugs that touch it's sensors, but not aware of itself.
A cat is aware of itself to a degree.
Human is fully aware.
>>7861797
so naive. nobody can prove entirely subjective concepts like consciousness.
>>7861796
so until someone shows gravity is indeed in wave form. talking about the possibility is pointless? Hmm. Yup you sir are why we know so little.
>>7861801
can't*
>>7861563
Those aren't all the possibilities. You missed the most important one
5. Time, space and force are all related. The universe has always existed.
>>7861801
Subjective to you. But very objective to anyone that is aware of their own.
>>7861802
so until someone shows flying pink unicorns in animeland is indeed a reality. talking about the possibility is pointless? Hmm. Yup you sir are why we know so little.
>>7861804
Yup
>>7861805
Which means its completely subjective.
>>7861806
Did you just re-quote me. Thanks for the compliment. i cant speak for pink unicorns. Never seen one. I surely see consciousness on this thread. I might not agree with all of them. But I see it. Unless this thread has been generated by an AI. Fuck you skynet!
ok
>>7861821
nice template. gotta make a /sci/ version of terminator shitposting in AI threads and try to demoralize people.
I really enjoy listening to Brian Greene. He has a sense of humor.
>>7861565
Vision Quest
>>7861563
>1. It and the values of the laws of physics were purposely designed
I guess no one takes this one seriously, but I'd like to put a couple more nails in its coffin.
The first problem with it is that it only shifts the burden of explanation. Instead of seeking an explanation for the existence of space/time/matter/energy/laws, we'll seek an explanation for the Designer's motives for creating those things. Ultimately, those motives must be arbitrary. So if we're going to go down that route, we might as well save ourselves the trouble of positing a Designer, and just say 'shit happens'.
Secondly, it makes no sense to say "The Designer made the value of this constant be X, because if he hadn't, shit would have imploded". That implies that there are already laws in place (laws that dictate the physical consequences of setting a constant to a particular value). If such physical laws already existed, and the Designer was forced to work around/with them to accomplish his goals, then he isn't really the Designer of physical law, is he? He'd be analogous to a human engineer, who designs things to overcome obstacles that aren't under his control.
>>7863419
It's the religious argument. So ya.
>>7863766
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
science schmience
>>7861563
>I looked deep into my consciousness last night
>and
>There are only 4 ways our Universe
>our universe
Just stop.
>>7861563
Going from #2 to #1 requires passing through #4. #3 is a circular argument that ignores the variance of #4. When you think of it as a process, each of the given options is equally representative of the generalized option that they're all part of one big process.
>>7864078
Nice to see someone trying to distinguish themselves TFQ
>>7864090
So Immature. Not TFQ
>>7864078
The Universe = Consciousness
beat that.
>>7864108
>I should warn you before you continue reading...
http://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/17116507/#17116542
Nobody ever really thinks about the entire thing waking up one day, do they? It's probably best not to believe that the universe is one big conscious entity.
>>7861576
Dude, i suggest you try shrooms or dmt before,you decide to stick to your "laws" of the universe you learnes from a book
>>7864122
This is a wise comment. A bit reckless but wise.
A Phd. in Physics and some DMT, we'll get some real answers!
>>7864136
Then maybe you should stop participating in types of memetic behavior that get psychedelics pushed to illegal status.
>>7864113
I can't explain this one. So I refer you to this picture.
>>7864155
Legal status? Why does that matter? Weed has been illegal for ages, didn't stop nobody.
>>7864163
Weed isn't on par with DMT. Weed isn't really a psychedelic drug, it's psychoactive at best. Two different categories entirely.
The point is that making it illegal makes it really hard for scientists to study or acquire it. Yes, we COULD revolutionize science with a proper study of psychedelics, but scientists won't just throw away their careers every day to study it. They need it to be legal so that they can study it *professionally*. (And rigorously.)
>>7861563
I think this
>It and the values of the laws of physics were purposely designed
is the most likely. The fact that the world works a very specific way implies choice.
>>7864182
Ah yes now I see what you meant. Yup.
>>7864197
Intelligent Design. Shaky. There is order and chaos. So it was god on LSD?
>>7864182
Overall theme here: Origin of Existence, Consciousness and Psychedelics. Related? Maybe...
>>7864113
ok they have fairies in their brain.
>>7861724
You're clearly not as smart as you believe. Somebody irl needs to knock you down a peg, you pretentious dope.
>>7864353
Pretentiousness...so ostentatious!
>>7861563
You are correct in your assumption that "it" is a construct. In fact even the form of maths and physics is a construct.
What is not a construct is that the laws we derive from our oberservations are pretty real.
>if i punch op in the face, he'll surely cry like a little bitch, because that's what faggots do according to our observations
Two is wrong. Just inductively.
Three; we and everything around us is basically made up of energy. Correct.
Four; just "No".
>>7864155
>memetic
cached in brainz
I used to think about this a few years back, and i came to the conclusion that the fundamental under workings of the universe have to be deceptively simple, and the whole thing probably just follows one simple rule, because anything more complex than that needs infinitely more explanation.
And secondly the whole question about why the universe exists in the first place.
Well if there logically can either be absolutely nothing, or something, as a base state of being, and likelihood of both being the same, then we can conclude that something indeed was, seeing as we're here to talk about it right now.
>>7861589
You got to know the box first to think outside of it.
Is lsd and other psychoactive safe drugs worth taking or no?
>>7864519
depends on your definition of safe
I believe in a combination of 3 and 4
>>7864539
Well I don't want to go crazy I just wanted to see what it would be like. I must say I can't imagine the power of the drug
