What is the story behind that painting OP.

I must understand it

>>8053060

something about clans which live on the plains of Russia. i got it while reading something about Napoleon.

There is a prime existence, that is to say an existence beyond which there is nothing else. But it is so far beyond our reach,scope and comprehending that to us it might as well not even exist, because theres no way to know it, see it or experience it .

Kinda sucks, because I'd like to know the nature of existence itself. But Its probably something totally absurd, like our entire universe is a molecule within the toenail of some unknowable beast in the prime reality. Something really way out there like that.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts

>>8053060

Looks like a bunch of Turks having a good time.

Your first few questions seem to be all "What is the origin of the universe?"

In simple terms, we have no fucking idea. There's a theory that the universe infinitely expands and contracts, but matter would become very unstable after a few revolutions(there's a billion or so tons of energy in one square inch of matter, from what I've heard).

I don't know what you mean by "plane of existence". There are theoretically other dimensions besides the four we're familiar with, according to m-theory. These dimensions account for every universe possible.

But then, I know like nothing about physics, so everything I said is probably wrong.

'What do you mean by saying that there is no beginning which was not an end?' Zhongni said, 'The change-- rise and dissolution-- of all things (continually) goes on, but we do not know who it is that maintains and continues the process. How do we know when any one begins? How do we know when he will end? We have simply to wait for it, and nothing more.'

>>8053083

If you're going to accept the idea of a prime existence, you're ruining the past 40 years of theoretical physics. Because A: That would validate the possible existence god, or a god-like being. And B: It would basically be just giving up and saying "Fuck it". How would we know that we weren't the prime existence.

Physics don't just stop after a while.

The Big Bang created an extremely hot universe of pure energy and the concept of entropy. The pure energy supposedly had a liquid appearance and was millions and millions of degrees Kelvin. Eventually the energy cooled to a point where matter and anti-matter formed, which then started the process of annihilation of the two types of matter until only a very small percentage of the original matter remained. The remaining matter is what our entire universe is comprised of. After the subatomic particles formed and the first protons came into existence, everything was smooth sailing for a few million years. Now this is the point where the rapidly expanding gasses started to form galaxies and stars, which in turn created their own solar systems complete with jovian planets and terrestrial planets like Earth.

>>8053134
A Prime existence doesn't validate a god any more or any less than any other theory. As it is, with everything we know about physics and what not the existence of a god is still there: there's nothing to DISPROVE it, unlikely as it may be.

Then again when you study quantum mechanics you start to learn that we really dont know shit about anything and that existence is just as mysterious to us as it was to the first homo sapiens.

>Physics don't just stop after a while.
They just might. We dont know that with anything even approaching certainty.

The universe is actually a giant cosmic cherry. It sits in the middle of the void being delicious. That is the truth of existence.

I like to think we're just living in 1 experiance of life and when we die we'll live every other possiblile one. So maybe when Ill die I'll be a slut or a druggie or a rockstar.

Whenever you set a boundary or origin, in whatever sense, there always comes the question of where that came from.

So who the fuck knows.

Let me start off by saying you came to the right place...

There is no such thing as time. It is an illusion. Everything exists all at once, in one static state.

>>8053104

The hypothesis of a cyclic universe is nigh impossible; no process can reverse entropy. Eventually the entire universe is going to be nothing more than areas of space being slightly above absolute zero.

No one knows, OP.

Read Kant's Third Antinomy. It's a very short chapter in the Critique of Pure Reason.

not to sidetrack guys, but didnt we just do this? OPs pic in that one was a stopwatch or something and the debate centered around time as a construct?

anybody here for that?

>>8053445

But then how the hell did anything start in the first place?

If everything has an origin than there is no such thing as a starting point

>>8053474

Ehh, time to force it down your throats.

BOW BEFORE KANT.

short answer: god did it

but that's the short answer to everything, lol

long answer: we don't know yet ;-)

>>8053599
If everything must have a cause, 'God did it' just begs the question of what made God.

tl;dr: suck less.

>>8053680
nuh-uh, cuz god = divine simplicity and unity!

so god doesn't need a cause, asking for the cause of god doesn't even make sense :)
one of the definitions of god is "the uncaused cause" or "the first cause" so cheer up!

>>8053716 here again,
>>8053680
also, just wanna say that's not what "begs the question" means, although the incorrect usage has become distressingly common in the vernacular! k thx :D

>>8053716

If the universe allows uncaused causes, could there be more than one? What would stop them?

>>8053680
It is not that everything must have a cause, it is that some things are believed to have a cause.

Some does not equal all. So this whole "who made god?" argument is fucking retarded.

Why do you assume that all things have an origin?

Look at the amoeba for instance

>>8053733
that's a good question, and it shows you're paying close attention!

basically, anything complex would require a relation between its parts, and anything with relation isn't absolute. but anything uncaused must be necessarily simple! not as in "dumb" (lol) but more like elegant.
such is the nature of god!

>>8053773

>but anything uncaused must be necessarily simple

I don't think you've really addressed the question, but maybe I wasn't clear. Why can't there be two simple things in the universe, or three simple things?

>>8053755
actually, the amoeba does have an origin! it emerged from simpler eukaryotic cells, and the earliest primordial cells arose from the interactions of certain protein chains that were created through trial and error in the early earth environment. by carefully studying nature, we can discern the causes of everything in the universe, like cosmic detectives. but when it comes to finding the cause of the universe itself, we must turn to god to explain it!

no, everything does not have an origin, that is a paradox.


fuck, why make a simple question with a simple answer seem deep and meaningful?

The painting is by Ilya Repin and it depicts the Ukrainian Cossacks writing a letter mocking the Turk Sultan after he demanded they surrender to him.

>>8053805
thanks for the clarification! sorry if i didn't address what you were asking.

basically, we see the necessity of one uncaused cause to avoid an infinite regress. but supposing two uncaused causes is just adding layers of unnecessary complexity! so following the principles of reason, especially good ol' Occam's Razor, we won't add extra or unnecessarily convoluted explanations where a simpler one would do!

this is a natural theistic argument, by the way. there are many other possibilities out there that are worth exploring!

Here we go again.

>First, my assumption is that all things have an origin.
This assumption contradicts itself. What is the origin of this rule? If it doesn't have one, the rule isn't true. If it does have one, something existed before the rule (to be the rule's origin). If things existed before they needed origins, the rule is not true. Perhaps all things that begin now have an origin, but we can't be sure this was always true.

Imagine a state of being that is both past, present, and future, then imagine it essentially shitting out our Universe, which in itself, is an infinite loop.

>>8053043

Or could it be that time is in fact something like an infinite loop... a cycle... and there isn't an origin at all. Then how did that cycle come into existence?

You need to throw linear thinking out the window for that situation to be true. In which case the cycle never came into existence. It simply was.

>>8053836
>but supposing two uncaused causes is just adding layers of unnecessary complexity!

Occams's razor, as I understand it, is about not multiplying types of entities needlessly, but it's not about not multiplying entites in general.

In fact, it's simpler to allow more than one simple being. Say we have one simple being, and it starts off the universe. That means the laws of the universe are in such a way that simple beings can exist. If you don't want more than one simple being, you have to want the laws of the universe to change! This sounds pretty complex. Perhaps allowing more multiple simple entites would in fact be a simpler theory.

>>8053811
you seem to imply that paradoxes don't exist! that's not so! what you mean is the /answer/ to paradoxes might not exist. and that's the definition of a paradox, lol. you can't throw out an interesting question just because it presents difficulties. there's a challenge to be had there, and everybody loves a good puzzle!

this isn't to say anything bad about you personally, of course. i'm not impugning your intelligence or your logical abilities. your point of view is extremely valuable, and i look forward to your contributions :)

>>8053867

you just outstupided yourself. congrats.

Maybe it's because us hunans are trying to answer something our mind can't even comprehend. Every possible idea itt comes from a previous way of thinking. Can the human mind simply not accept its limits?

>>8053905

No. I throw out the question because it is a mindbreaker that is only relevant if you assume everything must have been created at some point.
People always say the same thing of god, that god has always existed.
So asking "THEN WHO CREATED GOD!?" is retarded because you are completley failing to understand the basic idea.

>>8053890
what an interesting point, i really had to think carefully in responding. i love a challenging discussion, it's so refreshing.

for one, we're talking about a special kind of simple being, an uncaused cause. one of the attributes of this being is simplicity. another is that it is the cause of the universe. but there's only one universe. having a good rational mind, you wouldn't want to say "there could be multiple universes out there" unless this helped explained some phenomenon you were witnessing. but our only observation is the existence of our universe! God can explain this observation, but there's then no need to say "and maybe there are more simple beings out there"--one is enough!

maybe i'm misunderstanding you. can you explain what you mean by this:
>If you don't want more than one simple being, you have to want the laws of the universe to change!
thanks!

>>8053043
>>8053043


good for you son, you are evolving, you now understand there is a god, and don't get me wrong, I don't follow any religion, that's bullshit, but there's obviously a god, and you are starting to understand it.

>>8054019
i'm sorry, i think i misunderstood your original post! i thought you were saying the universe doesn't have an origin. i meant to correct that statement, as most astrophysical observation of the past century has made it clear that it seems to, indeed, have a starting point, and also is projected to have an endpoint.

i agree with your point about god, though! since god is of a different nature than the universe, the same problem need not apply in his case! thanks for clearing that up, i can only learn if people point out my mistakes ;)

>>8054052

shut the fuck up

shutupblocks

>>8054052

WAT MAED GOD THO

>>8054025
>having a good rational mind, you wouldn't want to say "there could be multiple universes out there" unless this helped explained some phenomenon you were witnessing.

Surely you've heard of possible world semantics? Essentially, sentences get their meanings by reference, and it seems like some sentences, particularly ones that refer to what COULD have happened (modal ones) seem to refer to other possible worlds. So in a way we do have a phenomenom that provokes us to look for multiple universes!

Or, say, free human actions. They sure seem to be spontaenous. Maybe we *need* lots of uncaused causes to explain human freedom.

>>8054025

>>If you don't want more than one simple being, you have to want the laws of the universe to change!

There is something called the principle of sufficient reason: for everything that is the case, there must be a reason that it is the case.

The strong version of the principle is as follows: for everything that is not the case, there must be a reason it is not the case.

So, just think about the start of the universe, and the fact that the unvierse is in such a way that a simple being can exist. If, later, an 'extra' simple being CANNOT exist, there must be a reason that it cannot exist.

>>8053104

>I don't know what you mean by "plane of existence". There are theoretically other dimensions besides the four we're familiar with, according to m-theory. These dimensions account for every universe possible.

>I read/watched/heard something 5 years ago about string theory and I'm trying to remember the basic gist of it

>>8053773
the voice i read your writing in sounds like a douchebag evangelist

>>8054116
Your examples are edifying and thought-provoking. I actually had not heard of the term "possible world semantics" to describe modal language before! How fascinating. However, it seems to me that if we begin with different modes of speech as the basis for possible worlds, we could arrive at nearly any eventuality. For example, why could we not then posit that in order for us to use metaphorical language (calling the fog a little cat, or even saying someone "kicked the bucket"), there must be some world where these things are literally true? It sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Naturally, I understand you don't subscribe to this idea yourself, but are using it to draw parallels with the theory of God as the first cause to explain the observable universe. My reply would be, it seems more probable to both of us that people can use modal language as a natural outbranch of the cognitive process by which we plan, hope, and desire, combined with the evolution of language. But neither of us could explain where the universe originated, without resorting to infinite regress, unless we supposed an uncaused cause.

>>8054376
As for your second point,
>So, just think about the start of the universe, and the fact that the unvierse is in such a way that a simple being can exist. If, later, an 'extra' simple being CANNOT exist, there must be a reason that it cannot exist.
I'm afraid we are talking past each other, so I'll lay out more clearly what I mean. You say that "the universe exists in such a way that a simple being can exist"; however, take care to remember that we are not speaking of the universe; we are speaking of the origin of the universe. so nothing we observe now would have to have conditions for the existence of this simple being, as it is outside our paradigm of experience! so there was no change that made it so other beings of this sort could not exist; we cannot speak of what occurred outside our frame of reference. We can only infer that at least one such being must exist, and you may feel free to say an infinity of such beings exist, except you unnecessarily complicate the theory by doing so, and it would then be in your court to present your reasons for doing so, thanks to our good friend Bertrand Russell!

as a side note, this is the most interesting conversation i've had in a long time. thank you, robots :)

>>8054318
i'm sorry to hear that. i'm not trying to sound condescending or insincere, it just seems to me that people respond more positively to positive speech. and especially on the internet, where it's so hard to read each other's tone, i figure it's better to be over the top than unintentionally sarcastic or mean! and i think it helps things from getting too heated, especially when we're discussing matters of such vital importance to people's personal views, such as religion and science! i love interesting debates and discussions, and would like to avoid them being sidetracked by unfortunate misunderstandings for as long as possible. hence, my diplomatic tone :D

Thou art a turkish imp, the damned devil's brother and friend, and a secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight art thou that cannot slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil shits, and your army eats. Thou a son of a bitch wilt not ever make subjects of Christian sons; we have no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck thy mother.

Thou art the Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, Armenian pig, Podolian villain, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, a fool before our God, a grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw thine own mother!

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. Thou wilt not even be herding Christian pigs. Now we shall conclude, for we don't know the date and don't have a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year in the book, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

>>8054376

So I'll try to give this a fair summary

(i) The only way to explain the universe is a simple entity
(ii) Multiple simple entities are one way of explaining modal semantics, but there are other ways too.

Fair enough on (ii); lots of people hate on possible world semantics, even though if you look at the details it is, in the opinion of many, the only way to go.

How about a criticism of (i)? Kant provided one.

" Granted, that there does exist freedom in the transcendental
sense, as a peculiar kind of causality, operating to produce events in
the world- a faculty, that is to say, of originating a state, and
consequently a series of consequences from that state. In this case,
not only the series originated by this spontaneity, but the
determination of this spontaneity itself to the production of the
series, that is to say, the causality itself must have an absolute
commencement, such that nothing can precede to determine this action
according to unvarying laws. But every beginning of action presupposes
in the acting cause a state of inaction; and a dynamically primal
beginning of action presupposes a state, which has no connection- as
regards causality- with the preceding state of the cause- which does
not, that is, in any wise result from it. Transcendental freedom is
therefore opposed to the natural law of cause and effect, and such a
conjunction of successive states in effective causes is destructive of
the possibility of unity in experience and for that reason not to be
found in experience- is consequently a mere fiction of thought"

Next post in a minute..

>>8054385
>I'm afraid we are talking past each other, so I'll lay out more clearly what I mean. You say that "the universe exists in such a way that a simple being can exist"; however, take care to remember that we are not speaking of the universe; we are speaking of the origin of the universe. so nothing we observe now would have to have conditions for the existence of this simple being, as it is outside our paradigm of experience! so there was no change that made it so other beings of this sort could not exist; we cannot speak of what occurred outside our frame of reference.

This is a good doge that I haven't seen before, I'll have to think it over for the next few days. I said that the natural laws seemed to be changing (allowing and then not allowing simple beings), but, as you say, the natural laws only operate on the universe, and the simple being "started" (well, not really) before the universe, and thus it outside the scope of the natural laws. I think you have a good point.

It's past my bedtime; thanks for the talk.

Sorry to leave you with the huge chunk of Kant up there, but as I said, sleepy :). Basically, he's saying that an uncaused caue violates the natural law... which is in a way the discussion we just had... but I think his point is slightly stronger than mine, because he talks about the natural laws in terms of how the operate on appearances, or what we can conceive of: so maybe the laws of appearance before the universe should be the laws of appearance during the universe. Maybe.

Cheers.

A universe of finite age doesn't necessarily have an origin.

The interval of existence may be open on the initial end.

E.g. a 15 billion year old universe never came into being but has existed as long as time itself.

Does this meant that time would have to come into being? No, not if "being" includes a time-like character.

>>8054625
Thank you for the stimulating discussion! I know some people think the point of such discourses is to "win"; however, I'm of the view that it is more of an economic proposition than a game. The goal isn't to beat your opponent, but to trade your goods for theirs; and here I speak of that most special sort of commodity, knowledge, which only becomes greater the further it is divided. I certainly feel richer for having spoken with you :) have a good night!

>Me when reading these types of threads
I understand only half the stuff going around, but that doesn't stop me from being so damn mesmerized from reading these threads, especially if they have videos like in
>>8053090

Carry on

>>8054994
i'm glad you're enjoying yourself! i like to see people who find intellectual topics entertaining, and i think it's a sign of an inquisitive nature, with which you can go far in life :)

do you have any thoughts you'd like to share about your view on this topic--the origin of the universe?

>>8055037
I have nothing worthwhile to contribute, really

>>8055180
alright, no pressure! although your viewpoint is just as valuable as any other contributor's in this thread. but if you feel like you'd rather not post it, or that it has already been stated here and so there's no need, that's of course fine too.

OP the universe is infinite, we are infinite. Think about this. Time is a compilation of our sensory experience, since it is this, we can change time (when we sleep time goes faster when we intensely observe time goes slower), if we have the ability to change time then we have to ability to make it infinite, if we make it infinite then we ourselves are infinite. If we ourselves are infinite and the universe is infinite then we are the universe.

>>8055463
>i don't understand what a syllogism is. WEEEEE!

>First, my assumption is that all things have an origin.
your assumption is false, it only applies on the scale of huge and complex physical beings such as ourselves
>Does the universe(s) have an origin? I think the theory is that the big bang created all of the planets at the moment, but where did that big bang come from?
this whole question is irrelevant and an anthropocentric fallacy
>If there is an origin for the universe, then what is the origin for that origin?
>Could there be an infinite series of origins? Isn't that self contradictory?
No, there couldnt
>Or could it be that time is in fact something like an infinite loop... a cycle... and there isn't an origin at all. Then how did that cycle come into existence?
>Is it possible that there are other planes of existence outside of the universe?
It is, but lets reserve the word "existence" just for the universe so we wont get carried away thinking about creator gods and bad science and stuff

>>8055732
Hi there! I've been posting in this thread for a while, and I think your viewpoint is pretty interesting. I'd really like to discuss it with you.
>your assumption is false, it only applies on the scale of huge and complex physical beings such as ourselves
Can you explain why this is, or why you believe it to be, please?
>this whole question is irrelevant and an anthropocentric fallacy
Which question is irrelevant? The origin of the universe? But I thought that's the question we were discussing, so I'm a little confused.
>It is, but lets reserve the word "existence" just for the universe so we wont get carried away thinking about creator gods and bad science and stuff
Why do you think we should define existence this way? Especially on this subject? I mean, hey! We're talking about where the universe came from; it'll probably touch on some definitions of existence other than the universe itself no matter what, lol.

>>8055806
Okay, I have some time
>>your assumption is false, it only applies on the scale of huge and complex physical beings such as ourselves
>Can you explain why this is, or why you believe it to be, please?
Yes, quantum events do not require a cause. The birth of the universe happened in a tiny tiny singularity and is therefore a quantum event.
>>this whole question is irrelevant and an anthropocentric fallacy
>Which question is irrelevant? The origin of the universe? But I thought that's the question we were discussing, so I'm a little confused.
Yes, the origin of the universe. We are discussing it, but discussing something doesn't automatically make it relevant
>>It is, but lets reserve the word "existence" just for the universe so we wont get carried away thinking about creator gods and bad science and stuff
>Why do you think we should define existence this way? >Especially on this subject? I mean, hey! We're talking about where the universe came from; it'll probably touch on some definitions of existence other than the universe itself no matter what, lol.
I'm a natural scientist and with certain limitations, a logical positivist. I am personally most interested in things that something can be known rather than speculated about. Also, I am an advocate of using words to only mean either the things they were originally invented to mean (as "existence" must intuitively refer to only physical things in this universe) or something that is defined rigorously, as is only possible within the boundaries of current knowledge (which do no reach past this universe).
Red wine talk aside, I am not a fan but approve of it, as long as all parties are aware that it is only play.

>>8055981
>quantum events do not require a cause.
really? i don't know very much about quantum mechanics but it's very intriguing to me. could you explain what you mean when you say they don't require a cause?

As for your position of not discussing things we couldn't know about, usually I would agree wholeheartedly that this is the most prudent rule to subscribe to, since it prevents needless speculation. And I understand now that yours is not a position about the origin of the universe, but one about the question itself! You believe it's not proper or useful to discuss such questions, if I don't misunderstand you, right? I've never come across this point of view before, it's fascinating and strikes me as extremely pragmatic. Why do you feel it's the best
course of action?

>>8056046
accidental paragraph break, lol

>>8056046
>quantum events do not require a cause.
>really? i don't know very much about quantum mechanics but it's very intriguing to me. could you explain what you mean when you say they don't require a cause?
It means just that. Stuff happens on particle level without being caused by anything. Particles pop in and out of existence, radioactive nuclei decay. You just need to let go of that intuition you have, that things only happen because of other things happening. It is false. Do look into it, it's more likely to convince you if you know a bit more about it, and very interesting.

>As for your position of not discussing things we couldn't know about, usually I would agree wholeheartedly that this is the most prudent rule to subscribe to, since it prevents needless speculation.
Maybe I sounded like more of a nazi than I actually am. I do believe everything should be discussed, or the limitations of knowledge would never be tried.

>>8056485
>And I understand now that yours is not a position about the origin of the universe, but one about the question itself! You believe it's not proper or useful to discuss such questions, if I don't misunderstand you, right? I've never come across this point of view before, it's fascinating and strikes me as extremely pragmatic. Why do you feel it's the best course of action?
Not really. I find it fruitless to speculate very much beyond what we currently know about our universe, but also I find that science already has given a possible answer regarding the origin of the universe that is satisfying. I don't care very much whether the birth of the universe actually occurred as a random quantum event or not, my curiosity is satisfied with just this one possible explanation, I am not even very interested in the details. It's not related to my own area of expertise, I wouldn't understand most of it anyway. I expect the fine gentlemen in cern and elsewhere to produce lovely, fascinating and simplified articles about their discoveries at some point. I'll just read them when they appear, and think about it more if anything unanticipated comes up.

>>8056500
ps. The scientific nature of reality itself is unintuitive and distant from our everyday experience. All scientists that work with concepts relating to reality must somehow reconcile a certain kind of nihilism with their world view. Scientific explanations often arent satisfying on a personal or moral level (evolution, for instance) and are therefore hard to understand. Dealing with uncertainty is another major facet of this problem.

Accepting uncertainty, and putting aside genetically hard-wired and personal biases, whats left is mostly confusion. Making the necessary adjustments for sincerely pursuing truth and answers in the name of science in a way makes all answers worthless.

Pseudointellectual bump for r9k

Waaaaay way back, God was responsible for everything.
As our knowledge grew, proof of how certain things came into existence, such as life on Earth, various species, overall understanding of even just our solar system came about.

When human beings don't understand something they're very quick to blame a higher being, because it makes them feel more comfortable than having things unknown.
But that's just it, perhaps our minds can't comprehend this right now, but it doesn't give evidence that God did it.
Our knowledge as the human race is always expanding, I don't know if these questions will be answered in my lifetime, but it's people who like to say GOD DID IT END OF STORY who hold back our development and learning.

it will become obvious when you die and become one with God (if you deserve it) but you won't care then

>>8057652
stop thinking in terms of "god of the gaps" and read up on what, say, Newton wrote about God. then maybe you'll understand why this isn't the only formulation of God in science.

What's south of the south pole?

Hawking talked of the origins of time pretty effectively.

>>8060713
Then again, Newton was also a wacky alchemist.

>>8060740
you take that back! newton was a good man! A GOOD MAN!!!1