How could the cosmos have begun as a quantum fluctuation, a microscopic

So... you are telling me that 13 billion years ago all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed in a single point and then exploded and the universe inflated and 500 billion years later giant spheres of hydrogen that neither exploded because of gravity nor condensed into a single point because of magnetism popped up all over the place and from those giants spheres of fire were ejected more complex pieces of matter that formed yet more spheres that happened to orbit around the giant sphere of fire not escaping the orbit because of gravity but neither being consumed by the ball of fire because of their tangential velocity, and in at one of those spheres cooled down enough that it became solid while spinning on its own axis and then somehow those molecules mixed with each other forming ever-increasingly complex structures that self-replicated until there was such a thing as a generic code with instructions to create even more complex structures and those structures shared the same resources and thus were changed over time due to different environmental pressures, and the code changed between generations because it was recombined or mutated randomly for a myriad of reasons, and coincidentally since the core of the sphere was made of iron it generated a magnetic field that covered the planet from cosmic rays, and those structures changed gradually over billions of years and one of those resultant structures were human beings who then just happened to discover that the building blocks of the universe could be controlled in such ways that allowed for communication at high speeds and that's how i am sending this message?

cool story bro.

>>8304519

The observable universe can be traced back to a point so that it looks like an explosion. That's the facts of what we can observe. The explanation for things outside of the scope of that explosion are a lot less accessible to observation, arguably to the point of physical evidence of anything beyond that scope being impossible. But here's one idea for what that extra context surrounding our universe's origin might be that I find plausible: ours is just one universe of many universes, and they all emerge like bubbles from an eternally existing ocean-like floor of reality with neither a beginning nor an end. So there, you have a non-finite source for the observable universe that doesn't run into the "something from nothing" problem while at the same time doesn't resort to the ancient tradition of explaining all unknown phenomena in terms of magic invisible people.

And really, having a conscious, human-like actor as something *more* fundamental to the observable universe doesn't make much sense when you consider the human brain is one of the least old structures to have emerged on this planet. That makes brain mediated phenomena like thought, foresight, decision-making, etc. the least sensible thing for the most fundamental floor of reality to have. What would make much more sense is for the floor of reality to be as simple and non-built up as possible since it has to account for the built up complexities that followed from it. The god idea is shit because it starts with the most complex thing already existing.

>>8304572
>they all emerge like bubbles from an eternally existing ocean-like floor of reality with neither a beginning nor an end

>>/x/
pls go

>>8304519
The fluctuation took place in the universe. The universe isn't "in" anything. There's nothing outside of it.
>>8304521
Nice pasta
>>8304572
Why bring up the qualia bullshit. We could have had a real thread here.

>>8304582

I specifically prefaced that with:

>The explanation for things outside of the scope of that explosion are a lot less accessible to observation, arguably to the point of physical evidence of anything beyond that scope being impossible.

You don't have a choice but to speculate if you want to discuss things outside the scope of the observable universe. All I did was show a possibility that didn't depend on a god and also didn't have a 'something from nothing' issue.

>>8304586

>qualia

I didn't once mention qualia. Qualia are illusions of language anyway. There isn't really pain or seeing the color green so much as pain behavior and 'being in the presence of certain wavelengths of light' behavior.

>>8304594
You brought up what constitutes an observer. It's completly irrelevant.

>>8304598

>You brought up what constitutes an observer.

How? Where?

>>8304604
And really, having a conscious, human-like actor as something *more* fundamental to the observable universe doesn't make much sense

OP didn't ask about observation or perception of reality or anything like that at all.
Why bring it up in the first place?

>>8304519
>implying we aren't boltzmann brains

Wake up sheep

>>8304609

I don't know why you keep going back to observation. I'm a hard materialist m8. I don't think there's any difference between a human and a toaster oven when it comes to their interactions with reality. Consciousness to me is simply a collection of behaviors. What I did was point out that the fundamental ground of reality should be very simple and lacking in built up structure, which is in strong contrast to what people normally assume the fundamental, timeless thing that solves the 'something from nothing' problem is i.e. an intelligent actor.

>>8304624
you made a direct comparison for to the brain's ability to perceive reality and the observable universe.
This comparison has 0 relevance to OP's question, and everyone knows that intelligence is a byproduct, rather than a property of the universe. I know you were arguing against it, but there was no reason to bring it up in the first place, and the fact that you did just blows my mind.

The fact is that by definition, everything that exists is part of the universe.
There is no "outside" of the universe.
There doesn't need to be a something from nothing argument, that's just reducto absurdum from the ID crowd.
Saying that there's some extra dimensional space outside of the universe with no beginning or end also doesn't make any sense in any context. Might as well just say that the universe has no beginning or end, and it would accomplish your argument just the same.

>>8304647

>you made a direct comparison for to the brain's ability to perceive reality and the observable universe.

No I didn't. I think you're projecting your own interest in this idea onto my post which didn't deal with it. Here's further clarification on what I wrote:

A) Idea: There is a timeless floor of reality from which our universe emerged which solves the 'something from nothing' problem
B) Overwhelmingly, those who do subscribe to idea A suppose it takes the form of a thinking entity which creates the universe as a decision
C) The human brain is actually one of the least old structures to have evolved on Earth
D) The timeless floor of reality would be infinitely old and fundamental / prior to everything else in existence
E) From C and D, we can conclude intelligence is actually the least sensible attribute for that timeless floor of reality to have since it's the least built up / complex thing and the organ associated with deliberate decision making is the most built up / complex thing we know of

No "perceiving reality" or any other such observation-centric quantum flapdoodle was covered because, as I mentioned earlier, I'm a hard materialist and don't believe in perception as anything more than an illusion of language that we talk about in place of the real thing which is reporting behavior. You say you think you see the color green and what that is in reality is a body engaging in the behavior of saying "I think I see the color green" in reaction to being in the presence of a certain wavelength of light.

>>8304589
Something coming from nothing isn't an "issue".

Just because you don't fully understand something doesn't mean you can make shot up in stead.