What is the universe and where did it come from? Please

Totality of known physical phenomena

It always existed in some form.

>>8539249
>What is the universe

Everything.

>and where did it come from?

I dunno.

>>8539249

A gay nigger slipped on a poop and fell down the stairs, augmenting everything we see

>>8539258
wrong

>>8539263
correct

Everything.
God.

>What is the Universe
A shitty word that used to describe everything by definition but now only describes part of it because the multiverse.

>Where did it come from

You have your eyes open, so you see the screen, and now the screen exists because you see it and you see it because it exists. Replace "see" and "screen" with any sense and any sensation and there you have it.

"Seek and ye shall find" is the literal definition of why anything is here. We expect it to be there and so it's there and it being there is what defines our expectations in an infinite feedback loop. The laws of physics exist as we look for them. If we were capable of fully grasping the realization of what I'm saying than everything would be changing all the time and it would be very scary so we bind ourselves to a set of rules that govern our interactions with the outside world.

Quantum physics says that literally everything at the lowest level is just a probability field. We only see things as having distinct positions because that's all we let ourselves see. People are already weirded out enough by the two-slit experiment, now apply that on a macroscopic scale. If you start seeing everything as being several places at once or jumping around because nothing really has a fixed position, and you go completely insane.

>>8539383
are you the messiah pal

>>8539383
Idealists piss me off.

>>8539391
I went to solve the captcha and it said "click the pictures of tea" and one of them looked like coffee. I couldn't decide if I should click the one that looked like coffee or not for a full minute so I doubt it.

The universe is whatever we can find out about it using the best method we have to ascertain truth that we posses.

If you can think of any other ideas, I'm all eyes.

>>8539383
I'll oppose this.

>shitty word used to describe everything by definition
But universe doesn't include everything. Where in the universe is four-sided triangle? How about math? Language? World of Harry Potter? How about things that are outside the universe? Where are they?

>screen exists because you see it
Actually the screen both exists AND doesn't exist until you make an observation. If the screen didn't exist in any state, you couldn't observe it once you open your eyes. Instead it exists as dual-state of both being in existence and not being in existence. Think Schrödingers cat.

>infinite feedback loop
"Infinite" is a very hard word. Be careful when you use it. For example if you start walking around the circle, you are not in 'infinite loop'; it is called 'periodic' since no new information is brought into the system with each passing revolution. In this context I think you mean 'recursive loop'.

>>8539406
>>8539406
>idealists

It's the only thing that makes sense. Reality as it is now only makes sense because our existence necessitates that we see it that way.

If a huge meteor hit earth and we all died things would stop making sense but they would still exist. Like a huge version of the two slit experiment: we aren't around to see everything so everything's position stops making sense in a way we can really understand. Time as well. The laws of physics say that the direction of time is totally arbitrary, but we see it as going forwards because that's how we perceive it.

Humans "create" existence not because we literally create everything but because we create our perception of it, and our perception is the only way we are capable of understanding anything. The probability function of all the particles in my laptop says they are everywhere at once. If I wasn't watching then they do literally go everywhere at once. But because my perception is limited and only allows me to see them in this one place, which is why I can see it and find it.

The whole "We're living in a simulation" is technically true but also a misnomer. We are only capable of experiencing an infinitely small slice of reality in a very specific way which is why have this notion that the universe came from somewhere and went to somewhere.

Fuck, look at virtual particles. They pop in and out of nothing for reasons we can't fathom, black holes shrink because they gobble up particles that came from literally nothing and spit out other particles that came from nothing. That's why we can only detect quantum phenomenon on such a small scale, because we can separate it from us and have everything else be stable.

I would be an idealist if I thought we could somehow change our perception and do whatever we want. Our perception needs to be persistent or again, we literally go insane. It's a VERY slippery slope once you start fucking with your perception of what's real and what's not.

>>8539468

>But universe doesn't include everything. Where in the universe is four-sided triangle? How about math? Language? World of Harry Potter? How about things that are outside the universe? Where are they?

Fair point


>Actually the screen both exists AND doesn't exist until you make an observation. If the screen didn't exist in any state, you couldn't observe it once you open your eyes. Instead it exists as dual-state of both being in existence and not being in existence. Think Schrödingers cat.

I explained that better in a different response but also yes. Part of my point is it doesn't really make sense to even understand where it is or if it is when you're not looking at it; "not existing unless you see it and then persisting because you see it" is a shitty expression of that.

>infinite feedback loop
"Infinite" is a very hard word. Be careful when you use it. For example if you start walking around the circle, you are not in 'infinite loop'; it is called 'periodic' since no new information is brought into the system with each passing revolution. In this context I think you mean 'recursive loop'.

You're making me feel bad that I didn't think of that first but also yes.


The only thing you said I don't agree with is "I oppose this" because you're really just re-stating it and clarifying it in a way that makes more sense lel. I'm also refining this idea as I type, I appreciate the criticism.