Why does this exist?

I have a theroy. In approximately 100 Google years allmost all particals would have decelerated and corroded. They would be millions of parsecs apart. If one were to collide into another then could that trigger another big bang. Meanig that all of this everything has happend before and will continue too???

Its called god

To glorify Yahweh Ancient of Days

>>17542787
Hyperpenis.

>>17542787

Why not?

>>17542820
That's a hypothesis, not a "theroy". If by "100 Google years" you mean 100 googol years, I'd ask /sci/ to be sure, but I'm pretty sure the universe is due for heat death a bit earlier than that. Particles don't corrode. Corrosion happens when one element chemically combines with another element to find a lower energy level. Two particles colliding when everything is decelerated and millions of parsecs apart would release less energy than two particles colliding at a typical speed in contemporary time.

What will really bug you is... What came before?

>inb4 nothing

>>17542861
Oh now thats really SPOOKY M8

>>17542787
This thread?

In a simulation you get to a point in history where the data stops. The point of origin. The moment when the operator pressed "enter". The big bang.

The origin of our Universe cannot be in this reality because our reality hadn't been created yet, meaning our Universe must have came from "another" reality.

>>17542887
It's all turtles all the way down, huh. Then how did that universe get started? And the one before that?

>>17542861
>>17542868


>>17542887
This. Makes more sense than "everything came from nothing".

>>17542894
Doesn't explain anything, though, since then where did that other universe come from?

You are a fundamental part of the Universe, not just a conscious object floating in a void.

We ARE the Universe.

>>17542920
Woah man. So deep.

>>17542852
Because it has no reason to.

>>17542924
True. And yet it exists. That's just how it is.

>>17542820
I think a particle collision in a 100 googol years will likely be similar to a particle collision today, albeit much rarer an event, m80.

>>17542906
I don't think we'll ever explain it, anon.

>>17542920
Expand on that so we know you're not just repeating things without knowing what they mean.

>>17542787
I think it's funny that there's so much space out there, it it's all so fundamentally different than what we experience every day. We don't even get to experience 99.9999999999999999% of reality.

>>17542931
Me neither. Just saying that "some other universe was before this" doesn't solve the whole "how can everything come from nothing" thing.

>>17542937
I'm just about to go to bed and was dropping a few sound bytes, so I won't delve into a Physics discussion right now if that's ok. I'd love to tomorrow though if you can hack it, but please, no pop-sci semi-spiritual bs.. ok?

Still, isn't it obvious? The Universe isn't only around us. We are part of it.

File: purpose-driven-life-3-discipleship-part-3-26-638.jpg (56KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 638x479px

>>17542787
To be ruled by us as co-heirs with Christ Jesus

File: 1441986292652.jpg (43KB, 332x396px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 332x396px

>>17542950
>I'm just about to go to bed and was dropping a few sound bytes, so I won't delve into a Physics discussion right now if that's ok. I'd love to tomorrow though if you can hack it, but please, no pop-sci semi-spiritual bs.. ok?

>Still, isn't it obvious? The Universe isn't only around us. We are part of it.

>>17542787
I'm not the only one seeing lines connecting the stars then when I look at them the lines disappear right?

Kinda like the grey dots on the white grid illusion? Is that what this is?

I keep seeing constellations all over the place

>>17543086
>Christ Jesus
>Christ = Jesus Christ from the bible....
god youre stupid, no wonder youre here on /x/...

>>17542787
why not?

>>17543153
what??

>>17542861
The problem is that the human brain is programmed to think along the lines of causation. Well maybe the rules of cause and effect doesn't apply before the Big Bang happened? So basically anything that came before the birth of the universe is incomprehensible to our limited human brains. Heck, the human mind isn't an infinite expanse of ideas since we didn't evolve for the sake of understanding the "origin of the universe." Our problem solving skills originally developed just to help us survive when we were Hunter-Gatherers.

The end of the universe would be freaky. Imagine every particle being so far away from every other particle, that they may as well be in different realities.

It'd probably look like that part in Interstellar where he jumps into the black hole and it's just pure darkness everywhere.

>>17543156
Because it makes no sense.

>>17542787
How do we know we're not the creation of some lonely NEET who wanted friends and he's now emulating our universe on his computer?

>>17543169
Why does it need to make sense?

Eitherway, a nonsensical question is being asked and should be met with silence.

File: ChristiansBelieveThis.jpg (74KB, 748x747px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 748x747px

>>17542839
>>17542840
>Be Christfag Church
>fight against the sphericity of the earth (late roman and early medieval period) and then against heliocentrism (late medieval, early renaissance) because they contradict the bible
>get BTFO by facts
>hundres of years later modern science proves the universe is not a crystal ball with earth in the center
>hurr durr god did dat to

>>17543215
>that pic
That's some fucking RPG material right there.

>>17543215
"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on. So, just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that's just simply the God of the gaps argument."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cU8HrO7XuiE

>>17542820
SHUDAPSHUTUP

Can there be something that is eternal? Nothingness where from supposedly big bang came from, at least it should be forever out there, right?

>>17542787
You just got to deal with the fact you will never fucking know.

The void

>>17543140
We see them as well, on a clear night we Clearly see lines connecting the stars like constellations outlined.

I guess the closer you look at things, the stranger they become.

Absolutely no reason at all. It's self centered to believe we exist for a reason. It's special snowflake tumblr tier childishness to think everything is anything or something with meaning or significance.

We exist on accident like the universe. We aren't special. We are self replicating, electrochemical computers programmed with A's, T's, C's, and G's instead of 1's and 0's.

>>17543642
Something intelligent, cannot come from something random.

>>17542854
and they say STEM is useless

>>17542787

existence itself follows no rules and just kinda pops in and out of existence as a result of being amorphous and undefinable.

oddly enough, this need for the undefined constant to stay undefined allowed for many complex things to happen.

It was only a random of time before the random, valueless static arranged itself in such a way that it built upon itself.

>>17542906
University before that one, if there's constantly new universes popping up one would create the other and so on

>>17542924
How do you know?

>>17543126
fuck dude i wasnt ready for that

>>17543644
ur retarded lol

>>17543567
I meant on OP picture, lines keep appearing and vanishing

Anyone? I might be going insane

It doesn't

>>17542820
you mean this ride never ends? fuuuckkk

>>17542787
Space itself, which is classified as a "lack thereof", exists out of necessity. It's the antithesis of "being", and it exists exactly where matter starts and ends.

>>17542920
you so Deep brah

>>17544072
So instead of infinity, it is 'iota'? Or maybe both?

>>17543153
Read the bible. Stop being an idiot.

>>17543169
Consider the alternative.

If there was no complex universe of stars, planets etc, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since we are, it makes perfect sense that the conditions needed to have this discussion have been met.

If there was nothing, or there was something but not the conditions for this specific discussion (as might be the case in an infinite number of alternative universes), then this discussion couldn't take place.

Either the universe has a tendency to arrange itself to create what we see around us (ie, life, relative harmony), or there are so many different universes that one with the perfect physical laws, lifespan etc needed for us to emerge was statistically inevitable (ie. just as Earth has the right conditions for carbon-based lifeforms compared to a trillion other planets, so our universe has the right balance of physics eg the strength of gravity). Maybe our view of time is distorted by our linear perspectives and existence itself flows not from the big bang but from a central point in time, maybe from some point of consciousness, and the big bang (and everything else) only exists to support the existence of something that we see as flowing from those "beginnings."

At the risk of fueling solipsistic mental illness on this board, maybe we each create our own universe to support the existence of our consciousness.

I don't know what I'm going on about any more, but you might be interested to know that we have a board for philosophy now, >>>/his/, and this question might get better answers there than from the tulpas and skeletons and FBI shills that lurk /x/.

>>17542787
why does anything exist?

>>17542861
An OP who wasn't a faggot

>>17544072
Space isn't empty though.

Matter and space are both equal parts of the Universe.

Due to necessity.

has anyone thought about the possibility that the universe isnt necessarily existant without us and that we are all experiencing a shared illusion?

that would bring us to the next step. what are we? where are we?

maybe all this is just a video game and in the real world we have already figured out how the real universe came to be.

>>17542787
>Meanig that all of this everything has happend before and will continue too???

That is what infinity implies. Eventually a big bang will happen where a solar system, Milky way and Earth will take place where events happen exactly like they've happened in our world.

I also we consciously get to be everyone. Hitler, the cow that gets butchered in meat factories, you yourself shitposting on 4chan, M00t. You'll be everything. Infinity has all the time in the world to make all of it happen.

>>17543229

I love this video.

>>17544585

So next time I may be you?

>>17543126
What? I went to bed you tard. Some of us have jobs y'know.

Anyway...

The Universe is a mish-mash of waves and fields, we are just a collection of these fields. The big bang, in theory, started everywhere... not some distant point in space, but everywhere. In your head, your ass, your dick, my dick.. everywhere.

Our dicks are connected by space famalam.

>>17544581
Yes of course.

The idea of a consensus reality isn't new. Though it does have some striking implications.

Namely that dragons might well have existed when everyone though they did, but don't anymore.

And that something that currently doesn't exist, might come into being, if enough people think it so.

The power of belief maaan.

>>17542787
Because echs wanted to share the joy of discovery

>>17544581
Maybe we discovered the meaning of the universe and life became pointless, so we wiped our minds and put ourselves into this virtual reality.

>>17542787
because we created it for ourselves from higher dimensions

Everybody in this Universe is a thought.

>>17544987
More like a thot
L M A O
M
A
O

>>17544982
And we are doing the same shit in this reality...
This thread makes my head hurt

>>17545059
Possibly.

Eventually.

Why live one life when you can live infinite lives. We could simulate an entire life experience in a few seconds, making us essentially immortal. We could be 7 years old irl but have lived 10,000 virtual lives.

Nobody wants to die, and we all want to experience everything.

>>17543197
We'd all be young Asian girls that's how

At the end of the day.. matter cannot be created from nothing and everything has an origin, ergo, there cannot be an absolute beginning to everything.

Yup, it's fucking mind-boggling.

>>17545141

File: 1457727933546.jpg (45KB, 617x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 617x640px

>>17545141
Fucking kek

>>17545141
... Or a fucboi, since NEETS are all faggots now.

>>17543165
I think that is very scary really, that our Brain is wired not to understand the world. I think even less esoteric philosophy has pretty much destroyed the notion that we can understand existence as is. The Noumea be all noumenal and shit.

>>17543086
damn thats the raddest thing ive ever seen in the bible

>>17542787
You mean vagina?

There is no universe.

Only Zuul.

Why? Why not? Be careful it's a trap.

>>17543197
This. Also how do we know how long we've been here maybe only a minute or two and everything we think has happened in the past was just programmed for us to think that.

>>17542787
Why does it need any reason to exist? Purpose is something that humans create. Nature does not continue doing things because it has a desire to do so, it just does it.

Trying to ask why anything exists is like asking "What is nothing?". When you answer that question with, "Well, nothing is the lack of something.", you are assigning meaning to "nothing" therefore it is no longer nothing.

Existence is as pure and indescribable as nothingness. Even the thought of these concepts alone devalues both their true purity and distance from our understanding.

>>17545916
I think this is what most people think deep down when being honest with themselves but the idea of there being some point or more going on than we know is to tempting and the reason religion still exists

>>17545926
I really do appreciate the constructive response. Too much shit posting all of the time

>>17545942
Thought I'd take a break from b/

Basically, there was nothing. Remember, though, that nothing implies a lack of all things. That includes things like space, time, light, all the "rules" or "laws" of the universe. None of that shit exists in this quasi-moment "before" time. One could look at such a state and decide that it's impossible for something to come of it, but another could look at it as a state of infinite potential, as the barriers known as limitations had yet come into existence.

So that you might ask the question.

>>17546106

There is always a before. I know what some scientists have taught you.. that there was no before, but there was. Our Universe had an origin. "Our" space and time may have begun with the big bang but the singularity itself must also have had an origin.

There can be no absolute beginning to everything.

>>17546142
Quite mind-blowing.

>>17546142
this is so fucking interesting and scary at the same time

i want to know, but at the same time i don't

... Therefore, The universe was either created by a "god", or exists in an endless loop with no beginning or end.

>>17546840
But then who created god? He couldnt create himself because he didn't exist before his own creation.

Again, no beginning. It literally is fucking turtles all the way down. QI was right.

>>17542787
Must everything have a purpose?

>>17546840
But the interesting thing is how ANYTHING at all came into being in the first place.

Before a potential god or this loop, there had to be something too. How can an endless loop come into being if there was literally nothing in the first place?

And I'm not talking about our universe, or the thing our universe came from or the thing before that (you can go on "forever"), I'm talking about why any of that is even possible. And if there was literally nothing in the history of reality, what would happen?

Damn, it's literally so insanely out of our mental grasp it's hard to put it into words...

>>17546896
Kek.

It's fucked.

>>17546890
Getting up in the morning doesn't.

>>17546142
But, bcuz fizzics, space and time are connected (hence space-time).

So if there was no space (such as in a singularity), wouldn't there also be no time?

>>17546142
>>17546840
>>17546896
>>17547043

Here's some light reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes

The singularity of a black hole is a point of infinite density where time and space curve into infinity. The idea of wormholes suggests that if extended far enough beyond the singularity, spacetime can actually be followed to a different coordinate in space and time.
If you have enough matter compressed into a singularity - into "infinite density" - this will result into an immense eruption of energy. But not even light can fast enough to escape a black hole, so where does this energy go?
Maybe it travels beyond the event horizon and is released as another big bang at a different point in spacetime, creating a new universe in a timeline separate to our own and only connected to us through a super dense distortion.
I like to think that our universe is just the other side of a super massive black hole in another universe, but I'm no physicist.

>>17542839
Let me guess, "muh irreducible complexity."
No, that's both wrong and stupid, and it's on the same level as "IF GOD DOESN'T REAL HOW COME PRETTY RAINBOWS!?!?1".

>>17547031
Does it have to?

trying to understand smaller side with quantum physics only exacerbates the problem. Schrodinger's cat and the two split experiment shows that outcomes are a wave of probability without an observer.

If things occur in some sin wave randomly that's fine, but being able to observe something to have a different set of outcomes makes you think.

File: 1430800634356.jpg (24KB, 500x454px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x454px

>everything in the universe
>everything you have ever observed, read about, heard about, thought about
>everyone and everything that ever existed and ever will exist
>came from a speck smaller than your eyes can perceive

Ponder that for a while.

File: 1408939879143.jpg (9KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 500x369px

>>17547336
>>17547410

Some other food for thought...

>imagine the Singularity as a quantum particle
>the properties of quantum particles change when observed
>God observes the Singularity

>>17547336
>the two split experiment
But why doesnt the marbles behave exactly the same as the electrons if no one/nothing is there to observe? Have they tested this?

>>17547420
Even more food for thought: God's about as real as the invisible chupacabra in my closet.

File: 1413103651572.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>17547410
>all light and matter in our galaxy is spiraling back into a speck of the same size

>>17547425
I believe it only works with particles that travel as waves. marbles will always try their best to roll in a straight trajectory.

File: 1424670041171.gif (2MB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x271px

>>17547480
>God is the observer of the quantum particle singularity, and thus the "creator" of our universe
>Omniscience is merely the result of observing the particle and its expansion

It's just a thought experiment, anon. Try to expand your mind a bit. But it's okay if you don't, Jesus loves you anyway.

>>17543761
I can trace lines in the space between stars and see patterns in the stars themselves. Some photos of the universe you could imagine the stars are all aligned in a wave formation like a flock of birds, moving in one direction.

Space is crazy and there are so many ways to look at it. I like to pretend we're living in a gigantic spill of ooze, because sometimes that's how it all seems.

>>17543126

Are you saying you aren't made of the same kind of matter as everything else? "The universe" obviously includes us in it.

It's convenient to say that we live inside it, but you could also say that we are a part of it and have it be an accurate statement.

>>17543165
Why say it's incomprehensible? We aren't close to truly grasping it yet, so to say we can comprehend it or not is both out in the open.

>>17543644
>>17543642
>Random
>exists

Causation is still a thing. Maybe instead of asking why we exist, as if there's a specific reason as to why WE exist, we can ask why the universe exists. It doesn't need a reason involving religion, you could see it as "What caused the universe?" or as a broader and more philosophical question.

I'm assuming OP just wants some kind of philosophical discussion here. I assume he doesn't want us talking about the universe as a system but questioning what the whole system is. (I mean it's /x/)

>>17545916
My question is about what drives everything. I want to know why things are the way they are. It's extremely fascinating to ask why the universe is the way it is or what exactly happened to cause everything to be the way it is.

Also fun to discuss.


>>17545926
>I think this is what most people think deep down when being honest with themselves but the idea of there being some point or more going on than we know is to tempting and the reason religion still exists

I think good religions aren't really "religions", but are like ideologies. Buddhism or Taoism or being someone like Alan Watts who just takes in all kinds of beliefs. It's nice to "live in the moment", stay in the now, accept things as they are, and also to believe we're all one. I think those are factual statements and you could interpret them scientifically if you wanted. I think that's pretty close to raw spirituality.


Also sometimes I wonder if society is limited by language. Maybe a significant change in language could change how people think. Although I don't think you need to be autistic to not limit yourself to thinking in words.

File: 1449075396948.jpg (75KB, 407x405px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 407x405px

>>17543215
The Catholic Church was at the forefront of scientific (particularly astronomical) advance for centuries- Never mind that it almost single-handedly preserved literacy in Western Europe.

>fight against the sphericity of the earth (late roman and early medieval period)

No learned person in the post-Classical West seriously believed that the Earth was flat, ala Ptolemy.

>because they contradict the bible

Except they don't. Galileo for instance only ran afoul of the Roman Inquisition after promising not to teach heliocentrism as fact, and then doing it anyway- this mainly being an issue because of the lack of substantial evidence for a heliocentric universe. Never mind that we now know that heliocentrism (as in, the Sun being the center of the Universe) is total bullshit.

>hurr durr god did dat to

Fuck you.

>>17547160
We could also be nothing but infinite black holes throughout the universe. I'm also very keen on the brane theory if others want to talk about it or enlighten us on it.

What do you think humans need to change when it comes to psychology? Particularly in order to understand the universe we live in. And I'm speaking about the average person, but I'm sure some scientists think the same way.

Seeing the world for the first time is a nice perspective change. Not seeing gas as "just gas" and rock as "just rock", and examining things closer and the patterns of life itself. That's a good and healthy perspective change, don't you think?

>>17547690
The church did a lot of bad, however, and we shouldn't forget the dark ages before enlightenment. However they have done a lot of good, and you can blame this on the fact that the church isn't always run by the same people with the same beliefs.

Look at that OP image. That is a bunch of stuff right there, and we live in this kind of thing. Like it's hard for me to just dismiss it as just stars and gases and whatnot, because it's still so fascinating the fact that we all exist the way we do. Clearly we're not the dominant chemical reaction in the universe. There are so many stars out there it's mindboggling, and there are so many galaxies that it's even more mindboggling. We live in this world of galaxies and stars, and you're an alien with 'Google Universe 2.0' you could zoom out and see galactic filaments, shaped the way they are due to dark matter, and see that dark matter is a force that affects us in such a significant way.

You could have an existentialist crisis realizing that technically your entire life could be predicted, and that everything is measurable and nothing is really random and that we're being controlled by forces in this universe as any other natural chemical reaction, but you don't need to be a fucking nihlist to appreciate it all.

>>17547718 sorry for second posting
Also if I look at that picture and imagine that's like a few seconds after an explosion, I can imagine something just burst and that image formed the way it did. Is the big bang really visible that way or is that just me looking at patterns in this picture? I just find it fascinating.

There's a large scale universe you could look at and the smaller scales such as stars and planets and such. There's surely larger scales than that. If we could see these scales it'd surely help us understand a lot of things, wouldn't it? We should be more impressed with ourselves for getting as far as we have with science, especially when we realize what exactly we are part of, living in, and looking at.

>>17547704
>We could also be nothing but infinite black holes throughout the universe
Yea, that's the point I was getting at.

And I don't know if it's so much the psychology that needs to be changed. I think people need to continue being educated about this sort of thing until they begin to understand the true reality of everything. The connection between all matter in the universe.

That's actually what I love the most about chemistry. It breaks all matter down into its most fundamental components and has helped us understand that we are just complex organic structures composed of the same particles as everything else.
We're just clumps of stardust, flying through empty spacetime in an endless cycle of cosmic death and rebirth, ignorant of the fact the life only exists to further create entropy and accelerate the universe towards its ultimate thermodynamic conclusion (heat death). But if black holes create new universes, can max entropy ever be attained?

the bubble say so

>>17547681
>Also fun to discuss

Funny how you won't see anyone touching the subject on mainstream media.

Gee, I wonder why!

>>17542787
Dropping some Watts bombs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aLg4AV60uWY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Iw9W3vVQw

>>17547818
I think the philosophy of everything being "one" ties in with realizing that we are all made up of the same stuff. It's crazy how they tie together since people have been believing in one-ness since before we knew what atoms were! But that's one of the major shifts people need to take. I think understanding the true reality of everything is considered a psychology change. I'd like to see more focus on the philosophy of science. The average person could definitely grasp things if they didn't see space as cold and mechanical and confusing to them. I can see more people having a shift though, especially these days with the advent of the internet and resurgence in drugs (I feel like a stoner for saying it but it's true).

I question if there really is a heat death of the universe. I don't worry so much about it, because I think there will always be something we could consider matter in existence that could eventually become life. We wouldn't be there to observe it but at least we can say what happened to us can happen again (or something similar).

I love breaking things down into their smallest components, because there isn't just one way to view the universe. Maybe that's been my problem as a kid trying to understand science.

>>17547841
Because of the craziness that is conveniently associated with this discussion. What we need are people like Alan Watts who could talk about this to a mainstream audience in ways that can be explained, and in a nature that is raw and without the messiness of the conspiracy theories out there or religious talks.

People need to be open about this topic. Why can't we speculate and talk about things that we don't know? People should be more open about it, especially considering they like to consider themselves religious people. Look at the universe, grab spiritual inspiration from there. :/

The people who say they do don't really mean it. They still don't see the universe the way it should be seen.

>>17545916
>Trying to ask why anything exists is like asking "What is nothing?". When you answer that question with, "Well, nothing is the lack of something.", you are assigning meaning to "nothing" therefore it is no longer nothing.


Very well worded reply anon, also people don't see total blackness or "nothing" would still be something

>>17547853
>People need to be open about this topic. Why can't we speculate and talk about things that we don't know? People should be more open about it, especially considering they like to consider themselves religious people. Look at the universe, grab spiritual inspiration from there. :/

>The people who say they do don't really mean it. They still don't see the universe the way it should be seen.

I couldn't agree more, but I think it may come down to the ignorance is bliss. We don't really have to know how it all works. Even though I myself like the discussion and exploring what it is.

>>17547853
I think the main reason why we can't talk about it in mainstream is because it undermines the shallow ego of humanity.

We like to "think" we know, in reality we don't know shit.

Someone should come out and say, we don't know jack shit

>>17547853
I want to add that I think science is a pretty amazing tool for us. We're expanding what we can't instinctively observe.

I've shown people pictures of parts of the universe and had them say "that's not what you really see there, though. You don't see radio waves or xrays". I would always have to tell them that that's what's really there. That's what's there whether we see it or not. There could be more that's there. They don't appreciate the world beyond their senses. On a smaller level (I know radio waves are tiny but you know what I mean) they aren't concerned with the atoms they're made of. So they're neither concerned with what's out there or what's inside of them, and many times not even concerned with the present moment. It doesn't hurt to realize what's out there sometimes, even if you don't completely understand it

>>17547847
Yes! Timothy Leary is a good recommendation as well. I like Eckhart Tolle as well, he doesn't delve that deeply into the topic but he speaks about living in the now in a general sense.

>>17547868

Personally people can know as much as we like. I think the average person should be a bit more aware of the world beyond the bubble, and I think we naturally are like that. I think conditioning and the worries of society shuts that down a bit. I guess it wouldn't hurt.

What's fortunate is that hopefully there are always scientists doing the discovering for us. It's a field in humanity. I'd just like to see us become an interstellar society with a populace that can appreciate it. In due time though, I think people in general are becoming more and more curious especially with the advent of the internet.

>>17547874
>Someone should come out and say, we don't know jack shit

Oh plenty of people have, and plenty of people don't want to listen. I think people have been conditioned against science, whether it's too confusing for them or they don't want to be bothered enough to think about it. It's unfortunate as it's everything.

>>17547853
>I question if there really is a heat death of the universe. I don't worry so much about it, because I think there will always be something we could consider matter in existence that could eventually become life. We wouldn't be there to observe it but at least we can say what happened to us can happen again (or something similar).

I did a lot of experimenting with dmt, and anon, I sometimes got the distinct feeling, that we literally make it all up in our heads so it makes sense now.

I mean, for us to be here there had to have been something, what that something was we don't know. But that something is a thought that we're having now, in this moment.

People will call me schizo and all that kind of thing, I don't really care. But I really think everything is happening now, like many philosophers and mystics have said in the past.

And when you actually feel that as an experience, fuck me is it strange. However you can never ever quite come out of the experience and be able to translate it into words. I guess reality would crumble if you could.

>>17547883
I don't think science, or humans can ever truly explain what it is though, we can't explain that which contains us.

Its just not possible.

the random emergence of the simplest cell is the equivalent to the likelihood that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein

>>17547894

We really do live inside our own heads making everything up around us. Our brains interpret everything. Sure, that rock or that house or that laptop really exists, but how we know it is a different story. On psychedelics, you can really feel your brain interpreting things. You can watch the very act of you interpreting things!

>everything is happening now

True. And honestly even science confirms this. I think a lot of the realizations made with psychedelics can be confirmed by science. Whether we understand it well or not is a different story. But if you feel like everything is literally happening now, that's because it is. We segment time into these pieces, but in reality today and the day of your birth all happened in the same time, the same world, and in a very short period of time compared to everything else. Living in the now is the best thing, too, when you learn to do it. It's not hard or easy, it's just something that you gotta remember how to do.

So DMT made you realize that your brain is interpreting everything and that the NOW is what truly maters.. and that's true and philosophers have been preaching it for centuries. Which is why I have the utmost respect for these teachings, because they're right and people tend to realize these things on their own when their brain is in the state psychedelics or meditation can give them.

Sorry if you mean something else, but I think what you felt is your brain interpreting the world around you. There's nothing else, your brain has to do what it's gotta do. But on psychedelics your brain SHOWS you more than it normally does. I believe there's also another dimension, possibly tied with spirituality, that exists that we can tap into when we're not tapping into our usual sources of our ego and thought. Maybe Akahstic records are real or a global consciousness is a real thing, but the type of info your mind grabs onto on psychedelics feels out of this world.

>>17547903
I think that if we can experience it, we can describe it. The limitations would be our ability to explain things or how we observe things and with language itself, but I think a lot of things out there could be explained. It's unknown because it hasn't been explained, not because it can't.

I could be wrong, but I like to give ourselves more credit. There are unexplainable stuff out there, we don't know everything, but I at least hope we're capable of describing it if we had the means to do it.

I seriously wish psychedelics laws were lax and more studies were done. Maybe studies with people who you could seriously trust to undertake a drug, probe your mind in ways and describe what is happening as an observer. The actual dimension of consciousness is something that can be measured.

>>17547883
>I've shown people pictures of parts of the universe and had them say "that's not what you really see there, though. You don't see radio waves or xrays". I would always have to tell them that that's what's really there. That's what's there whether we see it or not.

a sight isn't there if you're not looking, so actually nothing is there without an observer

>>17548117

Well if we really want to get deep, the picture doesn't even show all the depth of everyday objects. That person complaining about having to look at X-rays and Radio waves that "muh natural eyes" can't see should bitch about a lot of other things that isn't accurate. It sucks because what the image captured is something that really does exist and is beautiful. People focus too much on reference points and that's why they just give up making sense altogether when it comes to something so large and so far away.

I don't understand what the average person thinks about the universe because they don't show it, and when they do it's as if they're describing pictures in a museum. I really wish people saw the beauty that is really in everything around us

>>17548131
>I don't understand what the average person thinks about the universe

Do you know how ignorant the average person is? They watch T.v and news, they very rarely look up and ponder exactly what the fuck that is!.

People get distracted quite easily

its literally all 1's and 0's.
The only thing that exists is infinite division

>>17547862
Again, I love the constructive response. It makes me feel so happy that people understand the concepts I write about. I have over 6 pages of writing discussing stuff like this.

>>17548134
They also don't even understand the very shows they're watching sometimes. They learn to scratch the surface of things instead of delving deep into their everyday experience. I think it's a conditioning thing, and it could have a lot to do with culture. The internet really changes things. I'm glad a lot of space talk gets major news these days, reddit has a science and space section as a default, people on Facebook like to share science things (I'm against misleading pop science garbage though), and modern society has grown up a bit and started to take some of this seriously. I'm sure drugs has a lot to do with it, and I guess this whole millennial hipster mindset. Guess I just found a benefit to it.

It's just sad when there are so many people detached from the real world. We'd be closer together if we knew how close together we really were, compared to the vastness of space around us.

Even some of those who love science don't realize their conditioning sometimes. It infests science too. Religion as well does a good amount. It wasn't long ago when I associated space with a dark sky with dots in it.. or that I thought we were much closer to the sun than we really were, or that I would read about other planets and just think about Mars the way I would a "boring old desert". It's like it became so normal to me that I didn't care to see space differently. While early education on space is important, what is this detachment and what's there to combat it? Maybe being stuck to textbooks was my problem as a kid. When all the space you see is the polluted sky, the sun, the moon, textbooks and a fake one in space movies and parodies, you get kinda detached. As the internet grows, maybe so will interest in space. It seems to be that way right now. Neil degrasse Tyson never had that much fucking attention as he does now, especially with reddit hugging him.

>>17547546
>Omniscient
>Didn't know where Adam and Eve were when they hid
>Omnipotent
>Couldn't handle a few iron chariots
>Loving
>Created every horrible thing from cancer to botflies to Hell to punish literally everyone for the mistakes of two people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

File: 1456391561513.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>17543644
You obviously don't understand genetic mutations anon...

>>17548047
Sure, but the problem is you're assuming a cell is randomly created by accident. You have to understand that with enough free energy and the appropriate molecular components, a cell can form because it is thermodynamically favourable for it to exist. Cells exist because organic molecules exist. Organic molecules are formed because specific elemental particles under certain conditions react in a predictable way, and this is a result of each elements physical qualities at an atomic level. Ultimately, cells are created through the same principles of kinetics that allow us to create functioning cars and space shuttles. You only perceive it as a random because the pattern it follows becomes more complex as you examine it in greater detail

I have no idea it's just stuff. ALL KINDS OF STUFF

>>17548483
>clever god
>has jerkass rights

>>17545132

>nobody wants to die

first of all, who is the 'nobody' you are referring to?
how can you account for someone you do not know? you generalize
if you are personally afraid of death, it does not mean someone else is not.
i am personally very interested to experience death, because it is just natural to die. I believe we have painted a very wrong picture about death, especially the Western society. They have attached all kind of illusionary mental pictures of it, which trigger emotions that should not naturally be there - when thinking about death.
It is going to be interesting, because you will have to face it, and it makes me laugh, because it is the reality.

>>17547535

what does the marble consist of?

>>17542924
That can only be applied to a system with rules about causality and identity principle, try to imagine what the complete absence of rules that literal nothing has could do.

What a nonsensical question.

You may as well ask, "What's outside of the universe?" or, "What does a square circle look like?"

Refrain from asking such nonsense and keep silent.

>>17542861
Exactly what is happening now, it's on repeat forever.

>>17549808
DUDE RECURSION LMAO

>>17549810
Mad as fuck that you're not the first you.