How did it start

Take physics and youll get alot of those answers.

FistsofhamTake physics and youll get alot of those answers.

Really?

**This post was edited on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:34:53pm

I like this thread! I'll play!

Cats.Where did the universe come from?

Far out, man. No but seriously, who knows. Big bang is a theory. My personal take? Our universe exists within the black hole of another. Black holes expand, our universe expands. We don't know what's outside it because you can't get beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The big bang was the formation of the black hole in which we live.

Cats.What is the source of consciousness?

Billions of years of evolution painstakingly adjusting our ancestors brains and bodies to allow for the neural capacity to recognize self, to communicate, and to organize and control.

Cats.What is the relationship between matter and energy?

E=mc^2 ...or so we think.

Cats.What is the relationship between space and time?

Not necessarily separate entities, but I'm not NDT enough to tell you why.

Cats.What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness?

I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness arises from physics and chemistry that we already understand well. We're still peeling back the layers of that onion, though. I don't think QM will be required to describe consciousness unless consciousness arises from nuclear/subnuclear physics...which I don't think it does. Well, I guess everything is technically nuclear physics, but hopefully you know what I mean.

Cats.Is time infinite?

Let me answer with a line of questioning: Is time absolute? Certainly not. Is time a perception or a reality (if those things are separable)? Well, because it's not absolute, it is at least a perception, because it depends on your point of observation. It might also be a reality, but if so, it means reality is also relative. In my mind, this then begs the question: what is reality? Because if reality is relative and tied to perception, what is the nature of things that we do not observe? IMO this gives new life to a stale idiom: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I find that an interesting discussion is always how arrogant it is to say that we, as a species, can KNOW things. Knowledge, in a way, implies a kind of absolute truth. We can use science to describe and understand the world as we perceive it, but until nature and evolution or technology allow us to transcend the perceptions we're born with, we can never know if natural laws are indeed laws, or if they're governed by the physical and mathematical relationships we assign them. On the grandest of scales, we actually know nothing, because those scales must transcend that which we have the capacity to imagine, sense, or even comprehend...

Damn, thinking about this stuff is way more fun than being productive...

Cats.Where did the universe come from? What is the source of consciousness? What is the relationship between matter and energy? What is the relationship between space and time? What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness? Is time infinite? How did time begin? Is space infinite? Can consciousness be created or destroyed?

While these questions appear to be related to physics (and physics can tell you what many are and how they came to be), physics cannot tell you why they are here. The "why" in these regards will always be a topic related to philosophy and/or theology.

If anyone is truly interested in answering the questions (or simply investigating it more) physics is for sure a good direction to go down but one should also look at these branches of philosophy/theology: ontology (the study of existence/being), epistemology (the study of knowledge), and metaphysics (the study of ultimate principles, it literally means "beyond physics"). Aristotle invented the term "physics" and its subject matter and consequently invented the term "metaphysics" to discuss things beyond the physical realm.

mirozFar out, man. No but seriously, who knows. Big bang is a theory. My personal take? Our universe exists within the black hole of another. Black holes expand, our universe expands. We don't know what's outside it because you can't get beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The big bang was the formation of the black hole in which we live.

ehh i dont know about that. the event horizon of a black is due to light not being able to escape the immense gravity. the edge of the observable universe is where it is because light (of all spectrums) has not had enough time to travel beyond that. distinctly different situations.

as far as the big bang goes, are you saying its a "theory" as in it only holds a marginal amount of merit?

ebotdzehh i dont know about that. the event horizon of a black is due to light not being able to escape the immense gravity. the edge of the observable universe is where it is because light (of all spectrums) has not had enough time to travel beyond that. distinctly different situations.

as far as the big bang goes, are you saying its a "theory" as in it only holds a marginal amount of merit?

Yeah, you're right about the edge of the observable universe. But I think the black hole theory can still hold up, if only for the reason that we don't know enough about the universe otherwise.

And I'm saying the big bang is a 'theory' in that it's been put forth as an idea for the creation of our universe and is supported by some science. Wasn't reading into it that far, haha. As far as I know, it's the most -if not only -substantive (read: has any scientific merit) theory about the creation of the universe.

What fascinates me equally about the big bang itself is its role as a singularity in our physical models/understanding of the origins of the universe.

ebotdzas far as the big bang goes, are you saying its a "theory" as in it only holds a marginal amount of merit?

As one of the most commonly misused words in our modern language, a "theory" is something quite different to what most people think it means (and I'm not saying you're doing this, just a general point I'd like to make). Politicians love to say "that may work in theory, but it does not work in practice", and this is really the wrong use of "theory" in terms of relating to the big bang or string theory or Evolution etc. A theory provides an explanatory framework for an observation and is thus a rigorously logical explanation that constitutes the most comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is very different from a the common definition which is more like something is untested or speculative (which is actually what constitutes a hypothesis).

As such, theories are incredibly tight, logical deductions from ideas. Given this its not surprising (or it is surprising, depending how you look at it) that Aristotle, a man who had no tools that allowed him to observe anything in the universe, came up with a theory in the 4th century BCE that is surprisingly similar to the modern big bang theory called the Unmoved Mover- a single primary cause that caused all of existence. It was so primary and so necessary, that it even caused its own existence.

When I have more time we are talking about quantum mechanics, cuz that shits cool as fuck

mirozYeah, you're right about the edge of the observable universe. But I think the black hole theory can still hold up, if only for the reason that we don't know enough about the universe otherwise.

And I'm saying the big bang is a 'theory' in that it's been put forth as an idea for the creation of our universe and is supported by some science. Wasn't reading into it that far, haha. As far as I know, it's the most -if not only -substantive (read: has any scientific merit) theory about the creation of the universe.

What fascinates me equally about the big bang itself is its role as a singularity in our physical models/understanding of the origins of the universe.

OK so if we are in a black hole of another universe where did that universe come from? Or is it some kind of indies circle where we are in there black hole they are in someone else's black hole and that someone else is in our black hole?
I hope that makes sense and that's something I just made up bit backed by any science.

what?

**This post was edited on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:35:26pm

Why tho?

**This post was edited on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:35:35pm

Why tho?

**This post was edited on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:35:42pm

Its people like you who piss scientists off. Well not make angry but you just sounds really ignorant when you pose questions like this as if your stoned thoughts are profound in some way. Have you studied physics? Have you studied particle physics and the mathematics behind it? If not then you have no real grounding in the subject and there is no empirical way you can come to a conclusion about any of these questions or claims.

The subject of metaphysics doesnt exist. Until there has been an empirically proven correlation between the how and the why (basically all the questions you pose) then physics will never intersect with philosophy. Philosophers love to bring up the idea of metaphysics as to why things happen, but the fact stands that physicists regard all that meta stuff as just philosophers having fun coming up with reasons and other bullshit.

Point is you either know the answer or you don't. The relationship between energy and mass IS E=mc squared at this moment in time. That is how physics accepts it. There is no questioning of that. If you do question it then you are either A) a philosopher who is most likely stoned or B) a physicist on the same intelligence or greater than Einstein to have proven his theory incorrect. But if you cannot prove it, there is no grounds.

Conciousness has no physical existence at this point. Conciousness to scientists is only chemistry whereas conciousness to philosophers is a dissertation on abstract assumptions. What a joke.

miroz.

And I'm saying the big bang is a 'theory' in that it's been put forth as an idea for the creation of our universe and is supported by some science. Wasn't reading into it that far, haha. As far as I know, it's the most -if not only -substantive (read: has any scientific merit) theory about the creation of the universe.

What fascinates me equally about the big bang itself is its role as a singularity in our physical models/understanding of the origins of the universe.

haha i probably am reading too far into the words. basically taking things meanings somewhat too literally. without a definite context its hard to have these kinds of discussions.

anyway, i absolutely agree one of the more fascinating and unexplained aspects of the big bang theory is that the universe existed as a singularity. the point i was trying to drive home was that the big bang happening is almost a scientific certainty. we can extrapolate back what we see now and see that this rapid expansion occurred. which is what the big bang models. it's what was going on prior or even at that particular point of existence that is more contested. those two time frames seem to be used a little too interchangeably, and i mostly just wanted to chime in with that

Cats.I agree with you in a general sense, but I don't think it's necessary to "study" philosophy. I think in some cases, it is sufficient (and even better) to simply think, to ponder these questions and try to come to conclusions without attempting to work within the confines of other people's philosophical ideologies (which will happen if one chooses to take the route of looking at defined "branches of philosophy/theology"). I'm not saying that studying other people's ideologies and beliefs and methods can't be useful -- it certainly can. But sometimes it's best to just think.

Definitely, and no philosopher would ever want you to take their word on things- the pursuit of truth always requires questioning. And that is no different in the philosophy of ethics or philosophy of science or philosophy of mathematics.

KansasJibThe subject of metaphysics doesnt exist. Until there has been an empirically proven correlation between the how and the why (basically all the questions you pose) then physics will never intersect with philosophy. Philosophers love to bring up the idea of metaphysics as to why things happen, but the fact stands that physicists regard all that meta stuff as just philosophers having fun coming up with reasons and other bullshit.

Point is you either know the answer or you don't. The relationship between energy and mass IS E=mc squared at this moment in time. That is how physics accepts it. There is no questioning of that. If you do question it then you are either A) a philosopher who is most likely stoned or B) a physicist on the same intelligence or greater than Einstein to have proven his theory incorrect. But if you cannot prove it, there is no grounds.

Conciousness has no physical existence at this point. Conciousness to scientists is only chemistry whereas conciousness to philosophers is a dissertation on abstract assumptions. What a joke.

This is where I think you are slightly off base. There are for sure some philosophies that are more " stoner stories" than anything, and that's not what I am referring to. Obviously we know that Greek metaphysics is not scientifically accurate today, and I was not proposing that it was. The same goes for the many philosophies that more similar to mysticism than science. In contrast to those, many of today's symbolic logicians (which remember was invented by philosophers) work for computer companies and still think of themselves as philosophers. Philosophy is about as broad of a term as "science" so to lump it into a negative category based on past failures or the stoner mystics is a bit unfair.

Furthermore, some of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of the 20th century thought of themselves as philosophers or put their pursuits on the same page with philosophy. Moreover, any rigorous philosophy (I mean that which is not stoner philosophy) is deeply rooted in symbolic logic. And it was in the late 19th/early 20th centuries where philosophy heavily converged with mathematics, theoretical physics, etc because they were all are rooted in theoretical deduction and logic. Einstein for example followed the metaphysical, logical, and moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant and a lot of the time thought he was expanding on Kant's ideas. In a sense, modern theoretical physicists are and should be considered philosophers- they are using pure theory, symbolic logic, and math to explain the world around us. There is no reason for the term "philosophy" to carry a negative connotation here.

Lastly, you are right to point out that consciousness has no physical existence at this point. The mind/body problem of the 12th century is still a problem today and science cannot prove that consciousness exists. They can only prove that it does not exist once the brain dies.

onenerdykidDefinitely, and no philosopher would ever want you to take their word on things- the pursuit of truth always requires questioning. And that is no different in the philosophy of ethics or philosophy of science or philosophy of mathematics.



This is where I think you are slightly off base. There are for sure some philosophies that are more " stoner stories" than anything, and that's not what I am referring to. Obviously we know that Greek metaphysics is not scientifically accurate today, and I was not proposing that it was. The same goes for the many philosophies that more similar to mysticism than science. In contrast to those, many of today's symbolic logicians (which remember was invented by philosophers) work for computer companies and still think of themselves as philosophers. Philosophy is about as broad of a term as "science" so to lump it into a negative category based on past failures or the stoner mystics is a bit unfair.

Furthermore, some of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of the 20th century thought of themselves as philosophers or put their pursuits on the same page with philosophy. Moreover, any rigorous philosophy (I mean that which is not stoner philosophy) is deeply rooted in symbolic logic. And it was in the late 19th/early 20th centuries where philosophy heavily converged with mathematics, theoretical physics, etc because they were all are rooted in theoretical deduction and logic. Einstein for example followed the metaphysical, logical, and moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant and a lot of the time thought he was expanding on Kant's ideas. In a sense, modern theoretical physicists are and should be considered philosophers- they are using pure theory, symbolic logic, and math to explain the world around us. There is no reason for the term "philosophy" to carry a negative connotation here.

Lastly, you are right to point out that consciousness has no physical existence at this point. The mind/body problem of the 12th century is still a problem today and science cannot prove that consciousness exists. They can only prove that it does not exist once the brain dies.

I think the fact that conciousness does not exist without the brain may also prove what I would describe as being like living in a glass jar. We know that conciousness exists because we are concious, but in the same way, the universe cannot possibly know what conciousness is and cannot incorporate it into natures rules and laws because it varies so much from individual to individual.

I think you are correct that philosophy certainly has its place in physics and is in a way the basis of progress. The only thing I guess that rubbed me the wrong way is when people make claims like e=mc2 is false because it cannot be proved to completion. Especially when people believe that because einstein can make a claim that they can too. Well, no you cant, because einstein had the majority of the proof. Only one or two of the questions posed here really give me that impression though and most of them are very relevant to finding ourselves.

I kind of think that conciousness is the same thing as imagination. Being conscious of the world around us is one thing, but I do not think that everyone has the same idea of what it means to be conscious. So in that way when I describe myself as being a conscious being I am making the claim that MY consciousness is the correct consciousness, but of course it is not. It cannot be because for there to be consciousness, there must be a universally accepted standard of what it means to be conscious. To be conscious of the world around us, to be conscious of life. It almost means having a similar to god-like ability to look down at the world and see it for what it is, unbiased, undeserving.

This brings me back to the fact that as individuals, we ARE biased and deserving. Theres no way one being can be completely conscious because of this. Therefore our own notion that, "I am conscious" is only our imagined, twisted, cult-like sense of the world.

I took a philosophy class senior year, and even though it was just a highschool class, my teacher for it was the greatest teacher I've ever had, that man deserves a medal. Learned some crazy stuff and it was so mind opening.
Look up the "slice of time" theory or something like that, it's crazy.

turtles r neat

the fuck is going on in this thread

Cats.The big bang is a theory.
Neuroscience can show how an AI could exist, it doesn't explain consciousness.
The quantum mechanical relationship between matter and energy is not fully understood.
Spacetime is a theory.
The relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness is nowhere near solved.
The nature of time is not fully understood.
The nature of space is not fully understood.
The nature of consciousness is not fully understood.
So no, a physics class would not definitively answer any of those things.

No but nothing is going to definitively answer those questions. Theories are the best we have. I also can't help but wonder why NS is the forum of choice for asking questions about theoretical physics.

Cats.I like this theory. I don't think it's right, but I like it.

Just heard this: "Black holes are confusing. The size/extent/limit of the universe and how it came to be is confusing. Therefore they must be the same."

If you have some time, this debate is pretty interesting. The outcome is rather predictable, but it's an interesting exercise in discussing reality and perception.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/789287/Death-Is-Not-Final