Alexander Vilenkin - Why Did Our Universe Begin?

[@DouglasVoigt-tu3xb]

Who else in the universe can ask WHY. Not how. Not where? Not when…but WHY. I love that I can ask that question. Love it! Don’t need to ask WHO.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@DouglasVoigt-tu3xb yes nobody is that crazy and delusional to ask any of those useless questions which cannot be answered.

[@enriquetilve5935]

Trying to understand and explain reality from a three-dimensional perspective and considering time as a constant variable despite knowing that there are more dimensions and time is not constant is an effort doomed to failure.

[@jimwilson-kl2xs]

There was no beginning and there will be no ending, beats me why scientists do not understand that

[@observer991]

They explained the answer to your query in the video. They are going off of observable data only. What you mentioned has to go outside that boundary.

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

Maybe the universe will end in thermal equilibrium in about 100 trillion years no one really knows

[@slick6699]

What if the universe was created just to be a giant star factory? If the star gets massive enough, it gets picked similar to how people harvest pearls. After the star gets picked, it leaves a black hole behind in our 3 dimensional space. Life could be analogous to little cockraches in the corner of the factory feeding off the energy.

[@jfarm30]

Then that begs the question, what kind of intelligence built this system, when was it built and where was it built? All really really scary questions!

[@ivaerz4977]

I build it ​@@jfarm30

[@adamhughes4442]

No!

[@bobbarclay316]

When you say "just to be" it sounds like saying there is intent. If there is intent, there is a being capable of having intent. Am I wrong?

[@asyetundetermined]

Video should be 5 seconds long. “I don’t know.”

[@christianbaughn199]

The question was 30 seconds long!!!

[@WayneLynch69]

It's much worse than that. The universe will end in waves of heat...ONLY. That's the 2nd Law; it will distribute to equilibrium, it hasn't--IT'S NOT ETERNAL. Heat is the ONLY original constituent of this universe. It could not/can not derive from cold--1st Law; this universe did not originate. "Thermodynamics (heat) is the ONE law of universal content which will never be overthrown"--Einstein It has never even been challenged: "Anyone challenging thermodynamics has no hope...only total humiliation"--Arthur Eddington NOTHING & NO ONE has EVER inflected in the most utter de minimis either Einstein or Eddington's claim. This universe though extant, by the most proven of all/any human/scientific knowledge, CAN NOT EXIST!

[@douglasparise3986]

Your guess is as good as mine

[@asyetundetermined]

@@WayneLynch69 why is this reply on my comment?

[@KevinSandy2]

They never know the answers to any of the topics covered by closer.

[@jimbuono2404]

No one knows what happens beyond our horizon and no one knows what caused expansion. You can talk about it, hypothesize about it, think about it all you want but you there are going to be no answers for a long, long time.

[@billwatt2528]

Scientists would like to discover the theory of everything. Personally, I think that will never be discovered. So far, every answer that is discovered only creates yet another question.

[@goranindjic7725]

This is a fool...

[@bobbarclay316]

Some years ago Isaac Asimov posed this question. (Im paraphrasing slightly). If all the energy of the universe is confined into a point, it must have been perfectly stable. If it was stable at all, and no time whatever had passed, why go bang? If it was unstable, how could it have ever been a point?

[@msilver4888]

where did all the laws such as gravity come from

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

It all sounds good but at the end these physicist tell u nothing be because they simply don't know the answer themselves

[@carlcat]

One can ask why but there's not necessarily an answer. There are some things about the universe we may never know or be able to comprehend.

[@KeithAllen-pg8ep]

One obvious answer to "Why?" is "I don't know." A more positive answer is "In the beginning God .... ."

[@carlcat]

@@KeithAllen-pg8ep That's not a more positive answer to many but a superstitious one.

[@greghicks5960]

​@@KeithAllen-pg8epNo

[@carlcat]

@@greghicks5960 "no" is not a valid response without a reason.

[@KeithAllen-pg8ep]

@@carlcat But "Nothing became something" isn't superstitious? From a linguistic point of view, "God did it" *is* a more positive answer than "I don't know.".

[@itzed]

I came here for the answer, not more questions.

[@AndrewAnderson-vb4pp]

If we knew the answer we would be gods

[@ManiBalajiC]

bruh you just want answers for the top 3 questions of existence.

[@abhirama]

Try to find out yourself. Don't depend on others.

[@100percentSNAFU]

You came to the wrong place...this is a philosophy channel 😂

[@sanjosemike3137]

Kuhn has made his living interviewing people to “prove” God exists. It is a fruitless search. But he is able to travel all over the World and make his expenses tax deductible. So it is NOT a failure. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@AnonymousWon-uu5yn]

Because matter cannot be created or destroyed that means that matter has always existed throughout the universe and it will continue to always exist throughout the universe in many different forms forever.

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

I was thinking about this guy's work yesterday, and today this video about his work appeared in my feed..

[@GeoffV-k1h]

This happens to me all the time. And some others I have spoken to have noticed the same.

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

@@GeoffV-k1h Interesting..

[@barneyronnie]

We live in a magical universe...

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

@@barneyronnie Indeed 👍

[@RichTowsley]

Intelligent man

[@tgward313]

because it was inevitable

[@georgedobler7490]

Why is a human question. Science has no why.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

As opposed to what other type of question???

[@Arkade_Perfect]

@@stoobydootoo4098how?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

when some of the older, earlier galaxies become causally disconnected from our universe, they will have greater ratio of gravity to cosmological constant expansion of universe? can this greater ratio of gravity be used to somehow measure now causally disconnected galaxies beyond this universe?

[@RomayPM]

I should nor be on this channel reading comments because it has just been shown to me that I'm too dim to understand most of the comments but thank you for your comment because without it I would have remained oblivious to my lack of intellect

[@johnpublic168]

Infinity does not allow for a beggining.

[@Powernoodle_]

You are assuming infinity. To an ant, Florida is infinitely wide.

[@adamhughes4442]

That's because the word begginning doesn't exist!

[@stoobydootoo4098]

​@@adamhughes4442It does now! 😅😅😅

[@stoobydootoo4098]

​@@Powernoodle_And unbelievably shallow!

[@cemalbengudeniz2582]

The idea of the Universe has always existed is somewhat more reasonable than it came from nothing. We might be asking the wrong questions by assuming that it began.

[@iamBlackGambit]

Well any answer would be better than saying it came from nothing, saying it came from nothing is an absurd statement. Anyways evidence shows the universe had a beginning

[@KirkHoward-i5d]

For some reason, I am lucky enough to have seen the future come true four times in my life. Events just hours away. Could be the future is predetermined.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Love the way how you illustrate your point without even one example.

[@KirkHoward-i5d]

@@stoobydootoo4098 The stories are long and I wanted to be brief.

[@jameslyons3320]

Philosophy Always precedes the physical analysis of every aspect of reality.

[@stephenzhao5809]

There're three types of inflation, Inflation Type-1 (IT-1) generates the background of all cosmoes, known as to 0°|6° the spacetime, Inflation Type-2 (IT-2) ended with 5°|1° the spacetime and Inflation Type-3 (IT-3) builds all quantum fields of our universe, 2°|4° the spacetime, where all 3d observations are emerged and mentained by various decoherences.

[@batouttahell454]

And?!?!?!

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in all this. The question *why* the universe began cannot be answered by physics. Physics works by assuming initial conditions are known and makes predictions about the future based on those initial conditions and a set of equations (models). Physics will never be able to explain *why* the initial conditions are the way they are.

[@seanpierce9386]

Yes, it’s a fallacy to use cause-and-effect to explain the beginning of that process (if it even has a beginning, which it very well may not.)

[@fishfingers160]

It’s just a silly not well thought out title.

[@simonhibbs887]

He talks about this in the interview. Physicists used to think it would be impossible to explain certain aspects of the initial conditions of the Big Bang, then inflation theory explained them. With the Hawking-Turok proposal we even have a candidate theory for how space, time and energy could originate given quantum mechanics. It’s not clear yet whether this could ever be proven, but it’s astounding we can even get close. What science can’t explain is why these theories pertain, as against some other theories, or why there is anything at all.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@simonhibbs887 While I agree with you, it’s important to take these theories with a grain of salt. Inflation theory needs new particles and physics to work. Also, nothing in this case is not absolutely nothing, as quantum fields still must be present, even if empty and 0-dimensional. I expect that if we ever get this far, seeing past a certain point will be impossible, just like a black hole horizon. In that sense, it may be fundamentally unknowable.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@seanpierce9386 The maths is beyond me, but I think in the H-T model the values in the QM equations are complex numbers, and resolve somehow into real numbers corresponding to a 'real' spacetime. Trippy stuff. We're definitely at and beyond the boundaries of the measurable with this stuff, and arguably therefore science, but you don't know the boundaries of what's observable until you step beyond them. Even then someone can come along and come up with a way to measure something relevant. That's happened over and over throughout the history of science.

[@gerardobaltodano]

Porque no hay la menor duda de que el universo "empezó". Esta comprobado 100% sin la menor pizca de duda, que el universo tuvo un comienzo. No se trata de pura retórica racionalista. Esa que simplifica todo a dualismos: inicio/fin, verdad/mentira, bien/mal, apagado/encendido, etc.

[@zakmousli3398]

“Do the disbelievers not realize that the heavens and earth were ˹once˺ one mass then We split them apart? And We created from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” Surah 21:30

[@carpballet]

This video should be watched with the sound off. Really high. Listening to DSotM.

[@batouttahell454]

Your a Pro aren't you!?

[@lalsenarath]

The problem is in the legitimacy of the question! If there is no meaning to the question, it is absurd to expect an answer! First consider, how in the first place this question comes about! We believe everything has a begining! Well then we need to ask the same question about the answer! Will there be an end!!!

[@Ekam-Sat]

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad speaks of cosmic loneliness as being the trigger of origins. The ancient Indian cosmologist thus opted for no-nonsense psychology rather than erudite terminology for elucidating the first cause of things.

[@AshishKumar-jj7yw]

“No nonsense psychology” - yeah right, as if “cosmic loneliness” is such a well defined and no nonsense term.

[@amreshyadav2758]

You indian has not invented any thing since last 2000 year's, except caste discrimination... But as soon as they find any scientific wisdom of west, they pour in with fake religious rubbish.

[@quezebojones9352]

Does there have to be a beginning?

[@SwamiSridattadevSatchitananda]

Consciousness is fundamental Geometry Of ⭕️ = I = ♾ Dimensions

[@stoobydootoo4098]

The primacy of consciousness. Rupert Spira, etc.

[@sanjosemike3137]

If one scientist wants to INSULT AND VILIFY another scientist, they will use the word “Creationist.” There is no word in any language that is a greater “insult.” Soon it will get to the point that the word becomes unprintable. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@batcollins3714]

And knowing its connotations, it should be.

[@Kjuken69]

It's no beginning nor end, it just is. Time is nothing

[@iamBlackGambit]

The universe is not eternal

[@zakmousli3398]

“So He formed the heaven into seven heavens in two Days, assigning to each its mandate. And We adorned the lowest heaven with ˹stars like˺ lamps ˹for beauty˺ and for protection. That is the design of the Almighty, All-Knowing.” Surah 41:12

[@batouttahell454]

a-huh well?!?!

[@zakmousli3398]

@@batouttahell454 all estimated 200 billion (2×1011) to 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe are in the first heaven!

[@batouttahell454]

IF there is any answer, it may be found, if we ever make contact, with Intelligent Life somewhere in the Multiverse...

[@jedi4049]

Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is an international corporate strategist and investment banker, renown China expert, and public intellectual. For 30 years, Dr. Kuhn has worked with China’s leaders and advised the Chinese government.

[@writereducator]

This is very surprising. He is accused of being a propagandist for the Communist government.

[@jedi4049]

@@writereducator It suprised me when I found out

[@jimmunro2136]

It's not why. It's never why. It's HOW.

[@saftheartist6137]

Hmm 🤨 it could depending on the scenario. I understand it being most scenarios needing specific a how.

[@barouchkrakauer7815]

It's NOT even HOW... It's more .... WHAT happened ?

[@100percentSNAFU]

It's all of the above, what, why, and how. All probably unanswerable.

[@barouchkrakauer7815]

@@100percentSNAFU Well....... Science does describe the universe.

[@jimmunro2136]

​@digitalfootballer9032, just my opinion. Why conversation up a reason for us being here... a higher power of which there is no evidence. What, I don't understand that. How for me is the only question. I, personally have ruled out a creator, and intelligent design.

[@isaacgarza3307]

Where did the first particles for the first clumps of mass come from?? That must mean that the bing bang was and explosion of a material soup cooked together by the explosion/expansion heat….

[@Akira-jd2zr]

the first particles came from energy via E=mc2

[@isaacgarza3307]

@@Akira-jd2zr how would that explain matter and antimatter? And/or the seemingly disportion of to the other? Also one type of energy (the big bang) created different particles ? it would also mean the speed of light existed before light…

[@stephenlupoli]

The beginning is now.

[@KeithAllen-pg8ep]

Time-wise, it is always "now."

[@James.979]

Hello 🙋‍♂️. As we humans humbly evolved into the crafty little bag of bones 🦴 we are today - yet, we also crafted two words to use in our lexicon. 1: Time !! 2: Perfection !! These two words we live our lives by yet - they mean absolutely nothing in the mechanics of the Universe !! Because they don’t exist and have nothing to do with the Universe 🌏 we are lucky 🌲 to live in !! In other words - forget it, just enjoy being here !! Thanks 🙏 James 🫶✌️

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

can inflation be derived, or produced, from quantum wave function?

[@kathleenlovett1958]

"Why did the universe BEGIN"? It's always been. There is no beginning or ending. It is.

[@sanjosemike3137]

What caused the Cosmic Background Radiation? I’m sorry to tell you that it is REAL. It refutes your statement. I’m sorry you can’t refute it to bolster your atheism. You’ll have to go to some other issue. I’m sure you will find one. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@technofsfsfsfs]

Cmb not only does’t refute the argument; it has nothing to do w it.

[@sanjosemike3137]

@@technofsfsfsfs The CMBR is the radiation in the universe left over from the BB singularity. It is one of main proofs of the BB. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@sanjosemike3137 What rational justification can you provide for anyone to conclude that some agent DECIDED to cause the universe to come into existence?

[@sanjosemike3137]

@@Akira-jd2zr I’ve responded several times. They have not been printed. Don’t assume my lack of response means “you got me.” Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@willieluncheonette5843]

why not?

[@garymazeffa1442]

The universe started with a question.

[@saftheartist6137]

Do you believe in the possibility of the universe behaving in cycles? If so, starts and ends are always relative meaning the universe has a time and place for everything to occur (wether we agree with it or not).

[@100percentSNAFU]

​@@saftheartist6137I believe that is one of many possibilities. If this is true, then would everything within the universe repeat with each new iteration? So in other words, do we live this exact existence infinite times? Would be interesting, and if this is the case, from your perspective you would be reborn instantly even though trillions of years or much more passed in between.

[@saftheartist6137]

@@100percentSNAFU I came across an intriguing concept presented by a channel called ‘darkmatter2525’ in a video titled ‘Artificial.’ This concept suggests that the universe is fundamentally a simulation operated by machines, consisting solely of pure information. Therefore, whenever a person dies (possibly even sleeps to), it is as if another clone or machine is programmed to take their place, ensuring that the perception of the simulation continues to run smoothly across information. ℹ️♻️

[@TheChirix999]

Nobody can know how all started they just have theories that's all... we only explored 20% of our oceans:D possibly we can be like small cell in another entity ...

[@jimakin3541]

Easy one. God said "Let there be light"! Bada boom Bada bing. One entire Universe!

[@oaktreet4335]

They have no idea

[@lotharlamurtra7924]

They have some ideas. Not ultimate truth. For that there’s the Bible.

[@rickymalcolm9634]

What sucks the most about the question about how the universe began is that I know the answer is simple and although it’s complex like many simple things about our world I very much believe that our universe began because of a simple… let’s call it reaction

[@prestonbacchus4204]

Why did our universe begin? It was "born" from the interaction (or collision) of already existing "living" universes like our own.

[@bannaubrycheiniog1329]

Why did the other universes begin?

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Universe is simply a word meaning "all there is". Its beginning is in human language, and it doesn't have any existence outside human imagination. Ask instead, what was the First Thing and how did the First Thing appear. The answer is very easy: the First Thing, just like the First Cause, cannot and does not exist, never existed, and never will exist

[@brad1368]

So the second thing is the first thing? Does that also make the third thing the second thing... an n-1 of things scenario? Or are you saying that some things have simply existed "infinitely" and thus did not have to come into being, thus no first cause or primary mover? Does anyone really know what they are talking about at this level? I'm not sure human intelligence is geared this way.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@brad1368 Try to wrap your mind around this: in reality there are no "things" as we experience them. "Things" are mental constructs, simplified symbols of reality. We do not and cannot even start to comprehend the complex network of ever-changing, impersonal, momentary "flashes" of causes, where every little change here forces a greater or lesser change everywhere across this network (sometimes called Indra's net). This is why our mind creates a very v e r y v e r y simplified version of reality, based on the sensory inputs and interpretation of those inputs. This replacement for reality is where we spend our lives. So talking about the beginning of the universe is talking about the beginning of the Indra's net - it is a complete waste of time, it is completely out of our capabilities. It is as if a cell in my heel came up with an idea about "how/why its paricular little piece of tissue in my heel (its universe) started". Odds that this cell will find the answer are the same with the odds our scientists wil find their answer: Zero. . .

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@brad1368 I don't know why KZbin removes my response? I'll try one more time: Try to wrap your mind around this: in reality there are no "things" as we experience them. "Things" are mental constructs, simplified symbols of reality. We do not and cannot even start to comprehend the complex network of ever-changing, impersonal, momentary "flashes" of causes, where every little change here forces a greater or lesser change everywhere across this network (sometimes called Indra's net). This is why our mind creates a very v e r y v e r y simplified version of reality, based on the sensory inputs and interpretation of those inputs. This replacement for reality is where we spend our lives. So talking about the beginning of the universe is talking about the beginning of the Indra's net - it is a complete waste of time, it is completely out of our capabilities. It is as if a cell in my heel came up with an idea about "how/why its paricular little piece of tissue in my heel (its universe) started". Odds that this cell will find the answer are the same with the odds our scientists wil find their answer: Zero.

[@votingcitizen]

"Why"? Clearly the wrong question. Clearly, a question with no "true" answer. The description/subtitle is better - What brought it about? What forces...? etc. But definitely not "Why".

[@ivankos3305]

It did NOT begin, it was always here...

[@paulhagen5645]

I think so too. It's hard for us to a grip on it, as we mere humans, have a beginning and an end, but I think it's always been in existance in some way.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

If it doesn't have a beginning then it hasn't begun, and if it hasn't begun then it doesn't exist (yet). But we talk about it, therefore it exists; it is just that its existence is very slight, it is a mere flickering thought that is here now, nowhere to be found in the very next moment when we think of something else.

[@ivankos3305]

@@branimirsalevic5092 Without experience of Absolute Consciousness the Existence cannot be understood; ever.

[@adamhughes4442]

That doesn't explain how it began!

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@ivankos3305 nothing is absolute, everything is relative.

[@danielalexander799]

The question is outside the scope of science. However it is not unanswerable if other schools of thought are introduced. God created the universe so that we should love Him

[@batcollins3714]

That is the greatest simplification that needs no thought, no intellect, just total acceptance of our ignorance. Even Gods have to be brought into existence so who made the Gods?

[@sigvardronnholm]

My belief is, it did not beginne, It is eternal, Have always been there/.

[@iamBlackGambit]

Ok so how did the earth get here then?

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@iamBlackGambit read up on how planets form for your answer

[@iamBlackGambit]

@Akira-jd2zr still didn't answer the basic questions though 😒

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@iamBlackGambit if your "basic question" is "how did the earth get here" then "how planets form" will answer that question. if your question is something else then ask that instead

[@adamhughes4442]

It didn't beginne...no such word!

[@i_am_nature101]

Assuming that it began at all...

[@jamesbigelow416]

INFLATION,STRING THEORY,MULTI UNIVERSE, these guys are in a club that pat each other on the back and write a book make money paid also by universities yet we can't understand because the club says it's because it's too complicated

[@isatousarr7044]

The exploration of our universe’s origins is one of the most profound questions in science and philosophy. From the Big Bang theory to various cosmic models, there are countless theories attempting to explain how it all started. But at the heart of it lies a deeper inquiry; why did our universe begin at all? What fundamental purpose or necessity could have driven such an incomprehensible event?

[@kos-mos1127]

Why question is not that deep because the universe is fundamentally non deterministic. At the fundamental level the universe has an indefinite causal structure and cause and effect arises as the classical limit.

[@zerog4261]

And yet, on this page within in hour, there will be a thousand voices explaining it all. Marvellous really 😂

[@seanpierce9386]

That assumes that it requires a purpose. Rocks don’t form so that we can use them as tools. They just form. You can explain how they form, but nature doesn’t owe us an answer to every question we ask. Besides, if time is an emergent phenomenon, we won’t find the answer in cause-and-effect. The universe may exist as a brute fact, in the same sense as logical truths and mathematics.

[@100percentSNAFU]

The universe exists because it must. It goes back to the ever favorite subject of this channel, the something vs nothing debate. Nothing can't exist because if it could exist, it would, and the state of it would never change because there would be no cause and effect in complete nothingness. Obviously something does exist, so it must exist and nothing can't exist.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@100percentSNAFU I find it helpful to think in terms of a graph. The something states are all connected to other something states, but nothing has no connections by definition. Since we exist in a something state, we must have come from other something states. But why aren’t we trapped on the nothing state? Even if you think of it as a Markov chain, you can’t reach an answer because of the disconnectedness. We may never know.

[@russellgraham5120]

The shows hosts ignorance is overwhelming 👽👽👽

[@თemo]

Be done with the Inflation already.

[@TheGibbonFactor]

It’s a good question no one can answer on the internet. It can only be found the truth without sin. Computers are made from acts of sin. So you can’t decipher the truth using one as to why we exist. It’s only ever found privately the truth. Publicly we live in shame and embarrassment and the truth hides it’s a very delicate thing the truth it’s too beautiful for the internet. Which is brutal. 😊

[@Leif-yv5ql]

Nothingness got bored. It got tired of staring at the nothing that it was.

[@adamhughes4442]

Have you realised now why you have no likes?

[@obrewsky]

Simple fact...the human brain is incapable of comprehending infinity.

[@DingleBerryMilkshake]

"Why" is an absurd question! Why alludes to intentionality. It just did!

[@peterroberts4509]

Not even the universe knows

[@alexojideagu]

"Say Nuclear Vessels!" "No"

[@davidchamberlain5425]

🤔🤫..GOD>KNOWS...🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍👍👍 This world is just a fleeting show ..For mans illusion given 🤫

[@blazingsaddle166]

Wrong question. Why has nothing to do with it. The universe doesnt care about meaning.

[@adamhughes4442]

How do you know what the Universe cares about?

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Our local Universe was Born, by natural Parents. Life is Eternal. Life-Desire is Motor of Life.

[@Ekam-Sat]

That's actually true.

[@theeternalworldpicture]

Good point👍

[@TheCosmicRealm3]

Doesn't anyone find it peculiar that every single thing in this "life" has a male and female in every species, and everything must go through a growing up stage from baby to adulthood? Although humans are the only species where we take the longest to go from baby to adulthood. While animals grow rather quickly, which is also strange. One species like sea turtles can live hundreds of years, while a mayfly live less than 5 minutes, so I guess the mayfly is one that doesn't go through the stage but 99% of most things do. I myself just find it odd I guess.

[@100percentSNAFU]

Humans take the longest to mature because we have the most complex brains. As for the duality of sexes, if you break it down, everything is a duality. Cause and effect, positive charge and negative charge, matter and antimatter. Many ancient cultures have recognized the duality of life and existence with such concepts as the yin and the yang. And I personally cannot possibly believe this all just happened spontaneously. It is too regimented. It was designed. What I find bizarre is there is no counter to time. Time just keeps going forward and does not reverse (as far as we know).

[@DUEL.FATALIS]

It’s not weird. And sexual binary has nothing to do with duality. It’s a mechanism for selective production. All life on earth is related so primitive mechanisms that work, such as respiratory systems, vision, hearing, the mechanisms of blood and bones, etc. will be very common. Sexual reproduction is better than asexual reproduction in that it allows for greater genetic diversity and weeds out non desirable features within a gene pool. The mechanisms that exist are the ones that are best at existing.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Not true.

[@bartholomewtott3812]

He seems to like asking questions that physicists have no answers for.

[@mjhzen8313]

How much simpler and safer the world would be without religion.

[@bjornbjornson9359]

The universe exist because it must. Nothing is not an alternative

[@brad1368]

That's not helpful whatsoever.

[@josephszot5545]

CMB is the signature of GOD's taught that created all that exist.

[@toadster_strudel]

I wonder how many times per day men in academia think about the origins of our universe?

[@slick6699]

I can't stop thinking about it too

[@simesaid]

and _I_ wonder how many times it is per day that I give up trying to infer what people in the comments mean, and so must flip a coin... again.

[@bartek6100]

Maybe the universe has always existed and is fundamental?

[@seanpierce9386]

Let’s use less time-dependent language. I think what you mean is that there is no cause-and-effect relationship, because time is emergent. The universe is just a process that exists in the space of all processes, whether they have time or not. If we ever find a computable Theory of Everything, this logically follows from Turing Completeness. It also provides a mechanism by which these systems are connected: Every Turing-Complete system can simulate any other. Emergence is just a consequence of the fact that a volume can only contain so much physical memory to allow this to happen.

[@theeternalworldpicture]

Well, unless you believe that something can come out of nothing, then it has always existed in some way. Great question 👍

[@100percentSNAFU]

The universe has always existed...OR...the mechanism by which it started always existed. If you go back up the chain far enough you must reach something that is infinite in existence or else you break every fundamental rule all of existence is built on like cause and effect and actions and equal and opposite reactions. You spiral into infinite regression and "turtles all the way down" thinking.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@100percentSNAFU If we can never observe this breakdown even in principle, it might still be allowed, just like black holes have a horizon to hide their singularities. The third option is that that cause-and effect is merely a description of a more fundamental process that breaks down in this particular case. So really, we have no idea which is correct.

[@iamBlackGambit]

​@seanpierce9386 somthing in the past HAS to be eternal..there's literally no way around it.

[@antoniom.almeda4947]

The beginning of the universe is a matter of statistic. If an event happens, means that has been happening before, do we got a multiverse!!

[@ValidUserName-fl3uh]

The problem with the multiverse only answers the possibility of life but not the origim of the universes.

[@ardentizzy7720]

WHY ? 😀😀

[@geoffpowell8419]

We will never ever know we are not meant to we are put where god and nature want us to be

[@adamhughes4442]

Bollocks!

[@subhuman3408]

1:59 ^

[@DiscipleofHim]

The answer is because God said so. He created us in His image and all , including heaven and the cosmos. There are some things we do not know and It is okay; the realm is so vast . Just live in peace and harmony with nature.

[@elementelement8304]

Which God?

[@100percentSNAFU]

​@@elementelement8304There's only one. If this is some clever take on that there is multiple religions so which one is correct, well they're all correct and they're all incorrect. They are just different interpretations and stories based off the same concept. I follow none of them because there is no need to, the only God that matters is the one and only true God, not the countless variations expressed in human folklore.

[@DUEL.FATALIS]

What created god?

[@elementelement8304]

@@100percentSNAFU Your take is clever, all religions are correct and incorrect but how you derived from that reasoning that there's only one true God? Maybe there are two of them or a family of Gods? Maybe even generations? If as you say religions are correct/incorect maybe the same should be applied to God/Gods story?

[@Akira-jd2zr]

What rational justification can you provide for anyone to conclude that some agent DECIDED to cause the universe to come into existence?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Most explanations for "why" the universe began come from a rather *_narrowed perspective:_* physical structure. Because the universe presents a _physical presence,_ then all explanations for its existence are limited to only physical reasoning. However, a *_more expanded perspective_* factors in other conditions such as life, consciousness, and self-awareness that aren't necessarily "physical." If you follow the evolutionary pattern from T=0 up to today, you'll observe everything moving from simplicity to complexity. Basic physical structure may have started it all off, but life, consciousness, and self-awareness are what followed. What this tells us is that "Existence" is looking for something, and it will keep evolving into higher complexity until if finds whatever it is it's looking for. Physical structure is just *one stage* in its ongoing evolution, and the _physical stage_ is no longer the primary stage we should be focusing on. ... Find what "Existence" is looking for and you'll find the reason for why the universe exists!

[@seanpierce9386]

Increasing complexity gives rise to more possibilities, not less. Moreover, I could answer your question with anything I wanted. The universe is “looking for” the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It tells me precisely nothing about physics or how I should live my life. Complexity is just an artifact of many things interacting in a non-random, but non-predictable way. Turing-completeness connects these systems. We don’t need to resort to magic or destiny to explain this.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Increasing complexity gives rise to more possibilities, not less."* ... An increase in complexity is as fundamental as expansion, interaction, entropy, and cooling over time. What other "constant" has been present since T=0 up until now? Will you share that with me, please? *"Moreover, I could answer your question with anything I wanted. The universe is “looking for” the Flying Spaghetti Monster."* ... So, your interpretation of a consistent "increase in complexity" over time is the pursuit of a spaghetti monster? You can use "logic" to deduce that achieving the *highest conceivable level of information* is that universal goal since "logical conceivability" is a prerequisite for anything to exist, and the universe is observably orchestrated via logic (mathematics). Isn't that a little more "logical" than your spaghetti monster alternative? *"Complexity is just an artifact of many things interacting in a non-random, but non-predictable way"* ... Non-randomness is tantamount to orchestration. If there is orchestration, then there is a necessity for that orchestration (Principle of Sufficient Reason). So, you're right back at square one trying to determine the reason for that necessity. *"Turing-completeness connects these systems. We don’t need to resort to magic or destiny to explain this"* ... Turing-completeness could very well be what you get when the highest possible level of conceivability is achieved. And something you are personally able to do (conceive) certainly does not constitute anything "magic," ... right?

[@seanpierce9386]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The “Highest conceivable level of information” doesn’t exist just as a largest integer doesn’t exist. Even if it did exist, it would have so many states that you could never say what it is, never mind logically deduce it. That’s why I say it can be anything you want. You should at least understand what Turing-Completeness is before trying to shoehorn it into your preconceived conclusion. In some sense, it actually limits what you can get. One something is Turing Complete, it can do anything that anything else can do. There is no higher, special system because they are all equivalent. More states just means it can simulate more things, giving rise to emergence. In that sense, our minds are no more sophisticated than the universe they came from. In fact, they are limited by the size of our brains. It is that limitation that makes life so interesting.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"The “Highest conceivable level of information” doesn’t exist just as a largest integer doesn’t exist"* ... Yes, it does! Tell me what can be logically conceived that rises above the level of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God? Will you share that with me, please? The human mind came up with the highest possible level of conceivability when theism came up with their God. There is nothing conceivable that can supplant this conception. *"Even if it did exist, it would have so many states that you could never say what it is, never mind logically deduce it. That’s why I say it can be anything you want."* ... (See above). *"You should at least understand what Turing-Completeness is before trying to shoehorn it into your preconceived conclusion."* ... You're perfectly free to think that way. *"One something is Turing Complete, it can do anything that anything else can do. There is no higher, special system because they are all equivalent."* ... Last time I checked, theism's God "can do anything that anything else can do." *"More states just means it can simulate more things, giving rise to emergence."* ... What can theism's God not simulate? By definition, can't theism's God also "give rise to emergence?" Like it or not, theism came up with the highest level of conceivability. *"In fact, they are limited by the size of our brains. It is that limitation that makes life so interesting."* ... The only barrier to what your mind can imagine is *logical conceivability.* Logical conceivability is the gatekeeper for what can or cannot exist. It's what separates the imagination of impossible things from the conception of possible things. Turing machines have no imagination, nor can they conceive, nor come up with constructs.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Ah, so you’re using a kind of ontological argument. Unfortunately, that’s circular. You assert that a greatest possible being must exist, and then you call that thing God. I reject the premise. There is no greatest possible thing, because greatness isn’t a fundamental attribute, but a descriptor. As for your question, one thing that might be greater than the God you described is one that creates the worst possible thing that can exist. This makes God look even greater by comparison. I’m just showing this is all just wordplay; you can’t prove that something exists logically without axioms that we both agree to. Speaking of, if you refer to information, I will assume you mean information described in the form of bits. The highest conceivable level of information has the highest number of bits, whose cardinality is the largest positive integer. Its existence is therefore provably false. As for imagination, that’s been replicated to some degree by neural networks. While they’re certainly limited in scope at the moment, they can indeed produce novel behaviour and understand the “essence” of certain objects through intermediary weights. I would classify that as imagination. Just because things don’t have the features of human beings doesn’t mean it’s incapable of producing those features, even in principle. It also seems like you’re referring to “mind” as something fundamental and irreducible. If that’s the case, what is the mechanism by which mind interfaces with physical reality?

[@gmodesike]

Because God spoke it into existence. That's why.

[@jameskelso5311]

And who spoke God into existence? And who spoke the creator of God into existence? Etcetera. The ‘God’ answer is more implausible than the ‘No God’ one! 😅

[@gmodesike]

@@jameskelso5311 it takes more faith to believe all this came from nothing than to believe it came from something.

[@jameskelso5311]

@@gmodesike But what does faith prove? Science, through Scientific Method, comes up with a hypothesis, then is able to test that hypothesis through experiment. Thus, it can provide replicable results. Ancient people thought that by slaughtering e.g. their prime goat, the smell when burning it would appease the Gods. We now know this is useless, and they have lost their prime goat. It’s all through the Bible. Yet all wrong!

[@onlyonetoserve9586]

Planit erth was creatored bro. Edukate!

[@alanssnack1192]

he looks baked

[@richardsylvanus2717]

Hopefully he listens to Firesign Theater albums

[@itzed]

Does that mean he has half baked ideas?

[@alanssnack1192]

@@itzed haha i remember that movie, but it seems he has full baked ideas.

[@JZAB1018]

Was looking for this exact comment 😂 Man is definitely stoned af

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Please may I share a few thoughts. We have Entropy, Time/Space moves as a Turbulent Flow, which creates Eddies & Vortices. Everyone with their choices have an effect on the Turbulent Flow. Prior to the Big Bang there was no Past, Present, or Future, no Entropy, what I call Perpetual Now, Eternity. Earth is so exclusively special, fine tuned for our lives. Please if I may, GOD separated a portion of Heaven, aside, and it was the release of energy as a result. On Multiverse, take 1 step forward, and within a 360 degree circle, turn to any point you choose, and for either good or bad, do whatever you choose. We live within the Multiverse. The Multiverse is not parallel stacked because any and all things were possible after you took the 1 step forward. We are all born and as babies, live, learn, grow, develope understanding/knowledge. Look at how Man has grown in understanding in a massively short period of Time/Space. Also everyone have different fingerprints. Wow how marvelous. In my mind GOD & all Science coexist beautifully. My mind is just blown by the actual distances just within our universe. As Time/Space moves forward how much greater will be Man's understanding, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...Thank you for your insights...

[@harryviking6347]

No one will ever know WHY!!

[@theeternalworldpicture]

Why not? serious question

[@adamhughes4442]

We will know...far into the future!

[@pandoraeeris7860]

The universe exists because non-existence is self-negating.

[@edwardtutman196]

Ask this - Why is science not looking at a possibility of a continuous Universe which would explain so many q's including the last Universal "beginning", laws, constants etc?

[@seanpierce9386]

I’m curious why you think this. What does continuity give us that discreteness does not?

[@100percentSNAFU]

Well it was at one time believed to be a "static state" universe, which was disproven by the discovery of inflation. Hoyle took this belief to his grave despite opposing data coming out within his lifetime. Now, this doesn't discount the possibility of a cyclical universe or something else that exists, fades away, and is reborn in some manner, but the notion of a completely eternal and static universe has been all but debunked.

[@XYisnotXX]

" With me the horrid doubt always arises wheter the convictions of a mans mind which has been derived from the minds of the lower animals is of any value or at all trustworthy, would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkeys mind if there are any convictions in such a mind. Charles Darwin.

[@Hm-dz3yk]

The multiverse is too crowded for my taste.

[@scottgreen3807]

I don’t want to be insulted. Philosophers are recruited by universities world wide in every disciple to help,guide,when rational is lacking, especially science. Me , I avoid the topic when studying science because it becomes abstraction. So good stuff. Is it enough, change breeds persistence and persistence breeds change. Extremes would say nothingness created the universe. It’s why is why, or how, the universe is an on going expression of persintance verse change, as I described. Simple is simple.

[@infinitygame18]

Are you aware that, NINETEEN IS NOTHING OR NINETEEN IS EVERYTHING, FROM WHERE DO THIS NINETEEN CAME FROM IN MATHEMATICS Just like space and time your maths is also doomed,, have the answer

[@josephtempongko8914]

Not sure there will be true answer to this question.

[@trafyknits9222]

Our universe began because the computer we are all inside was turned on. The Big Bang was someone turning on the power and running the software that is everything in our universe.

[@amreshyadav2758]

Go upstairs, your mom is calling you for dinner 😅

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

death of a Universe creates a new one?

[@imas1239]

All the facts we have been seeing about how the universe exists dose not satisfy you ???? The God must exists but not in good manner. I mean he is ,God , a lawehsy

[@kaisercarl2307]

Always found questions wìth "Why" hard to answer. "How" may a better starting point for answering questions in natural science. Leave the rest for philosophers and theologians 😅

[@kimsahl8555]

The universe begins constantly, and ends constantly.

[@platolover6377]

So what are your arguments against the infinite past? Do you consider Philoponus and his arguments against Aristotle, who gave probably the strongest argument for the infinite past, which all the Greeks except Plato accepted.? And Plato was religious and thought the universe was created, so much for him. Why are you modern thinker so unrigorous?

[@platolover6377]

Oh, but being a philosopher is not part of the game. You idiots

[@matishakabdullah5874]

Secular natural sciences had never get out the philosophical circular reasoning realm of emergence reality of either physicalism or idealism basis: neither provable!

[@stefanbanev]

Why? Simply because it could not “non-happen”… everything what can happen does happen

[@brad1368]

Does it really?

[@stefanbanev]

​@@brad1368 What can prohibit it? It is more complex to assume the existence of some controller who prohibits (for some his reasons) the actualizations of specific possibilities... Occam's razor favors models with fewer assumptions... the consistency of observer's realm is the only what can prohibit for observer to observe inconsistent with his context actualizations but Gödel's second inconsistency theorem ensures that consistency of any axiomatic can be proven only in some of its extensions; so, the existence of any observer is a constant race for such extensions (Everett ' relative-state formulation of QM is one of mechanisms how it may work)