J. Richard Gott - What are the Ultimate Questions of All Reality?

[@thestrangehours]

I find that questions themselves can be mindblowing. Love this channel!

[@ivanbeshkov1718]

Why do I exist seems more fundamental than why the universe exists, as without me to perceive it, the universe's existence would be irrelevant.

[@NothingMaster]

The ultimate questions (of Reality or otherwise) aren’t necessarily physical, but EXISTENTIAL in nature. And of course who could ignore the fundamental question of metaphysics: “why is there something, why is there anything at all, rather than Nothing?”

[@wagfinpis]

Easily in the top 10% of Closer to Truth segments!

[@TorgerVedeler]

This is amazing stuff. To me, what is also quite amazing us that we ask such questions.

[@TheTroofSayer]

Robert conjectures 3 general possibilities. At 4:39 - "... is based on a theory of everything". Could this, along with Robert's two subsequent alternatives to it, be the wrong questions? How about a theory of nothing? Is there only one kind of void? Might that better explain the symmetries that cascade out of the void? Or perhaps the theory of everything *is* the theory of nothing.

[@maillardsbearcat]

Of all the unanswerable questions that have been asked on this channel this has got to be the vaguest one yet

[@czypauly07]

I wasn't watching this and thought I was listening to a Friends re-run for a minute!

[@timotyhmit]

We may not know the question, however, the answer is 42 🤣🤣🤣

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@paulsymanski489]

What, who, when, where, why and how. Do I get an "A/"

[@behmog]

As a data scientist with a strong IT background, who has some general insight into physics, I can introduce a scientific approach to understanding reality that bridges IT and Physics (something largely missing in my opinion in mainstream science). I've watched almost all your series on KZbin and enjoy them a lot as they shine a light on hard questions. Just allow me to introduce my version of "what reality is" in a text or an interview, whether you decide to publish it or not is up to you. Nothing can be said for sure, but I'm finding a very high chance that you'll find my answer very interesting and fully scientific (not religious or spiritual), not previously covered in your programs. It all hangs on me having such an opportunity to meet or talk to you online. BEHZAD from Shenzhen, China.

[@simonhibbs887]

Hi, I've been taking part in comments here for well over year and it doesn't seem that Dr. Kuhn participates. Very rarely there are fairly bland 'thank you' type replies from the channel youtube account but that's all. The TV program these clips are taken from is published by the PBS channel in the United States, and I'm sure they run this YT channel as well so I'm afraid IMHO it's unlikely Dr. Kuhn even reads these comments personally. Having said that there are those of us that do participate in commenting here that are interested in each other's ideas and I'd love to hear what you think. It is the internet though, so you do have to be willing to ignore some commenters that can be quite rude. Anyway, welcome to the CTT channel comments section.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"so I'm afraid IMHO it's unlikely Dr. Kuhn even reads these comments personally."* ... Yah, that's a shame too because many unique and diverse ideas have shown up in these comment threads. It's practically impossible for anyone in the lowly comment section to reach the ones sitting at the high table at CTT.

[@browngreen933]

Please give us the short version here. We're all searching. Thanks from the USA.

[@Resmith18SR]

So instead of pontificating why didn't you just explain it to everyone on here? Are you trying to sell us Timeshare?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what squares the quantum wave function for probabilities of particle location? might squaring of time reduce energy to near the speed of light / causation increase the probability of particle location?

[@longcastle4863]

I would like to understand how it is we cannot know if the universe had a start or always was. And if tempted to say, “always was”, why or how is it that we, using our human logic, are we incapable of understanding how that could be possible? That something can exist without ever beginning to exist? What is and/or where is the logic that allows us to understand this apparent conundrum?

[@dr_shrinker]

Good question.

[@jimliu2560]

Because we exist now… the universe always existed and will always exist…..(but in a different phase)… We cannot find out “empirically” aka scientifically answer your question because the universe goes through “phase- changes”…. In a phase change; everything from the previous universe gets erased….

[@blijebij]

We can understand it, but at the moment we think to lineair and conditioned.

[@longcastle4863]

@@blijebij I thought you were going to say, we can understand it, but the moment we do we implode into a black hole

[@longcastle4863]

@SamoaVsEverybody814 I agree infinity seems more plausible, but also far outside of anything resembling two plus two equal four

[@MasterKoala777]

Another question is, where did the laws of physics come from? Even if all matter, energy, space and time disappear, the laws are still there to govern anything that comes into existence.

[@simonhibbs887]

I get what you're saying and don't mean to be pedantic, but I've never liked that way of looking at it. I don't think the 'laws' are controlling external influences separate from the reality in that way. The laws as we express them are simply descriptive of what we observe, and they're very precise consistent mathematical descriptions with predictive power. However I don't think electrons behave the way they do because there's a law and they are obeying it, like drivers following the traffic code. I suspect, and of course this is just a way of thinking about it, that the behaviour is inherent to the system. Quantum fields behave the way they do because it is intrinsic to their nature to do so. Does that make sense?

[@jimliu2560]

Laws of physics are just descriptions….. Everything that exists can be described… There’s No mystery….

[@MasterKoala777]

@@simonhibbs887 yes of course the particles don't behave because if some mathematical equation written on a board. The question stands. Why do they behave the way they do? Why is the speed of light such, and the fine structure constant, and so on? Potato potato.

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

I asked these ultimate questions but never found answers. A god died and dead god rose from death isn't it mockery to human intellect and deception told to mankind? A god needed human blood and manslaughter to offer mercy, forgiveness' and salvation, isn't make a god needy, dependent and powerless being? Anyone can answers these questions for me.

[@blijebij]

If I understand you correctly, you perceive a logical contradiction within a religious belief system. You are right. This would imply that humans have control over God, influencing His decision to grant forgiveness. It also suggests that God's love is conditional, not extending forgiveness automatically. Even parents can forgive their children's actions in their hearts, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences. In my opinion, this does indeed represent a contradiction and appears to be a man-made construct. I strongly suspect (and some may dislike me for saying this) that these ideas were written for the purpose of controlling the masses through fear. I assume however that you solved this for your self a long, long time ago allready.

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

@@blijebij c1) _"This would imply that humans have control over God, influencing His decision to grant forgiveness. "_ You are right at your line c1, there are 4200 'hism' faiths out there on Earth command mankind to do, what Christianity does, that is deviating humanity from the path of God into man's constructed path to finding alleged 'salvation'.

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

@@blijebij _" It also suggests that God's love is conditional, not extending forgiveness automatically. Even parents can forgive their children's actions in their hearts, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences. "_ Forgiving those who sincerely repent is God's nature and it will NOT violate God's attribute should a man turn to God in seeking forgiveness for sins that he or she committed. The most logical faith that do not contradict with God's attribute is the Islam.

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

@@blijebij _"I assume however that you solved this for your self a long, long time ago allready. "_ Indeed I did thank God. God has given us intellect which was not given to any other creations, I used intellect to find God and I found in Islam.

[@blijebij]

@@LogicStandsBeforeGod The problem is however, if I look at all the judgement, intolerance and lack of love at the world from all followers of religion. Followers that often go sit on the chair of god by killing or attacking and judging others, faith and religion has not freed mankind. Faith is only as good as the person that carries it out. That lives it in the world.

[@enockmarere3113]

I just had a weird thought. Does the truth of reality relate or matter to a general mortal, say inspite of academic but in general meaning of life? I find it interesting that scientists will point to theory of everything/singularity where's other people think differently, who to take serious I don't know. as of worlds splitting I think that's a total nonsense and we all are trying to come up with ways to Justify it, Like you mean my worlds started splitting before or after I was born?

[@shephusted2714]

of course we would like to know all kinds of things but the pace of change now is fast enough all we really need to do is relax and wait for the answers - there is plenty of room at the bottom

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Heavily contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics: 1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are the exact same character. 2. 0 is not-necessary and 1 is necessary (Newton calculus). 3. 0D is not-necessary and 1D is necessary (Newton physics). Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics: 1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are polar opposite characters. 2. 0 is necessary and 1 is not-necessary (Leibniz calculus). 3. 0D is necessary and 1D is not-necessary (Leibniz physics).

[@simonhibbs887]

>"0 is not-necessary and 1 is necessary (Newton calculus)." Can you reference where you got this, and your other statements about Newton and Leibniz from, because I'm not familiar with any it. Where did Newton and Leibniz say this? Even if it is from them, it looks like statements from some form of propositional logic, not calculus or physics.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@@simonhibbs887 The essence of Materialism and Empiricism is that 0 is not-necessary and 1 is necessary. In counting numbers 0 is the subject where counting numbers (1, 2, 3 etc) are the objects. If the subject is not-necessary...who's doing the counting?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@ready1fire1aim1 You just said 0 is not necessary and is the subject, then implied that the subject is necessary? Anyway I'm not really asking about that, I'd like to know how you get any of this from Newton or Leibniz.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"2. 0 is not-necessary and 1 is necessary (Newton calculus)."* ... 0 is absolutely necessary! Zero offers conceivability to what would otherwise remain inconceivable (Nonexistence). Without "0", then "1" would not be conceivable, either. *"0D is not-necessary and 1D is necessary (Newton physics)."* ... 0-Dimensional elements are known as "mathematical points" and also what constitutes Big Bang's singularity. ... Without a _point,_ existence is _pointless!_

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@@simonhibbs887 Materialism and Empiricism say that 0 is not-necessary and that's a contradiction.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(2:05) *JG: **_"You can imagine there just being nothing, so we don't have nothing and so why is that?"_* ... First off, it's impossible to imagine nothing, and second, most of Gott's questions are secondary to the key questions: *"Why does everything exist?"* and *"Why is there pain and suffering?"* and *"Why do I personally exist?"* I am amused by those who despise "Why?" questions and claim that these are merely "human questions" even though ALL questions we ask are human questions. In fact, "Why (fill in the blank)?" is logically the very first question to be asked at the onset of any investigation or inquiry. All subsequent questions work in support of the first. The real reason most people don't like "Why?" questions is because they speak to *purpose* and *intent* ... and we certainly can't allow any of that to be attached to our existence, right?

[@simonhibbs887]

I don’t see it that way at all. The history of science shows us that ‘why’ questions are absolutely fine, that we often can answer them, and in fact that’s what science is all about. Why is water wet? Why does burning hydrogen in an oxygen atmosphere produce water vapour? Why do species on Earth have such similar basic biochemistry but such huge physical diversity? All explainable, and none requiring the presupposition of purpose or intent. As we work our way down the causal chain though, eventually we reach the limits of what is observable. Beyond that, science can’t give us any further answers because we run out of evidence to base them on. However Empiricism explicitly recognises that there are limits to what science, or any framework based on observation, can show. What we cannot observe, we cannot explain. That’s baked into the system. So the question at the metaphysical level is that given science has huge explanatory power. Given its effectiveness at explaining phenomena from fundamental particles up to the scale of the observable universe. Given that none of that shows any evidence of purpose or intent in the emergence of any of these phenomena, why would we assume purpose or intent behind the phenomenon of the universe itself?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"Given that none of that shows any evidence of purpose or intent in the emergence of any of these phenomena, why would we assume purpose or intent behind the phenomenon of the universe itself?"* ... First off, that was an excellently worded reply. Secondly, "purpose and intent" are demonstrated by +8 billion humans every day, so there is no question regarding the existence of purpose and intent. "Purpose and Intent" have to come from somewhere, but if the universe is void, as you say, of purpose and intent, then where did they come from? *(1)* If they come from "Evolution," then Nature consists of "purpose and intent" (which includes the cosmos by default). *(2)* If it doesn't come from "Evolution" or nature, then "purpose and intent" are observable supernatural phenomena. ... Which is it? *Example:* Four billion years ago there would have been no indication of cosmic matter ever taking on the attributes of sentient life, let alone consciousness. But here we all are living on a planet chock full of "sentient matter." We have no problem claiming that "life" emerged from inanimate matter and that it's an integral property of the universe. So, why do we suddenly choose to take the properties of life (purpose and intent) and not include them in with the attributes of the universe? Lastly, claiming "purpose and Intent" can somehow emerge in a universe that's totally void of purpose and intent is the same logical boondoggle a trying to get something from nothing.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >"(1) If they come from "Evolution," then Nature consists of "purpose and intent" (which includes the cosmos by default)." Good question. We observe intentional behaviour emerging from random changes. Intentionality emerges from unintentional processes, not the other way around. This is not even a theory anymore, we observe it happening, we use the principle in engineering. It's as verified as any explanatory framework in science. >"So, why do we suddenly choose to take the properties of life (purpose and intent) and not include them in with the attributes of the universe?" Because we observe them to the emergent contingent phenomena that have random causes, and that they are not fundamental. >"Lastly, claiming "purpose and Intent" can somehow emerge in a universe that's totally void of purpose and intent is the same logical boondoggle a trying to get something from nothing." You can complain about it being illogical all day, but we observe it happening. This is a similar issue to your objection to quantum mechanics, we observe these effects occurring. On getting something from nothing, we don't get it from nothing. We get it from random variation. Random change isn't nothing, but it's not intentionality.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@SamoaVsEverybody814 *"Why is fine, until that is, an intent or purpose regarding the potential answer becomes exhaustively unlikely."* ... There is no conclusive way to determine if an answer to a "why" question is "exhaustively unlikely" nor is there a time limit nor a level of difficulty that negates the existence of an answer. *"That's when Why becomes meaningless"* ... (see above) *"Sometimes Why is meaningless, when a search for a meaning where there is none, endlessly results in fruitlessness"* ... Anyone who surmises that there is no meaning or purpose in regard to a "why" question has already presupposed an answer based on the amount of *time involved* and the *level of difficulty* attached to the question. Neither has anything to do with actually answering the question. "Why" questions don't care that they may appear difficult or take a long time to answer. "Why" questions remain until an *incontrovertible answer* is offered.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@SamoaVsEverybody814 *"Sure, but if you continously reduce that purpose or intent back far enough, you'll continuously come to a state of meaninglessness."* ... Unsupported conclusion. *"With no ULTIMATE purpose or intent, the little purposes & intents within it, have no meaning aside from the meaningless meaning we assign it."* ... That's just your personal take on "Existence," but you have no smoking gun evidence that supports your conclusion. If you did, then this KZbin channel wouldn't exist.

[@YA-xo7ru]

Newstom said this and Maxewell said that and may be 1000 years later we will be in the middle. So by that time we all gone, I rather believe that Gods existence and I don’t want take the chance that he will be there when I am dead. I dont want to gamble and regret when there will be no return.

[@jimliu2560]

Again, you are confusing Possibility with Probability…..

[@YA-xo7ru]

You are 100% right, I rather to be whatever saves from hellfire where probability and possibility both will not have any value. Human brain is taking us backwards where we cannot separate right front wrong. I will die believing God rather following science.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what causes the rotation of stars in galaxies?

[@simonhibbs887]

Any diffuse cloud of dust or gas in which the particles have random motion will have some small net angular momentum. As it collapses under its own gravity its diameter is smaller, while the angular momentum stays the same. This means the rate of rotation has to increase. It’s like when a spinning skater with her arms stretched out spins faster when they bring their arms in closer to their body. The clouds of dust and gas that formed stars were huge, possibly several light years across, so when they collapse into a star, very small initial net angular momentum for the cloud as a whole results in rapid spin for the resulting star. The same applies to galaxies on a much bigger scale.

[@jjharvathh]

Why the focus on physical laws? Seems like a strange thing to focus on. Aren't there more important ultimate questions we need to know? How can we live in peace with each other? How can we appreciate our life and each other more? How do we find peace in our hearts? Even if we could answer every question about the physical universe, we are left with nothing much if we have made no progress toward answering the questions I have listed here.

[@chuck_howard]

The nice thing about humans is, we can do multiple things, and not just focus on one. :) There are many philosophers, and world leaders working on your concerns.

[@jjharvathh]

Damn, I really am impressed with your comments - you have nailed it again !!!

[@jimliu2560]

1. We can Never live in peace because….Reality is “Scarcity of Resources”….There simply is Not enough for all, therefore we must complete or perish …. 2. Appreciation of us and others is a subjective feeling and may not be desired at all. 3. One finds peace in one’s heart by: 1, having enough money/security/ companionship/ a job that you like… Your Simple-minded questions are Answered…!

[@jjharvathh]

@@jimliu2560 Sorry, but I must question your simple-minded answers. Those may seem like answers for you, but I don't think so, not really.

[@chuck_howard]

@@halcyon2864 I bucked the trend of the majority middle class "working hard just to stay poor" and invested every extra penny I had in stocks. I retired at 50 and haven't worked a job since. Sometimes the majority is just doing the same as everyone else and not really getting ahead. Thank you for the nice reply halcyon. :)

[@marcosbatista1029]

The ultimate question is what make possible questions , consciousness, and ironic thing is , mind is in the same time the reason of questions and the ultimate answer in the same time . Cheque mate . Everything is mind .

[@Resmith18SR]

Crazy reasoning.

[@grijzekijker]

From your reaction I'd say you're out of your mind, but that's not possible? 😮

[@jjharvathh]

Strange that hard problem of consciousness is not considered an ultimate question by these guys...really strange.

[@jimliu2560]

Consciouness is just brain complexity…. No mystery there…

[@jjharvathh]

@@jimliu2560 ok Jim. hahahahaha

[@jimliu2560]

@@jjharvathh You disagree only because you don’t understand…

[@mdwoods100]

No one understands from what I have been able to gather@@jimliu2560

[@jjharvathh]

@SamoaVsEverybody814 Thanks for sharing that. Only about your point 3 - nothing is meaningless. Good job speculating !

[@ModernAdventures-w1u]

If we could translate those books and scribes that were discovered a few years back in Tibet I think we might have a more profound understanding of things.

[@Andrew-jj6er]

What books?

[@ModernAdventures-w1u]

@@Andrew-jj6er Well, that's an odd question, lol. Just youtube the discovery of the Tibet library.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

The Vatican, so I hear, have many secret books, the ones they stole from alexandrea and then burnt the libraries down.

[@HyzersGR]

What makes you think the answer to these questions are in those books?

[@mandelbot5318]

@@ModernAdventures-w1uI don’t see how someone asking “What books?” is an odd question, but I have to say I’m more interested in these “scribes” you want to see translated. 🤨

[@CamofCT]

Don’t you know? Robert is a career scientist, a forever-skeptic. To discover Truth and feel that rush of illumination, he would give up his day job, play more in his Garden, embrace the Glory that is The Truth and end the conundrum he is in. (See Theory of Everything or The Principle of Least Action: δS=0) Just saying …

[@Resmith18SR]

Why does everything that comes into existence also go out of existence? Why is everything impermanent, including my life?

[@paulsymanski489]

Whwn you are very old you will learn why life is impermanent and a relief that it is. Hope forr a life full of love.

[@Resmith18SR]

@@paulsymanski489 I am old and I still don't understand why, but Nature and reality don't require my understanding.

[@browngreen933]

I'd like to know if technological intelligence like ours has positive or negative long-term species survival value. My hunch it's negative. 😢

[@grijzekijker]

In the physical realm I place high hopes in the can-do-guy Elon Musk to propel us to extraterrestrial green pastures.

[@browngreen933]

@@grijzekijker Except that Mars isn't green and there isn't any viable pasture land there.

[@simonhibbs887]

It's possible, after all evolution is dumb, it doesn't know or care about long term species survival. Just look at the evolutionary history of very large land and sea creatures. They all go extinct eventually. Up to a point being large has it's advantages, but as soon as there is a challenging environmental change it's the largest animals, with the smallest populations and the biggest dependencies on the food chain underneath them that go extinct first. Then when the environment stabilises another species scales up to take their place. It may be that technological civilisation overall is an evolutionary dead end, and in fact that's a major concern in considerations of the Fermi Paradox.

[@jimliu2560]

@@grijzekijker Because of “Molecular Chirality”… even if a green- life- filled planet was found….it would be completely toxic to us… This is the most critical aspect that Sci-fi movies neglect… Therefore the search for habitable planets is futile. and Elon a joke… Humans can Not survive on a planet without life. (Except of earth) Humans can Not survive on a planet with life…!

[@r2c3]

the top questions yet to be answered are the source of mind/consciousness/life, its purpose and order in our Universe... does it all stem from one or many interdependent variables 🤔

[@Resmith18SR]

Both and.

[@jimliu2560]

Consciousness is just an emergent property of more complex brains… Life is just more and more complex , self- replicating molecules… There is No purpose to the universe… The order of the universe is just the “phase-changes” that the universe goes through… Mystery Solved…!

[@megaplay]

All the answers you seek exist but are you brave enough to find them? 👁 learn to love and help all humans or stay out the way of the machines.

[@PetraKann]

All reality? We wouldn’t want to leave anything out now would we? That would be unreal wouldn’t it?

[@tedgrant2]

My rose bushes have got thorns. How could anybody believe that is the product of chance ?

[@MHAA92188]

But no mention of AI? In my mind the ultimate question for us humans is when will AI systems become more intelligent and more capable than humans. When that happens it may no longer matter what humans think or want. -D

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

J. Richard Gott. A rather humorous man, a man who built a glass model showing how a universe can create itself. What a fun life he's had!

[@kallianpublico7517]

Is an electron a particle?

[@monke8478]

Yes

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@monke8478 Then HOW do we alter its "frequency"?

[@monke8478]

@@kallianpublico7517 Hahahaha that made me laugh

[@gewamser]

We are mortal beings living in a material world. The universe plays for keeps! Deal with it. 🤔

[@michaelbartlett6864]

Richard, I have no idea why you are confused and unsure about the answers to all these questions, as ALL the answers are available to you right now! Just ask me the questions and I'll give you the answers, one by one. STOP interviewing people - You have all the information you need! Put it together.

[@michaelbartlett6864]

@@halcyon2864 Yes there is, but not in the biblical sense. YOU determine your own purpose with your free will. You are the captain of your ship of destiny. You choose the directions, speed and ports. The goal is to learn and try to understand all that you can and teach others, especially your own family members, while you are still here. Learn, laugh and don't take life too seriously, because none of us are getting out of it alive! There have never been any guarantees that life will be fair, so don't expect it, just play the hand you are dealt the best way you can. Do no harm if you can avoid it, and help if you can. Cultivate EMPATHY in yourself and in others. Don't fear the reaper!

[@jimliu2560]

@@michaelbartlett6864 Have you see old people “loose their bodily functions” and their dignity….helpless and hoping to die……doctors stuck in limbo: not allowed to kill you but can’t help you either… It is weeks/months of suffering before deaths that most of us will dread… ( dying by getting hit by a bus, is a much better way to die…so say every end-of-life nurse…

[@michaelbartlett6864]

@@halcyon2864 I am in my 70s now and, believe it or not, it is far easier to learn now than it used to be back in the day. Everything you need is free and at your fingertips on the internet, along with a lot of distractions that you don't need, but they are quite tempting and can be addictive. Try to remember, all things in moderation can be good for you and for your mental state recreationally. Things like alcohol, sex, drugs, music, social media and videos can expand your consciousness, but have the power to pull you down the rabbit hole if you let them, and once in, it can be very hard to extricate yourself. Stay on the path you set and limit the side trips.

[@michaelbartlett6864]

@@halcyon2864 You're welcome, I hope it helps you in some way. Good luck!

[@michaelbartlett6864]

@@halcyon2864 By the way, my advice to my kids, my grandkids and their kids, is to not engage seriously with ANY organized religion, as they were all created by men for the purpose of control of other men. As near as I can tell from studying them, they are all cults of one type or another. I think Voltaire was right when he said that man will never be truly free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest! They all want to control you.

[@catherinemira75]

What would we learn, gain and understand if we found intelligent life elsewhere? These questions are rarely explored... It would trigger new concepts of God imo.

[@jimliu2560]

We will gain almost nothing if we find life elsewhere… We already know almost everything about life… Our belief in god will not change because belief in god is Subjective…

[@robertschriek1353]

If were living in a simulation, why this weird one :-)

[@Soli_Deo_Gloria_.]

Why something rather than nothing ? Because of an uncaused, non contingent, first cause of all contingency... God

[@UriyahRecords]

The biggest question, and Alan Watts came to this conclusion, is "Is it Serious?".

[@Resmith18SR]

Asked and answered. Watts was great and that's why he was an alcoholic.

[@tobyc8668]

He is biased. Already assuming a multi-verse theory in his ultimate questions of all reality as factual.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Remember: God is an appellation, like Doctor.. God isn't an explanation, God is the Truth. The essence of all. The substratum of nature( physics). The Source of birth, life, death i.e., Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, the Hindu triad. To Know God, is to Know Thyself. To Know Thyself, is to know what you're not. You can offer a man gold, and because their boyfriends don't have it, they choose not to take it. Here is gold Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara. Plotinus Enneads, select works translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod. Plato complete works. Proclus books. Iamblichus books. Syrianus books. Bhagavad Gita Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan. Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda. Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda. Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U. Meister Eckhart complete works. The Unknown God, by D. Carabine. Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells. Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist. Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism. Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics. Coomaraswamy books. The presocratic Philosopher's - book. Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence. Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book. The Universal One, by Walter Russel. The gods of field theory: Henri Poincare Tesla Steinmetz Maxwell Heaviside Dollard

[@tomjackson7755]

Wrong as usual. God is a fictional character that you have given magical abilities to.

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Hahahahaha

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

One of the many ultimate questions is - *"How can anyone possibly believe that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance?"*

[@WeirdlyRemote]

Same question I always ask. If everything happened by chance from a single cell of a single organism and the product is human beings through millennia of evolution then I ask when did that single organism gain consciousness and what made it gain consciousness, why did it choose to replicate into male and female and choose to have sex when there are simpler ways to multiply? Why choose to develop the digestive system and subjugate it's self to hunger. What was the logic for it to develop two eyes and what was the conscious decision that made all those cells evolve.

[@Resmith18SR]

Because order and the laws of Nature depend on random chance at least a certain degree of it.

[@WeirdlyRemote]

@@Resmith18SR where did you get that from? Christopher Hitchens?

[@Resmith18SR]

@@WeirdlyRemote Yes, obviously I'm channeling Christopher Hitchens. And I was wrong, there is a Heaven. 😂

[@jeremymanson1781]

​@@WeirdlyRemote much of that (not all) is answered in great detail by random mutations together with natural selection.

[@leeofallon9258]

What resides in the realm of what is referred to as reality is for the Glory of God ...

[@Resmith18SR]

God only knows and also said You wouldn't want to know. 😂

[@ceneezer]

yawn... the reason why there is something is because there cannot be nothing, when there is only one thing it is tri-omni and makes more

[@subodhhabbu4367]

Why does science interfere with philosophy and spirituality, it should actually stick to its business oof producing technolgy.

[@simonhibbs887]

Science is the empirical study of observational evidence. It only impinges on philosophy and spirituality when those make objectively falsifiable claims about conditions in the world.

[@joechip4822]

What always strikes me as strange is, that even the smartest people in physics obviously don't realize, that Kurt Gödel already answered the question whether a 'theory of everything' even makes sense in principle. Surprise: the answered was... No!

[@blijebij]

Many ppl have answers to questions, but not all answers are universal true. Kurt Gödel would be right if the foundation of existense/reality would be mathematical. However mathematics stand on a deeper foundation then mathematics. That limits Kurt Gödel's perspective and truth, its partly true not absolute true. Find the deeper foundation where mathematics stand up on and we might have an interesting talk.

[@joechip4822]

@@blijebij Aren't most mathematicians and many physicists already convinced that the reality is purely mathematical? Anyway... Your request comes down to a vicious circle since looking for what lies underneath mathematics very likely ends up on the same level as a t.o.e itself.

[@simonhibbs887]

I don’t think Gödel’s second theorem is applicable in that way. Ultimately all a theory in physics has to do is explain observations, if it does that then it’s doing its job. If it reconciles relativity with QM, then we’re cool.

[@joechip4822]

@@simonhibbs887 Physicists recognising that their business is merely explaining and predicting natural observations? And not trying to take the big philosophical questions out of the hands of philosophers - or declare those questions as obsolete? I would really like that, but it doesn't happen in my world.

[@blijebij]

@@simonhibbs887 I agree, it is nice to see you here :)

[@mrtienphysics666]

Does God exist?

[@ManiBalajiC]

Having a god still doesn't answer much apart from a middle man who adds more complexity

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@ManiBalajiC *"Having a god still doesn't answer much apart from a middle man who adds more complexity"* ... I am not a theist, but an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent entity" definitely answers all questions. An "all-powerful, all-knowing, ubiquitous being" cannot be a "middle-man" to anything (by definition).

[@Resmith18SR]

Yes, the God of Einstein and Spinoza exists and your very existence originated from it.

[@Carcaroff87]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC no it doesn't...why is there a God? Why is it the case, what was God doing before he created the Universe? If the creation is the first action, what preceded that?

[@michelangelope830]

It shatters my heart to pieces to see the wars and people crying when to end the war I say unambiguously the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. It is important that you understand I am not asking you to agree with me and everyone can be right or wrong, which doesn't mean I can not be right and humanity wrong. It is important that you understand you have nothing to lose. Are you ukrainian or palestinian or a mother or father of beautiful, innocent and vulnerable children? Would you share this loving poem to overcome the most severe and devastating censorship in history? It is important that you understand I am talking about knowledge that should not be censored in the first place because knowledge is good. I hope I am understood.

[@michelangelope830]

I will explain why reality is eternal. Something exists now therefore something has existed always because from nothing can not be created something. Nothing is absence of existence. I know 100% sure reality is eternal. If the universe is not eternal then what created the universe is eternal and God exists. The universe can not be eternal because logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes and effects therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that caused the universe must exist. Because God exists could you please consider the possibility that you are wrong? Could God be the perfect living metaphysical entity all is part of, with perfect justice with perfect knowledge with perfect hell and heaven because everything we do we do it to Ourself with perfect karma being Time and Space?. God is not a horror tale to scare and control kids, but rather something infinitely more serious. Humanity destroy God's Creation ignorant of the eternal consequences believing they are going to get away with doing wrong. Would you consider the possibility that your life could be your perfect eternal hell and heaven? God is the perfect mind that experience everything created from self. The universe has an ultimate purpose, which make reality even more amazing. Would you let your innocent and vulnerable children read this forbidden poetry?. My poetry is blasphemous. Listen, I just want peace and justice. I am tired, did you notice my straining effort to try to convince? The war must stop. The hemorrhage must stop. The wound would be dealt with later. The priority is to stop the hemorrhage. Time is running out and lives are lost while I am talking.

[@subodhhabbu4367]

Language cannot ask the ultimate questions, as there is no ultimate reality. Reality is experienced by you and you are reality. Don't ask questions that will throw you back into the ocean of ignorance, from where you will be prompted to ask questions on reality. Which you are.

[@subodhhabbu4367]

TAT TVAM ASI

[@tomjackson7755]

@@halcyon2864 Wow that last one was extreme nonsensical gibberish by your standards. Do you always get fooled by flowery metaphors that are meaningless woo woo at their core?

[@simonhibbs887]

This line of reasoning depends on the assumption of an infinite temporal dimension extending indefinitely into the past, and presumably the future. That's not a given though. We know from relativity that both space and time can have locally positive curvature, and such curvature could form various possible non linear global topologies. Mathematical treatments of the boundary conditions in the very early phases of expansion of the universe are called instantons. These are where my mathematical ability comes up against a bit of a brick wall, but there's a great article on the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology site, if you search for "The Origins of the Universe: Quantum Origins".

[@tomjackson7755]

@@halcyon2864 Oh look some more meaningless woo woo. How old does the fictional concept of spiritual have to be before it reaches maturity? Do you realize that all that actually means is that you will consider me beneath you until I fall for the same scam as you did?

[@flolou8496]

Here is a good question, forgive the sarcasm in tone, but if mankind is born with a corrupt sin nature, how might this sin nature compromise his intellectual thinking capability,

[@simonhibbs887]

Not a theist, but I do find the bible fascinating. In the biblical story Adam and Even have the capacity of rational thinking and free thought before they eat the fruit, otherwise they would not have the capacity to choose to do so. The fruit granted knowledge of good and evil, and it is this knowledge that corrupted them and therefore us. However of course decisions are made based on information, so somehow in the biblical account it seems that some corrupting information got embedded in humans. Historically the bible stories have always been interpreted allegorically though, so literal reading can only take us so far. That's been the dominant theological approach to biblical interpretation going back to the Roman era, but nowadays particularly in America biblical literalism has somehow taken over. So I suppose it depends on whether we take an allegorical or literalist interpretive approach to the text.

[@flolou8496]

Nice response, one small piece of info I'de like to add however is that, one way of interpreting the fall account , is not only focus on the tree of knowledge, but also the intent behind the act, As I've heard it expressed, it's the intent of our hearts like Adam and Eve had to want knowledge of good and evil on our own terms, that caused the downfall, The sin committed was the actual willful intention of desiring divine knowledge without and outside of God's directly revealed direction and guidance. Another way of looking at the ''fall account'' is to ask the question did Adam and Eve have any full understanding of good vs evil in the first place? The bible isn' 't clear on that question I think a google search and getting opinions on that question is important. It's my hunch that both Adam and Eve has no real in depth understanding of good and evil , prior to them eating of the forbidden fruit, it's interesting how the bible never suggest that Adam or Eve fundamentally changed in there new so called ''new god status'' for eating of the tree either, which to me means we are to focus on the disobedience of the act itself. What we know for certain is, If mankind did inherit supernatural knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve's disobedience as a result, the net effect did not drive humanity clearly back to God in the end, which is the the larger point right? Knowledge of good and evil only changes people so much. Ideally but unrealistically God would have preferred they be kept in such a perfect state of ignorant bliss and only be obedient in a blind robotic way. But we know in just human terms we can't expect children to remain in blind obedience to there creators either, ie biological mom and dad, and there in lies the greater lesson for humanity and ties in to the point I was badly making before. We like Adam and Eve, must have contrast and duality in order to actually experience God correctly in the first place, God knew of course the fall of mankind's perfect nature was inevitable, (Christianity was already planned before Adam & Eve were even created, and our sin nature was always going to part of our earthly creation, ) but that didn't stop God from creating mankind anymore than creating the millions or billions of angels prior to the heavens and the earth, even though the greatest of angels ie Lucifer blew it and committed the first evil act ever committed (pre-earth) We are all here to experience the forbidden and undesirable effects of a sin nature, and than somewhere in our humility, look back to God and say, ok, your perfect nature and perfect ways really are better, and I humbly submit my identity to your identity Lord, but without first tasting and eating of the fruit of good and evil in your own life, you won't be ready to submit and appreciate a sinless all powerful all knowing God.

[@simonhibbs887]

​@@flolou8496 Interesting ideas, thanks. There is a change in Adam and Eve after eating the fruit, they cover themselves because they became aware of their nakedness. It's not clear how significant that is, but they're clearly different. Also note that per the text god lies to them, or at least what he tells them seems wilfully deceptive. He doesn't tell them they shouldn't eat it because of any other effect it will have, only that they will die if they eat it. So god presents this as for their own good to protect them from death, when in fact it as to keep them from the knowledge of good and evil. This is clear when he punishes them, after all why would he punish them if the result of eating the fruit will be death? Surely that would be punishment enough? The idea that the fall was inevitable is also interesting to think about. Some interpretations of what the serpent tells Eve are that god has prophesied that they will eat it. In the KJV "God knows that in the day that thou eat thereof", and in some translations it's even more explicit than that. In which case she's persuaded that they are supposed to eat it, which they are. However we swing it, actually it's the serpent that's being straight. I think it's just a shame Adam and Even didn't go the whole way and eat from the tree of life as well. In for a penny, in for a pound!

[@genius1198]

Genius@genius 1198