John Leslie - What is Ultimate Reality?

[@Promatheos]

Chance or randomness are just words humans use to describe things far too complicated to predict. We say a dice roll is chance but if we knew all the physical inputs determining the roll’s outcome it would not be chance at all. This word has zero meaning in the context of cosmic origin. Ultimate reality having a beginning makes no sense at all. Perhaps this universe we humans exist in had a beginning, but the higher reality that gave rise to this universe must be eternal.

[@abduazirhi2678]

I love Leslie's explanation: Short and Simple.....Thanks for sharing !!

[@browngreen933]

Existence just is. Accept it. No beginning & no end. Eternally changing, yet unchanging at the same time.

[@matthewstokes1608]

Prove it

[@ormonde2007]

What's its purpose? Why has energy manifested itself into matter? Why is there energy?

[@browngreen933]

There is no "why" for primordial Existence. "Why" is a human conceit.

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@browngreen933 that’s right and there is matter and there is spirit (…things we all feel and know - things which have fuck all to do with mineral matter) - and to try to hide our heads in fear like girls and pretend there’s “only matter” and that we “come from nothing” by “sheer chance” and the magic appearance of DNA (by chance) is an even bigger conceit… And about as stupid a concept as any retard could come up with. We are being watched.

[@garychartrand7378]

@@ormonde2007 I could answer your questions BUT you would need a belief in a Higher Power (Source/God). Without that though, I wouldn't have a clue. By the way, I KNOW with absolute certainty that there is a God. I can explain that too. Bless you

[@wayneasiam65]

Nothing has ever popped into existence, using energy or not, without TIME being there to greet it. Time isn't a byproduct, but rather the Progenitor of all.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Coomarawamy's book time and eternity. Plotinus enneads on time or measure Buy them you will benefit

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Or can download them

[@MrSanford65]

I think nothingness and chance are similar and I believe you need something to create something, just like you need purpose to create anything . Chance cant create anything because chance only happens once, and doesn’t have inside of it a trigger to follow up on what it has done

[@nowhereman8374]

I love Mr. Leslie's explanation of why there is something instead of nothing - Because there is an infinite number of ways of being something and only one way for there is to be nothing. Also how that explanation flies directly in the face of and ordered universe, low entropy and the arrow of time.

[@deanodebo]

There’s no reason to believe that unless there exists some probability force a priori. That’s a matter of faith

[@brothermine2292]

The belief that there's only one way for the universe to be nothing seems wrong, because two universes of nothing could have different laws of physics. The only property that the different sets of laws need to have in common is Conservation of Nothingness.

[@deanodebo]

@@brothermine2292 Do you claim that Nothing + ALaws = Nothing + BLaws ??? a = b a = c -> b = c Hence the laws have to be the same

[@stanh24]

@@brothermine2292 why would a “universe of nothing” as you call it, need laws? Just asking..

[@brothermine2292]

@@deanodebo : No, I said "nothing" universes are different, not equal, if their laws of physics are different.

[@AntonioSanchez-yl9wj]

Robert, I have been following C2T for years. Great work!! I think the arguments I listen about reality have one big flaw.: imaginary projection. Observers (of reality) are mental constructs, imaginary points of view disengaged of real interaction. Without observers (us, aliens?) all left are just local connections among unconscious entities (events) if I were of the size of a cluster of galaxies or the size of a quark, how would I perceive reality? We talk about the cosmos imagining ourselves floating in the void, staring at the past and future… even when we are gone.

[@danielteran8067]

Reality/Truth is the manifest of nature's intelligence... with all its greatness and imperfections.

[@laleydelamor1327]

What do You mean by “nature’s Intelligence”? How can a nature be intelligent? And what do You mean by nature? Tnx

[@Azupiru]

Why say "nothingness is infinitely improbable" when you can take one more step and say "a conceivable thing's nothingness/nonexistence requires the impossibility of its existence" which then means "a conceivable thing's existence requires the possibility of its existence" (practically tautological)? This makes room for the argument that a possible thing exists necessarily because some causal chain of possibility can be identified that ensures its necessitated existence. So, the answer to why this universe exists is that it is possible and therefore necessitated. You exist because you are possible and therefore necessitated.

[@ryanadams4164]

There's something interesting about the question of chance in regards to existence; what are the chances of life being endless in its potential and possibility through the forces that are at play. Although I do feel that the question 'what are the chances of chance being behind the chance I have in typing this question?' does not apply, if we are considering the entirety of what is going on. I do enjoy this channel. A nice find indeed.

[@edwardrebecca9817]

God bless Olivia Renae Marks for the help, $32,000 biweekly pay!!!

[@bettymathew5233]

Wow😮😮I know Mrs Olivia R. Marks and I have also been trading with her, She's such an amazing woman with good skills keeps me happy all week knowing I earn 15thousand extra income trading with her.

[@edwardrebecca9817]

​@derrickdesmond7663 There is her line 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

[@edwardrebecca9817]

​@derrickdesmond7663 There is her line 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

[@blakeeddie3056]

​@claudiamassive669 Who is this Mrs Olivia Renae Marks!!?

[@addisonleah1349]

​ 😲I'd think I'm the only one trading with Mrs Olivia Renae Marks trading services and analysis?

[@nowhereman8374]

From the wisdom of the street, "It is what it is!" 🧐

[@diegoenriquepenanorambuena5930]

I am that i am 😌

[@singalongwrudy8690]

Before I watched this I was particles...now I'm waves..

[@kevinsayes]

I mean this as a serious comment, but the more I study and learn about cosmology (have been obsessed since I was a kid), the more it becomes obvious to me that the fractal nature of..everything..has to extend far, far beyond what we are capable of perceiving. The argument that we are a cell in a universe that is actually a brain appeals to me, even if that is just an oddly specific example of what I mean. I think it goes up and down, and I’ll just assume we’re somewhere near the middle.

[@matthewstokes1608]

Prove it

[@raisingawarenesslovepower9977]

There was always something in some form, because something cannot come from nothing. There is no waste because everything is tuned and connected to the system of something.

[@TheWayofFairness]

Make the 2 into 1. Nothing is everything. This is the foundation of Buddhism. I am what is in an empty cup.

[@psterud]

@@TheWayofFairness Exactly.

[@oskarngo9138]

I agree there is and always has been something (call it whatever you want)...but ...how can this thing stay in (constant ) low Entropy....? ... ie....how can it continuously and never ending; keep giving rise to something that has low Entropy...? ...unless you believe our universe is the only universe and has only one life...

[@radupopescu9977]

@@TheWayofFairness Nothing means nothing, means also no changes, no laws, no time, no space, no beyond time-space continuum, no self-awareness. Or Buddhism doesn't say that there is no self-awareness.

[@radupopescu9977]

@@oskarngo9138 Time and space are finite, even they are huge. Any huge number (say Graham number to the power of Graham number for Graham number, number of times (- power tower of it) it is still finite ). Only infinity never starts and never ends. Only infinity is unbounded, not even by logic, or if you want, metaphorically is bounded by infinite value logic, which... of course is unbounded.

[@thomassoliton1482]

You can speculate about these very abstract notions of chance and time and multiverses but there’s a very simple observation that I have never seen explained to my satisfaction. The double slit experiment shows that a photon can pass through a slit as a “wave” and as a particle with a constant energy value. This means that the energy can be spread out both prior to and after passing through the slit. This in turn means that the energy does not dissipate, unlike a classical wave, because there is no equivalent to “friction” for a photon. Indeed, a photon can presumably travel to the edge of the universe and back and still have the same energy, as long as it does not interact with e.g an electron. So: what holds this energy “together” as a cohesive entity? Presumably this phenomeon involves the covariant oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields - but is there any conceptual model for that?

[@brothermine2292]

At 7:45 Leslie cites an argument that appears wrong. I'll paraphrase it: "There's only one way the universe can be nothing, and many ways it can be something, so the probability that it would be nothing is tiny." I think there are many ways the universe could be nothing. Different universes of nothing could have different laws of physics. The only property that the different sets of laws would need to have in common is conservation of nothingness.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Is thinking really the ability to unthink? The ability to unthink may say more about reality than any thought about reality.

[@PlanetOverProfit42069]

thanks for the great content

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

The more we find out about life and the universe the more difficult it is to argue it is all the result of chance it seems to me.

[@tdiddle8950]

We experience reality and therefore, there must be a reality. Is it not so?

[@Yzjoshuwave]

If we regard pure chance as a possible explanation for why there is anything instead of nothing, the actual structure that was produced might have incredibly deep degrees of variance, but we’re not ascribing any structural mechanics to the metaphysical “choice” of existing - which is to say it’s purely random. But doesn’t that also suggest a maximum degree of improbability? There might be innumerable, plausible metaphysical systems of choice that select a set of defining features, but essentially all of them seem like they would reduce the degree of utter improbability for the actual structures that were chosen. That there is a degree of systemic order in the Universe as a structurally coherent being seems to make a totally random choice vanishingly improbable. What seems much more likely is that, given a degree of deep, rational “selection”, randomness is allowed to give a space for creative freedom: like a Goldilocks zone of order and randomness. If we regard the determination of *any* physical laws, for example, as necessary aspects of a structurally coherent Universe like the one we are in, that is already very deeply determinative - it cuts off innumerable threads of variance that might be randomly chosen from. I think I’m saying that a purely random, metaphysical “choice” would involve far greater depth of randomness than the randomness involved in entropy within this universe. The depth of randomness would be expanded to the limit of what is mathematically conceivable, which is absurd. But then if any choice about Cosmic form were made, we have to consider the structure of the “choosing” agent - God? A hypercomputational program in a transcendental Turing Machine? - which we have no obvious, rational access to, which is very unsatisfying. But I think we can say something coherent here. If God, or some sort of hyper-program, makes real choices about metaphysical structures, then rational mechanics are intrinsically implied. But maybe we don’t have to have an all-at-once leap from “pure nothingness” to a rationally coherent Universe in one jump. What if there’s an arc of trajectory from simple programs that choose simple metaphysical inputs to much deeper programs (or Gods?) that accumulate their design choices over many iterations? I’ve got a vague impression that this could be articulated more fully in a language that’s closer to the way Stephen Wolfram talks about “rulial space” or “rulial algebras”, or whatever he actually calls it. Some sort of lambda calculus of transcendental metaphysics. How do you go from absolute randomness to closed systems of computation and Order? In what sense do we need to attribute “Being” to modes of reality that precede “spacialization”, or any other foundational function that’s necessary for building a coherent universe? I’d really enjoy hearing Stephen Wolfram’s take on the questions you brought up in this video.

[@yifuxero5408]

The ultimate Reality is what Georg Cantor called "The Absolute Infinite". This not an ordinary number. People experience numbers (in themelves) only through ideas. The Absolute Infinite is the only number you can experience "in itself". It's the Substance of Spinoza, the One of Plotinus, "Being-In-Itself" of Aristotle, the Tao of the Taoists, the Sat-Chit-Ananda of the Hindus, the "Clear Light of the Void" of the Buddhists, the Ein Sof of the Jews, and so on. To experience "IT" directly, access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir". Listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Eventually you will experience IT as "The Self" of everybody and everything in the universe. Some reading this may be aware of this already, in a non-dual sense. Peace.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

What is the relationship between 'ultimate reality' and 'fundamental reality'? Are they the same or different?

[@tanned06]

Ultimate reality is a long-lasting ontological metaphysical topic. Its "existence" should be experiential not just merely an idealistic or religious entity for the faithful.

[@psterud]

So you're a fan of consciousness being the fundamental aspect of the universe.

[@tanned06]

@@psterud I think if we consider we as a product of it universe (nature) the fact that we now can use various scientific and mathematical tools to investigate and understand is indicative of how the nature becomes conscious of itself.

[@theophilus749]

There can be no laws without there being something for there to be laws _of_ - and even if there could, such laws themselves would be something. There can be no 'chance occurrence' (high or low) until chance itself exists, and it is hard to see how chance can exist all by itself. The concept of chance only makes sense within the context of something existing which is subject to chance. There can be no 'one or many ways of being nothing' because nothing is not a way of being to begin with - it is the total absence of ways of being.

[@blijebij]

Correct! There is a universal not avoidable or evadable difference between existense and nothingness (or nothing). An absolute nothing can not be. It is not logically consistent.

[@psterud]

Nothing is the absence of chance, which makes it an aspect of chance.

[@theophilus749]

@@psterud I'm sorry, I don't follow you. How can something which is not around have an aspect? If I did not, had never and would never exist, one could hardly debate my many (no doubt charming) aspects. Nothing would involve the absence of all aspects. In fact, you name it, and nothingness would mean its absence. Nothingness, in the absolute sense involved in the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is not merely a thinned out something. Even a black, empty void in which nothing ever happened would still be something, namely a black, empty void.

[@blijebij]

@@psterud A foundation of reality and existense is based on principles. Not a relative nothing, but an absolute nothing is in contractiction with that. It can not exist. There is an more profound explanation but iam not gone give that here.

[@psterud]

@@theophilus749 Nothingness still requires somethingness to make it nothing, just as nothingness is required to make something something. I'm afraid there's no way around it. All nothing is impossible. It has never occurred and never will. But nothing still exists, simultaneously with everything. This is what people get wrong when asking why there is something rather than nothing. The question itself is flawed. You and everything else are here and not here simultaneously. I know this is counter-intuitive metaphysical nonsense, but there's no way around it. It's all very similar to determinism in this respect.

[@steviejd5803]

Bertrand Russell said it best, of the Universe I should say it’s simply there, it’s a brute fact.

[@douglinze4177]

Robert… Get a piece of paper and a pencil, draw a square box and draw a line in the center going left fight and up and down… Now- put a 9 in the center… Next in the left corner put a 1, and below it 5 and 2, the center line put 3 at top and 6 at the bottom… on the right put 7 at top, 4 in middle and 8 at bottom… Here’s proof of INTELLIGENCE… Take 528 (5th solfège) and multiply 528 by 3:6:9 528x3= 1584 528x6= 3168 528x9= 4752 Now, Connect the lines… Make Two boxes… 1584 is with 3762 and 3168 is with 4752… This is 3:6:9 Quantum Implosion Vortex SPIRIT Science, going back to to Vedics… 100% The Heart of God/Life/Intelligence/The Kernel/Music/EVERYTHING…

[@AlexLifeson1985]

yeah, I'm sure he will go do that right away.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

What is the best evidence that suggests true chance or randomness exists / occurs anywhere in the known universe? I lean towards the idea that it cannot.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@ormonde2007]

Apparently.

[@browngreen933]

Picked by chance? That means chance must be something that exists. You can't escape Existence no matter how hard you try.

[@theotormon]

I had never thought of that. When you say that nothingness is more probable than somethingness, you are actually assuming a metaphysical situation that precedes nothingness, and is thus somethingness.

[@deanodebo]

Yes exactly. This a priori assumption is a value judgment. This preference is a type of faith

[@Savantjazzcollective]

what are the odds that... a universe popped into existence by chance and the chanceful processes that follow now have created entities that can observe those very chances that created the odds of the universe popping into existence in the first place? I don't like those odds personally....

[@remedythis-dreamworld]

There could be infinite variations of nothingness, it’s just we don’t understand how to interpret nothingness because to us, it’s indescribable. We are looking at it from the perspective of a real, physical world. Chance could be the base and has always been there..sort of the in-between….not nothing….but not physically something either…just there..in the background.

[@psterud]

I don't like the idea of an entity - an essence - having to either be something or nothing. The universe is everything and nothing at the same time, which is why it exists.

[@jayjames7055]

Great! The universe would appear to be the product of one ultimate power, because power is evident within the universe and ultimately if there were more than one power there would be universal conflict and chaos. The question then becomes what is the nature of the one power.

[@loleducation6335]

If there had been in them (the heavens and earth) any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder (Q. 21:22). The Qurʾān calls us to reflect, if there were multiple gods in the heavens in the earth, it would have been chaos and disarray. The order of the heavens and the earth is a sign of God’s Oneness. Likewise the heart, if it has in it any object of worship other than God it will be corrupted to an extent which can only be rectified by removing that object of worship from it and God alone must be its God and its object of worship which the person loves, longs for, and fears, puts his trust in, and turns to.

[@EffortlessQigong]

Maybe the universe is an infinite mind with infinite will

[@jacksonelmore6227]

Ultimate Reality IS: One, Whole, Infinite, Is Love Is truth Is beauty Is perfect Is the Self Is the All Exists/doesn’t exist paradox

[@Guido_XL]

We are still like goldfish, wondering which God takes care of refreshing our water. Our humble brains are not capable of grasping what the Cosmos might be and what it means to us. We tend to extrapolate the acquired human wisdom of the short time that mankind exists at all, and assume that science will be able to produce some answers. It may be much too early for any useful answers in that respect, considering the relative youth of mankind's consciousness. We can speculate, but we cannot deduct anything tangible about the Cosmos. Give it some time, like the aliens in "Contact" explained to Jodie Foster's character, and allow for baby-steps to acquire the wisdom that might lift the veil, once we are ready for it.

[@NameRequiredSoHere]

I find the idea of chance much more comforting than the idea that some ""intelligent" being "created" a world of so much suffering and evil.

[@cibriis1710]

Do you

[@radupopescu9977]

Did you ask yourself, why there is suffering in our Universe? Well, the answer is not pleasing: freedom (in various degrees, because we haven't absolute freedom). If somebody have freedom he/she can use my knife to cook a good meal, or God forbid that, to stab somebody. If somebody have more freedom, say he/she has access to a nuclear power, he/she can use it to produce more electricity, or to kill (God forbid that) millions. But freedom to do this or that, is an attribute living beings!

[@browngreen933]

Yep, chance is safer than a vengeful Jaweh.

[@SanatanSurya12]

Existence without object ? For a bad example There are plastic bottles, bucket, table,etc cannot exist without plastic but plastic can exist without them . Not similar

[@milannesic5718]

Some guy said: "I did not exist for 14 billion years before I was born, and I had zero problems with it". Something like that. BUT: HE and WE have not existed even before that. We have not existed even before space and time. We have not existed an infinite time into the past. If you try to imagine infinite time into the past, it will be extremely hard. Makes no sense. Even if time does not exist, it is still true

[@psterud]

"Extremely hard" for humans is not saying much. Infinity is all we have. It's arrogant to think that this current wave of the universe is ours and the only one.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

the contrast between infinitesimal zero points of time and God's eternity can come about through focus? God's eternity focuses on the whole, while infinitesimal zero points of time happens when focus is on the smallest part?

[@misterhill5598]

Ultimate reality is both beyond human comprehension and human expression.

[@warrengibson7898]

You just made a claim that you understand at least one thing about ultimate reality.

[@peacefindersimply5001]

@@warrengibson7898 it was a claim of the lack of understanding.

[@TheQuranExplainsItself]

@@peacefindersimply5001 that’s an understanding itself.

[@kipponi]

I think too. There is lock in brain or something censorship built-in. Maybe Matrix thing. Who knows!?

[@alexandros6433]

Why?

[@drybeanburrito]

It’s not that something is more likely than nothingness due to there being more kinds of something and only one nothing. It’s that there was, at the beginning, no cause to determine anything, and so existence took on every possible state and possibility. This is how God as the “uncaused cause” is able to exist while being uncaused and also why there is something rather than nothing.

[@psterud]

I think it's a cool idea to think of God as uncaused. It would certainly clear some immediate confusion. I think the cosmologists and philosophers have been coming to similar conclusions over time, that the universe (AKA "God") is uncaused (temporally infinite). I'm pretty sure the Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, among others, had a similar view, thousands of years before Christianity or Islam.

[@ASUUCWatertown]

It's like regular reality except you can't move while you're holding it. You have to throw it to someone else.

[@ailblentyn]

Surely we don't need to worry too much about conservation of energy in the creation of the universe? Conservation of energy applies to a situation where you have translational symmetry in time. And yet surely there is no such symmetry between "before" and after the origin of spacetime??

[@psterud]

There is surely symmetry involved in "before" and "after". They mirror each other. The universe didn't start with the big bang, it just continued.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

are there values represented in laws of physics?

[@jdc7923]

Why should we expect physicists to have anything very interesting to say about why ultimate reality is the way it is? Or why it exists at all? Physics is the most fundamental science, but it is empirical. It is based on applying the scientific method to an already existing, given system, and determining what it is like. There is no ultimate, original "why" for the scientific method. That's a question only for pure reason, for philosophy. Asking science this question is like asking science to explain why the principles of reason are true. It's not an empirical question.

[@FishHeadSalad]

I used to love this show. That is why I subbed. But when these kind of questions come up as to ultimate reality and other questions, nothing is ever answered. Might as well ask a philosopher how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle and get a smug non answer answer. Am I wrong? Did this guy ever answer the question as posed in the title of the video? What is ultimate reality?

[@missh1774]

The "chance" perspective must be in the story of myths... physics dressed up as methodology, it probably won't be allowed to be optimised as a true path of investigation though. However it would most likely have another mode of operation via variables from catalisms.

[@peweegangloku6428]

If something had to be something, then why dismiss God could be God?

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

What do you experience when you look into your mirror? Not when you look outwardly, but instead, deep inside. Is it truly the "self" you see? Or instead, societal expectations upon which you Reflect? And even if it is either, when your 12th hour arrives... what *then* shall you see, there, upon your final Reflection? Must give us pause. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled. But to earn final peace at the universe’s endless refrain, We must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@X11bl]

Information held in particles we can’t understand with entropy decreasing with evolution and at a certain point this particle giving birth to a new cycle with hight to low entropy again. Is it possible?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does anything need to be present for chance to happen? maybe time, or consciousness, or something else?

[@radupopescu9977]

Yes, but it is case by case. Say a douse: you must roll it in order to see the chances to get one or other face of it. Say an event: there must be some proper condition in order to happen. Note: beyond space time continuum, causality goes out the window (by the way, causality reside from the sufficient reason principle from classical logic, which doesn't apply when infinity notion plays a role!!!). Why? Because between any cause C and effect E, there must be a positive non zero time T. When T=0 (no space time!!!), then C=E.

[@durosempre4470]

It might be turtles all the way down (and up), but every nth turtle must be divine.

[@brothermine2292]

But is n a finite number?

[@durosempre4470]

@@brothermine2292 Maybe. But what would finite and infinite mean to a god?

[@brothermine2292]

@@durosempre4470 : The meanings of math terms would be the same to a god as to a mere mortal, I presume. Why do you suggest they would change?

[@durosempre4470]

@@brothermine2292 Depending on the level of divinity, the perception of time and space could be inconceivably different from that of a mortal. Even to humans the perception of time changes depending on how fast we're moving. The underlying abstract principles might be unchangeable, but the perception might depend almost entirely on the level of consciousness/intelligence doing the perceiving.

[@brothermine2292]

@@durosempre4470 : Perceptions (of time and space) might be very different, but you asked whether the meanings of the math terms "finite" and "infinite" would be different.

[@nyworker]

Imagine you're a newborn baby lying in the basinet surrounded by other newborns. You ask your fellow babies "how did we come into existence?"

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Imagine you're a newborn baby lying in the basinet surrounded by other newborns. You ask your fellow babies "how did we come into existence?""* ... Imagine "Existence" (the universe) experiencing that same conundrum at the T=0 point of Big Bang. People think that the universe holds all of the answers when it could just as well be a 13.8-billion-year-old question. It's logical to consider that we are sentient manifestations of that same existential confusion from the very beginning. Maybe we are the ones charged with explaining what "Existence" actually is?

[@nataliep6385]

i've been growing shrooms for almost 15 years now and something i love the most, is to eat a few and just lay down in the grass with my dogs and look up into the stars and let the mind flow... that, and also diving at the reefs..

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

What religion is that?

[@nataliep6385]

@@Kenneth-ts7bp I don't have a religion other than just being happy in life.

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

@@nataliep6385 Au contraire, You are having communion with demons. It is a Satanic religion minimum.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

if there is God's eternity and infinitesimal zero points of time, then a value of this would be to bridge the gap, or reconcile, the two opposites?

[@blijebij]

Ultimate reality means, you realize what the most universal essense is of all, within all. Then the remark " It cost nothing in energy" , how about information?

[@blijebij]

Yes , i realize that (pondering on that :) also iam thinking am making things not to complicate/complex here. Ill come back on that in a few hours or this evening.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

an infinitesimal zero point dimension of time (albeit an infinity of them), would be an enormous distance from God's eternity? the huge distance from infinitesimal zero points of time could contain evil in it's shortcoming to God's eternity?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

infinitesimal zero points of time would have chance (randomness) in them? God's eternity would have an absolute ordering? laws of nature might be a mixture of God's eternal order and time's random chance?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does a large amount of a few factors in nature say anything about ultimate reality?

[@projectmalus]

perhaps according to Graham Harman in that all objects transform in the same way...so appearances expanded around this simple way of transform

[@AG-yx4ip]

Do we agree on what is something or nothing ? What are those? What really is matter anyway? Can concepts describe reality? Isn’t reality prior to mind and conceptualization and therefore ultimately intangible? What is consciousness? Do we have a satisfying answer? Why does reality has to be a certain way? Why the universe isn’t just a giant lettuce? Why?! It doesn’t make sense!!!

[@joshkeeling82]

Ultimately, all we'll ever know is this: 1: The universe has always existed 2: The universe somehow popped into existence when existence never was That's it. What I'm saying is.. we can never know which one is correct. Sadly, that's all we'll ever know. We must still try to figure it out. Personally, I think the universe has always existed. To me, that makes much more sense than anything else. But man, I'd like to know for sure. Unfortunately, I will die, as will every human to exist, without knowing. What a bummer

[@simonhibbs887]

The zero energy universe hypothesis is certainly very interesting. Since Emmy Noether we have known that in any closed system Energy is the quantity that is conserved so a universe with net energy would be a problem for physics to explain. This doesn't prove that the universe arose from a random quantum fluctuation, but at least it shows that creation in such a way is at least consistent with known physics. That's a pretty compelling result. Another thing Mr Leslie mentions is also interesting. So far it seems that any changes to the known laws of physics eventually lead to logical inconsistencies. So it may well turn out that the laws of physics we have are the only possible consistent laws. So in that case the only way a universe could be is the way ours is, not in the specifics, but in the principles such as quantum mechanics, relativity, etc. If we are ever able to prove that, it would be a stunning civilisational achievement.

[@alfrednewman2234]

More into penultimate reality, myself

[@normjohnson4629]

Maybe there is only one universe and only one way that it can happen. No other chance of anything different.

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

Are we assuming that the laws of physics are a Platonic reality? That they would exist even if nothing else existed?

[@tonyatkinson2210]

I can’t see how . Matter and energy seem to interact in consistent ways . We describe these consistencies as “laws”. Absent matter and energy we’d have no patterns of consistency to describe . Hence no laws

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

​@@tonyatkinson2210 But why should they interact in consistent ways which are described by mathematical equations? I see no reason why this should be so and every reason why this should not be so. It's as if the laws would be there, existing in some mental dimension, even if there was no matter or energy.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@WilliamBrownGuitar why do you you see “every reason why they shouldn’t interest in consistent ways?” You have some knowledge that I don’t have about how new universes should and shouldn’t behave ?

[@richg2881]

Theoretical Physicists cannot answer these questions. Certainly, reductionism cannot explains these questions. Something from nothing cannot be explained. Sitting on one's hands cannot invite solutions.

[@tdiddle8950]

You have to be in the Club to truly understand the jargon.

[@tdiddle8950]

But the paradigm...that's truly open.

[@raimonsabater]

The whole discussion seems biaised by personal beliefs of both (due to religion?). Like the most plausible science not suiting them (they both agree on that), they try hard to put a doubt... without any proof. And they even agree it's very difficult to go against the current "overarching" scientific consensus.

[@10splitter]

Anthropic principle. But if inflation is infinite into the future, it may be that it's infinite into the past.

[@magicmjk09]

The final sentences Mr. Leslie said, was super important: "We both find the arguments about the universe being popped into existence by chance, dissatisfying. But it's very hard to show they are REALLY dissatisfying." That's the spirit of a true pursuer of reality.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Luck defines almost everything in existence. Even the fact that anyone has any kind of success with anything at all is entirely bound by chance. Almost nothing else matters at all. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could laws of physics develop from time?

[@galaxyzoom3403]

this my question??

[@Rohit-oz1or]

I am afraid this series will go on without anywhere getting Closer to Truth

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

I think a lot of (popular) bad ideas are eliminated, so there is some value there.

[@1SpudderR]

Which is Primary!? Consider Computer “0’s and 1’s”.... Which was First? And can 1 exist without 0....? Or is it can “0 exist without 1”!? Is Language Finite or Infinite? - - Can “? Exist without !”!? To me the challenge is realising that we are part of the Alphabet and have a long way to Go Discovering Where Human Brains are in the Consciousness Of Awareness! Just note the Human progress by observing how far War is progressing in resolving where to “Start or Stop”? 0 or 1..... Or is it 1 or 0? Note I say Human progress, not Integrating Primary progress.

[@allauddin732]

All doors to the ONE

[@anteodedi8937]

Define the ONE.

[@allauddin732]

@Anteo Dedi the one and only

[@anteodedi8937]

@@allauddin732 Define it 🤦‍♂️

[@allauddin732]

@@anteodedi8937 Look around you.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​@@anteodedi8937 that which gives of its essence so things may have being; the very substratum so things can come into to being; the very fountain of Life which all beings depend upon.

[@thedudegrowsfood284]

Nothing beats a nice juicy steak.

[@psterud]

How do you know someone is an omnivore? Don't worry, they'll tell you. :)

[@thedudegrowsfood284]

@@psterud Burnt Crust of Toast beats Nothing, then?

[@psterud]

@@thedudegrowsfood284 Yes?

[@richardsylvanus2717]

@@thedudegrowsfood284 Prime rib!

[@JungleJargon]

The ultimate reality is that no physical thing can ever make or direct itself. Energy the cause of every physical thing can’t make or order itself. Matter only has properties given to it. There has to be a non contingent Creator of every physical thing. Time itself is a physical fabrication. Reality isn’t limited by time or distance. The truth is that only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else ever can. There is no other absolute reality.

[@therick363]

_there has to be a non contingent creator of every physical thing_ Why? Also why are you saying physical? Not everything is physical _the truth is that only your creator can…._ If you say it’s the truth then you have to back it up.

[@deanodebo]

“…then you have to back it up” How do you back that claim there is an obligation up?

[@therick363]

@@deanodebolet me see if I got what you’re saying. You’re asking me how do I back up asking someone to back up what they say?

[@JungleJargon]

@@therick363 You never listen to the answer and you are already jumping to another topic. Physical things can’t account for themselves. If you disagree, that’s your positive claim that you never back up. It’s good that you’re learning that not everything is physical. There is an invisible reality that is also the cause of every physical thing. You fail to back up a physical cause for physical things.

[@therick363]

@@JungleJargon I do listen. And what I hear is you keep ignoring many things and make claims and think that’s all you have to do. _physical things can’t account for themselves. If you disagree that’s you’re positive claim that you never back up_ I see you’re pulling twisting and dodging right away. We understand that things become physical because atoms come together. Why do you ignore this? I never said everything is physical. _there is an invisible reality that is also the cause of every physical thing_ That’s so vague that we can dismiss it. You have to actually give parameters, details, descriptions and specifics…why don’t you? _you fail to back up a physical cause for physical things_ Back to dodging and shifting. And NO I haven’t. I’ve explained it to you before. It’s telling how you want to criticize me for never listening….when you keep ignoring that there are fundamental forces and laws and you act like they don’t exist. If you’re going yo say I don’t listen….you have to include yourself there

[@iscottke]

😀❣

[@user-sn6dz2ie4k]

2:34 The universe just pops from nothing and expanding but WHERE it is expanding to? There should be a pre existing space to expand to. He does not touch in to that

[@bittertruth1211]

"What is Ultimate Reality?" - this question is meaningless unless the reality is defined properly and precisely. Existence doesn't need either philosophy or science or both conceived by the human brain/mind which itself is a consequence of the existence.

[@psterud]

Yeah, it's a very vague question.

[@stephenzhao5809]

7:41 Peter Van in bargain and earlier Robert Nozick that there's only one way of there being nothing uh infinitely way many ways that they're being something and therefore nothingness is infinitely improbable [I don't think so, we have 7 indeterminate forms, in which there exists some balances to make sense that nothingness is not always infinitely improbable.]

[@nasunorahl]

Cosmogony.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

random chance from time?

[@علي-ش7ث8ب]

God.

[@galaxyzoom3403]

khoda

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The Ultimate Reality, is Your Self, as You refering to all the time, I, I, I, No one have seen 'the I', it is Eternal, what is Eternal, can't be physical, all physics is Motion, motion is Change. 'The I' is Not Motion, Thoughts is Motion.

[@osip7315]

is "alice in wonderland" a universe ?

[@whitefiddle]

"Miracles," you say?! Is John Leslie a televangelist?

[@ififif31]

Hey Robert it's very naive to get depressed over probabilities being fundamental reality. A world where probabilities are fundamental means that basically anything is possible. Wouldn't a world where we're restricted by arbitrary rules/physics and our possibilities are limited be more depressing than a world where anything is possible?? Cheer up man! 😂

[@tomjackson7755]

Back with your high school philosophy analysis again. SMH

[@mynameispaul0530]

the early universe was not conducive to life and the last stages of the universe will not be conducive to life

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

Not watching. "Ultimate" flaws the question. Stop with your adjectives.

[@rajendrarajasingam6310]

There is something which we can't understand. Just say scientific speculation

[@patientson]

Life will throw several analogies till you know how to use one for all others to explain describe and define an idea to be expressed and manifested after process.

[@thomasridley8675]

It's that we don't know that allows endless speculation to thrive. They say that life is a gift. I sure don't see it. The wide variation of conditions dispell that argument. Order doesn't prove that your speculation is right. You expect that order to mean something when it may not mean what you want it to mean.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(2:00) The idea of a zero-energy universe coming into existence is fine as long as you are willing to accept that it didn't emerge from absolute nothingness. However, even in a zero-energy universe, you have to have something that's able to trigger its emergence. The catalyst for facilitating this emergence was "Logic." The very first move enacted by Existence was to assess the amount of Existence that was available ... which was 1. This caused a chain reaction that resulted in our 93-billion-light-years-wide universe. This was not a _"first cause"_ but rather a _"first move."_ This is also why logic (mathematics) is embedded into every aspect of the universe (including sentient life).

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Rambling gibberish. If YOU are RIGHT fundamental Law of phich are only trash theory.

[@anteodedi8937]

What's the difference between first cause and first move? Isn't that what starts the entire chain, aks first cause?

[@kos-mos1127]

@@anteodedi8937 The first cause means God brought the Cosmos into existence from absolute nothingness. The firsts mover means that Cosmos always was and God was the first motion that started time.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@anteodedi8937 *"What's the difference between first cause and first move? Isn't that what starts the entire chain, aks first cause?"* ... That's a fair question. A "first cause" mandates that nothing is available to work with and that the very first "something" to exist must have initiated its own existence. Once this 'first cause" takes place, then everything else can emerge from this "something." *Example:* We know that Big Bang emerged from a point of singularity, but we don't know where all of the "stuff" came that emerged during Big Bang. Therefore, we seek whatever may have _caused_ this "stuff" to exist in the first place. However, a "first move" posits that there is _something_ that's already available to work with, and all that remains is for that _something_ to be turned on or initiated. *Example:* Let's say the only thing that exists is a single, dormant, inactive particle of somethingness. This particle doesn't move or change in any way, so time is not present. This particle would remain exactly the same for trillions upon trillions of years, and there would be nothing happening for time to record. However, the particle suddenly begins to move, and the instant the particle moves, time also comes into existence (which measures and documents the move). So, time wasn't "caused" by anything; it's just the natural result of something that was dormant that suddenly began to move.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC A bit confused there. "A first cause mandates that nothing is availavable to work with and that the very first something to exist must have initiated its own existence." I wouldn't put it that way. I would say that the first cause necessarily exists and nothingness is impossible. That's from where movement starts.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

The "laws of the universe" merely explain behavior. To pretend they in any way explain origin is total folly. The origin and the behavior of what exists are two different topics. What a big nothing!

[@nightshift4587]

in short we know f all about anything.

[@analyticeschatology4143]

Ultimate reality is the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition and everything he created

[@jjames2162]

You’ve got that wrong - and I’m a Christian

[@KM-leons]

You are right. Biblical account is the only sensible explanation.God, who is Spirit, existing in a realm above and beyond physical created the universe. Nothing we ask about the physical apply to spirit realm.

[@jjames2162]

@@KM-leons Have any of you actually read or researched Biblical history, the changes in translation, or the context of Christianity? You think the Bible is the only sensible explanation? The Bible is a lot of things but a sensible explanation it is not

[@KM-leons]

@@jjames2162 You are beating the bush without being specific. Let me ask you in return. Did you know that the Bible is a revelation and it's God's word? Have you read and understood the Bible with spiritual discernment?. Obviously not. Otherwise you would not have made the above comment. Science cannot answer many things especially the "why" things. Science will never answer how the universe began because no scientific method will make it possible. At the most it can give only some ' satisfactory' explanation.

[@jjames2162]

@@KM-leons Of course I have and I’ve studied the scholars, monks, and religious influences that have overtime brought modern religions to their current practices and worship. The Bible has changed many times as you clearly haven’t understood. It is not NOT a literal account of Gods will. It was written by man not God nor through God but an interpretation that was then modified many times over by men. Science can not explain everything nor can our account of religion. Science has explained more and more as we gain a greater understanding of our world. Faith in God has nothing to do with science. The Bible however is a book and while it may give guidance and induce a sense of spirituality, it is not a literal account of Gods will. Try thinking for yourselves for once and do your homework

[@trutherwhoknowsaboutthejs]

Hahaha wow the new testament was right about vain jangling. The wisdom of this world is foolishness and it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.