What is the best explanation for the origin of the universe? There appear to be three:1. God did it2. The multi-verse did it3. A brute fact did it Nobody can agree which one is correct though. Which one does r9k pick?
>>83509486The concept of an "origin" only makes sense within spacetime, and spacetime is contained within the universe. The universe can't really have an origin because only things in the universe have origins in the sense of what came before them.
>>83509486Take the Heraclitus pill. The world undergoes cycles of creation and destruction via the logos and the arche
>>83509550Not true. Origin doesn't require temporal beginning. Origin could simply denote a form of grounding. For example the origin of numbers could be grounded in some larger metaphysical or logical structure but that doesn't imply that numbers began to exist in time. Numbers could simply be a direct consequence of some other principle, without which there couldn't be numbers.
>>83509486I like the one where we're inside of a higher dimensional black hole. It doesn't solve the question of where the higher dimensional universe comes from, but it gives an easy answer for our universe. It was "created" when a big star collapsed into a black hole.
>>83509687You just end up with an infinite chain or regresses though.
>>83509697Yeah which is why I said it doesn't solve the problem of the higher dimensional universe.
>>83509486You're missing the Parmenidean explanation.
>>83509734Elaborate please. What is that explanation?
>>83509486it just is, meaning is a creation of the human mind
>>83509767Is it contingent or necessary?
>>83509757It's basically existence monism. All distinctions are illusory, only Being 'is', and from that you get a bunch of conclusions (eternalism, denial of the existence of nothing, PSR, etc). If you want to read about modern Parmenideanism, read the Parmenidean Ascent by Michael Della Rocca. If you want to experience it, consider trying 5 meo DMT. If you're interested primarily in Parmenides' thought, here's a good video:https://youtu.be/-1Yt6IdA7q4?si=Utpx7O2Z2rcQTGAW
>>83509782which one? the universe or the human mind's need to attach a meaning to it?
>>83509807So Being is that there is, at the most fundamental level? Being is the ultimate nature of reality? But then why do we perceive Being as multiplicity is the One is the most absolute and fundamental fact about the nature of existence?
>>83509486I feel like we can never truly know unless we make massive breakthroughs in science compared to now. Because we are limited to our perceptions and measuring things with other things, there's almost guaranteed roadblocks that require transcendent methods.I was thinking last night about how at a certain point we are doing the equivalent to trying to use the sound of a cowbell to determine the color of stars.
>>83509807Also I have done DMT and I found myself in an otherworldly dimension with shapes and geometries which are impossible for us to imagine in the normal mortal state. Was some fucked up life altering shit. I remember briefly getting a glimpse at the nature of being itself but I couldn't remember it after the trip.
>existence began to exist for no reason >existence has always existed because magicI lean toward magic.
>>83509852n-dmt is different from 5 meo.>>83509830Being is indeed the most fundamental level of reality, that which necessarily 'is' and cannot not be, but multiplicity does not belong to Being itself; it arises from how mortals think and speak about Being. Because non Being is impossible, any genuine distinction would require gaps, limits, or differences that implicitly reintroduce what is not, so Being must be one, undivided, and homogeneous. What we experience as plurality is therefore not ontological but epistemic: predication, language, and perception impose secondary distinctions on an originally indistinct reality. Every object of thought already exists and thus already participates in Being, but when we treat conceptual distinctions as if they were features of reality itself, we mistake the structure of cognition for the structure of Being. Multiplicity is thus a simulacrum generated within Being rather than a feature of Being as such, which explains how the One can be the ultimate fact of existence while still appearing to us as many
There is no ultimate explanation for reality. Conditions just give rise to other conditions, and this will basically never end, as it never had a beginning. It just all kinda is. Asking this very question is the result of your attachment to the world which will result in more suffering. But the world is an illusion, there simultaneously is being and no being. You need to let go, anon. Let go. Contemplate the four noble truths, initiate the eight fold path. Show compassion to all beings. Become a Buddhist.
Can you post a better version of this entire chart? I can almost read the words where the smudged looking blurs should be.
>>83509912Anon there is no being though. Everything is unstable. All of it is just conditions. One moment you are happy and another you are sad. One moment the vase is on your book shelf, the next is it in piece on the floor. Your concept of "being" is the result of your attachment to worldly affairs. You must break the cycle of samsara, you must reach liberation and ultimate nirvana. You must realize that existence has no definitie properties at all, really.
>>83509971Sorry to interject, however, the argument you two are having reminds me of one I had with myself not too long ago.>Anon there is no being thoughThere is no ***PERMANENT*** state of being; being is a state of eternal becoming; to stop becoming something is to quit being said thing.The goal isn't to break the cycle; the goal is to embody it so fully and to the best of your ability in which you can achieve; properties, at best, are definite for several billion years; liberation, you must reach by becoming instead of nothing.
>>83509971>>83510022Both posts conflate change with ontology: the first collapses Being into impermanence by identifying reality with conditioned appearances, and the second rebrands the same move as eternal becoming, but in both cases what is described is how things appear, not what must be the case for anything to appear at all. If everything were only instability or becoming, there would be no coherent sense in which change itself occurs, since change presupposes that there is something rather than nothing undergoing variation. The mistake, diagnosed already by Parmenides, is treating predicates like happy or sad, intact or broken, permanent or impermanent as if they exhausted reality, when they are secondary determinations imposed on what is. Against the first poster, denying Being because phenomena are unstable confuses ontological grounding with attachment; against the second, redefining Being as becoming collapses existence into predication and never explains why becoming is intelligible at all. Flux and impermanence describe the way of appearance, not the condition of intelligibility of appearance itself, and without some unconditioned 'is', both samsara and becoming would be unintelligible rather than liberating.
>>83510523The problem is that you assume there is a reason for conditions, when there very may well may not be. Conditions, "events", "causes", they simply happen, to animals, to man, to gods, to all beings. Our concept of "being" is partly an illusion, but we must not wholesale think that there is no being. Actually there is and there isn't anything we ordinarily experience. There is because conditions are interconnected with all other conditions and give rise to new conditions, there isn't because conditions are transitory, illusory, and not fundamental to anything and in this way there simply are no essence, and there is no self. The self is an aggregate of emotions and perceptions, similar to everything else it is also subjected to change, distortion, corruption, and impermanence. Buddhism is the answer to our liberation and salvation from the burden of existence.
>>83510523>Being as becoming collapses existence into predication and never explains why becoming is intelligible at all.For now, until we actually find a first mover which caused everything, or until Plato's world of forms comes to be reality, everything is unintelligible regrettably; for now, we only have a certain resolution; we can't see the whole picture yet, however we can increase resolution tsee ut in greater splendour. When we find a first mover, I'll say that that there is being, however, until we find all of the becomings for being, we're only becoming more knowledgeable on how to attain pure being. >Flux and impermanence describe the way of appearance, not the condition of intelligibility of appearance itself, and without some unconditioned 'is', both samsara and becoming would be unintelligible rather than liberating.The intelligibility of appearance does change though; the laws of physics just 600 million years after the big bang had completely different laws of physics than that which we have today; after our 13.7 billion (or whatever number it is if I'm wrong) years, we have the perfect cosmic state to actually increase intelligibility of the universe; everything may be but it also be coming to something new entirely; every zeptosecond you live, you will never be the same man as you were the previous.>becoming would be unintelligible rather than liberating.Becoming only becomes unintelligible if you decide to follow a state of becoming without a focus on what you wish for things to be becoming. It's liberating if you are willing to become better; it's liberating if you wish to act instead of freeze. I believe Heraclitus may have said something like that, so thank you anon, for this dialogue.
>>83510674>The problem is that you assume there is a reason for conditions, when there very may well may not be.Exactly; in terms of philosophia and science, it's of no benefit to behave as if there is an underlying cause for everything until proven otherwise; the canopy blocks what may lead to new growth.>There is because conditions are interconnected with all other conditions and give rise to new conditions, there isn't because conditions are transitory, illusory, and not fundamental to anything and in this way there simply are no essence, and there is no self. Exactly; it's almost like how the more you add to a cloud compute network or AI dataset, the fidelity of the actual thing becomes even clearer. It may get more or less clear or change irreversibly from what we've ever known until it no longer is.>Buddhism is the answer to our liberation and salvation from the burden of existence.It might be; Nirvana as well may be a temporary state in existence too, though.
