If you remove the assumption that causality is real, then it becomes easy to answer why the universe exists: it doesnt need a cause in the first pl...

If you remove the assumption that causality is real, then it becomes easy to answer why the universe exists: it doesn’t need a cause in the first place because causality isn’t real.
>but I see causality all the time!
If infinite monkeys typed randomly, an infinite subset of them would write Shakespeare’s plays. And yet they are all still typing randomly. Now extend this analogy to all of existence. The monkeys are universes, and we are Shakespeare’s plays. Non-causality cannot come from causality, but causality can come from non-causality. Something CAN come from nothing, because nothing means the absence of causality. It’s so simple, yet less than 0.01% of the world understand this. Everything is evolution, the emergence of order from chaos.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If you remove the assumption that causality is real
    Ok put a shotgun in your mouth and shoot it, it won't cause you to die

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are infinite universes in which pulling the trigger is still proceeded by my death, even if there is no magical thing called causality that connects the two. We simply happen to be in the universe that always appears to be causal (and there always must exist infinite versions of you that experience this type of universe, so from your perspective, it seems miraculous, though it isn’t).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There are infinite universes
        Proof?
        >there is no magical thing called causality that connects the two
        Ok then do it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t have empirical proof of infinite universes. I’m just explaining that if there were infinite universes and they have no inherent causality or order to them, and are completely random, then this universe is just one of those possibilities. And there are actually infinite universes that look very similar to our universe, and a higher subset of universes that have similar laws of physics, and then a higher subset of universes that seem to have causality.

          From this perspective, your “refutation” becomes absurd. We simply happen to exist in the universe in which you ask me to shoot myself, and I happen to say no. (Though again, there are still infinite universes with this same scenario).

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine two universes that look exactly alike. One of them is random and coincidentally matches the exact conditions of the other, which has a magical thing called causality operating everywhere at all times. Assuming that the first universe manages to perfectly duplicate the other (which is trivial assuming an infinite probability space), then what exactly is the difference between the two universes? If causality can appear to exist when it doesn’t, then why even assume that causality exists at all? Why bother yourself with infinite regresses and other dilemmas that come with this assumption? If causality is fundamental, then you have to ask yourself what caused causality. But how can causation exist prior to causality? Even causality emerges through complete randomness, but it is still just an appearance, an illusion.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If infinite monkeys typed randomly, an infinite subset of them would write Shakespeare’s plays. And yet they are all still typing randomly.
    this is your mind without theism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just to be clear, they aren’t real monkeys. That’s just the classic version of the problem. The only thing that matters here is that the characters are being types completely randomly. And it is a mathematical certainty that they will produce every piece of human literature that has ever existed. If you can’t understand this then there is a genuine IQ barrier at play.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If you can’t understand this then there is a genuine IQ barrier at play.
        I can understand it just fine.
        It's just moronic. If you have to posit first the existence of infinity for our reality to therefore exist, how far away are you from classical theism (i.e. infinite creator being)?
        The difference is just that you seem to desire a blank and thoughtless infinity.
        There's no "evidence" or proof of either infinity whatsoever, so the only difference I can identify is between personal preferences.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          People naturally ask why something exists rather than nothing. But “nothing” means the absence of all laws, which is infinite potential. Causality wouldn’t be fundamental so the existence of infinite things wouldn’t be any more spectacular than the existence of just one thing. I don’t think you’ve actually managed to imagine the possibility that causality isn’t real. Because once you imagine it, you see it clearly. There is absolutely no logical contradiction about nothingness producing this exact universe. That is, unless you assume that within nothingness there was a “law” that said that a thing can only exist if it has a cause. And only then would it make sense for nothingness to exist forever.

          You’re taking a tiny, tiny subset of all of existence and assuming that everything must obey the patterns of our world. You have no deductive proof of causality’s existence. Hume showed this a long time ago.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You’re taking a tiny, tiny subset of all of existence and assuming
            I aint assuming shit.
            you're assuming that there is an entire infinity of existence beyond our reality which cannot be proven in any way

            >You have no deductive proof of causality’s existence.
            You have no deductive proof either that I exist at all because sophistry means you can claim anything either has proof or no proof if you have a good enough grasp of rhetoric and grammar.
            How about
            >literally everything we can observe has a cause. assuming without evidence that the universe is the one thing without a cause is not something rational people should be expected to do.
            >especially when doing so requires assuming the existence of meta-universal infinity
            >especially considering that current evidence suggests (but doesnt prove*) that the universe had a cause

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not assuming that infinity exists. I’m simply removing the assumption that causality exists. And when you do that, infinite universes becomes just as possible as anything else. But what does it mean for something to be “possible” ? All it means is that I can imagine the existence of infinite universes and this not make my head explode. It’s not some sort of contradiction in my mind. And it would explain the apparent order of this universe. The only reason you would reject this is if you’re a “but I did eat breakfast this morning” moron or if you desperately cling to theism. Of course I’m not a theist, so I have no problem entertaining the idea that causality isn’t fundamental. I can’t prove anything to you, I can’t make your emotions agree with the idea of infinite universes. But I can just ask one question: if causality didn’t exist, then what exactly would prevent this specific universe from existing? I have a feeling you will ignore this question.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > I have a feeling you will ignore this question.
            waiting

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But what does it mean for something to be “possible”?
            In this context it is impossible to define.
            Possible normally means "able to be happen"
            But to define "ability" requires* us to think in the realm in which we exist.
            You posit
            >But wouldnt it be possible for infinity to exist outside this reality (an ultimate reality)
            to which I say it's certainly possible, since I can't begin to define the boundaries which encapsulate infinity.
            but you're just imagining things which cannot be proven or disproven which makes your assertion on the exact same level as theism.
            >If there is no such thing as causality...
            There's just no evidence for what you're claiming. It's not that it's impossible; it's that it's purely speculation lmao.
            >I can’t prove anything to you, I can’t make your emotions agree with the idea of infinite universes.
            True. I dont care really. What I'm trying to do is make you understand you are purely in the realm of conjecture but you think you're "on to something"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is quite literally the simplest theory of existence. It destroys virtually all other attempts at metaphysics. I go to sleep pretty comfortably without worrying about the endless questions about causality and what caused causality (how can causation precede its existence) and if God preceded causality or if causality preceded God etc. etc. And we can relate the metaphysics to evolution of biological life, though of course it’s a level lower in randomness because it is constrained by the patterns of the laws of physics. But the idea is roughly the same: order emerges from randomness and LOTS of trials.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I go to sleep pretty comfortably without worrying about the endless questions about causality and what caused causality (how can causation precede its existence) and if God preceded causality or if causality preceded God etc. etc.

            Okay but you realize that most theists say that God is uncaused and neither do they take causality as an "existential" constant, right? In fact, that's kind of the point of "God" as an explanation for the cause of things; the uncaused cause. And that's it no worrying for them either.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine trying to explain all this schizobabble to God when you stand before him

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I would ask God if he knows why he exists (he wouldn’t). Even God is just the product of randomness.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It would be an interesting question to ask, I wonder what he would say.

        In the book he says his name is "I am who I am".

        So maybe he would simply say "I am because I am"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that’s the exact answer that I already discovered, but for everything, not just God. But if God knew that I knew this, I doubt that he would judge me. Really, how COULD he respond?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God will judge you according to the law, and whether you are free from the law or not.

            As for what he would respond I don't know, you don't get to talk during trial I think, since he already knows everything.

            Could you explain how the universe began? Here is the first line of genesis:
            >In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

            Could you write something like that?
            >In the beginning the universe always existed and suddenly it changed
            >In the beginning reality simply was but then it began expanding because...
            Or how would you go about that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The universe exists because it can, and it can exist because it does.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How can the universe be eternal and everchanging? How can A always be A and also change into B? It makes no sense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >eternal
            not exactly sure what that means, and I don’t assume that it is.
            >how can the universe be…
            because it is. “I AM THAT I AM” remember

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How can the universe be eternal and everchanging? How can A always be A and also change into B? It makes no sense.
            You're assuming that those two qualities can't work in logical conjunction which they can
            A can be A but the everchanging quality of the universe, being B, doesn't have to confine A
            Think of a venn diagram with no overlap between A or B so its logical nonequivalence. Both can be true, but neither can overlap on one another or else they cancel out. This is of course assuming the universe is eternal. We know that it changes since we can actively observe change.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Existence itself surely must be eternal? Because if there was ever a time when existence was not then how could it become something?

            So if you wanna believe the universe is all there is (existence) it would mean that the universe has always been.

            I get the diagram but looking at the observable expanding universe, it was once compressed into a small space and since existence has always been and the universe is all of existence and existence must be eternal then all of existence was always in a small space, how can in then suddenly change into a larger space?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Existence itself surely must be eternal? Because if there was ever a time when existence was not then how could it become something?
            I personally think the idea of a universe being eternal is absurd. As far as existence goes with whether or not there has been something before the observable universe, I'm not sure, that's rather abstract, but time (which I hope is what we're talking about here) has always been a human frame of reference. That isn't to say it's not an observable phenomenon or that it doesn't have its uses, but prior to the Big Bang how do you meaningfully apply time?
            It's like saying that there should be something more north than the north pole or south than the south pole. There likely isn't. If we could go "before" the Big Bang, we're likely looking at something that won't behave by our expectations of time at that point to where we can't meaningfully say there IS time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I guess the beginning of the universe remains the place where the instruments stop working and speculation is all were left with.

            Gut feeling says God did it though 🙂

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If by God you mean the unlimited potential of Chaos bound by nothing, then I agree.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Perhaps, perhaps there's an extracosmic actor we could call God, or perhaps the universe just randomly became not-white noise after some random conditions were met

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            we already have an idea of how this could work. It’s called the block theory of time. Just imagine time as another dimension, then you can imagine the universe as a 4D block that starts and ends at certain times. The movement of time from past to present would be an illusion (perhaps because memory recall is an entropic process, and therefore makes it appear as though we are moving from the past to the future, which is really just the direction from lower entropy to higher entropy). Relativity actually proves that there is no such thing as a universal “present” moment, since different observers can experience the same event in different orders depending on their motion relative to the event. But the block theory it’s still just a theory and it’s not universally accepted

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >come from nothing
    >emergence
    Coming from and/or emerging is inappropriate verbiage if causality is illusory, no? Those are causal terms

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s a flawed description, sure, but it helps you get the idea. I don’t think there was a “time” when there was literally nothing and something “came” from it. It’s more like there ARE infinite universes and their cause is no-thing, they have no cause. Things just exist.

      >I go to sleep pretty comfortably without worrying about the endless questions about causality and what caused causality (how can causation precede its existence) and if God preceded causality or if causality preceded God etc. etc.

      Okay but you realize that most theists say that God is uncaused and neither do they take causality as an "existential" constant, right? In fact, that's kind of the point of "God" as an explanation for the cause of things; the uncaused cause. And that's it no worrying for them either.

      If God can exist without a cause, then so can the universe. That’s the point

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What do you make of chaos theory?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just a while ago I was thinking about how chaotic humans are. A slight change in one’s neurochemistry can lead to vastly different timelines. Just a simple desire or thought can lead to a huge amount of energy and intelligence being used for some specific goal.

          But I’m not really sure how to answer your question. I’m not familiar with chaos theory and what it entails, and if it may be controversial. It seems self-explanatory to me. Deterministic systems can be hard to predict even though everything follows some general rule.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If you remove the assumption that causality is real
    then knowledge becomes impossible and any conclusions following can be disregarded out of hand

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If causality didn’t exist, what exactly would prevent this specific universe from existing?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *