the universe or the probability of a universe has always existed

We don't know, therefore God.

It's glorious.

> We dont know but i refuse to consider all options

I don't think you understand. Change is dependant on prior causes, not an initial state. Only action-reaction is based on causality. Whatever it was the way it was in its default state needs no cause

Is the existence of the universe beyond the bounds of our reason?

What answer could be given for the existence of the universe which would not invoke something that is beyond the limits of our knowledge and perhaps is akin to a miracle?

Quantum mechanics seem to exist independent of the universe - and they allow pretty much all possibilities to exist simultaneously.

It was calculated that given enough time there's a chance of a condensate point of matter / energy to simply pop in and out of existence... there's also a small chance that it will inflate and that's what happened with our universe.

But why can that happen as opposed to how?

I dont really understand how that could satsify all questions.

I dont mean to sound so religious in thread.

>Quantum mechanics seem to exist independent of the universe
>exist independent of the universe
>existing independent of existing
lmao

So I implore you to answer, who created God

>Inb4 the argument that God has always existed is compeletrly logical.

The problem is that it is in a deities nature to exist of its own will.

To compare that nature with the nature of the universe would be a false equivalency.

To rule out a deity or something akin to one would ignore serious questions about the nature of the universe.

I know it's hard for a philosphytard...

Thing is just that's what experiments and mathematical models suggest, if you want to philosophize.

or w/e.

Dunno too early to know, many-worlds interpretation is getting more and more popular lately since quantum computers have been confirmed to actually work, we'll see what physicists will conclude.

>it is in a deities nature to exist of its own will.

.. Science & Math board...

>many-worlds interpretation is getting more and more popular lately

I dont think that changes anything about the fundamental question since it would mean tha each universe would dependent on each other and therefore the question an ultimate cause or dependent would arise.

Yea, but it's just part of what we can observe and measure - so we have to give it more attention... that's all of it.

> Science and Maths board
> Ignore fundamental questions about existence in favour of narrow confines of reason without scope

Thats cool.

Is there anything you recommend i read?

As literature written by scientists for the public just for fun?

I got interested recently in what Sean Carroll wrote
amazon.com/Big-Picture-Origins-Meaning-Universe/dp/0525954821

Maybe essays rather than popular science books.

Guess then use google ( Name of scientist ) + essays and read w/e you please, you can filter out recently released ones and start there.

The book is written by the scientists not some journalists that enjoys popular science tho.

Yeah but it sounds like historical tidbits and author musings.

Thanks though.

>many-worlds interpretation is getting more and more popular lately since quantum computers have been confirmed to actually work
How does that follow? Quantum computers work in any interpretation because all interpretations make the same predictions - they're essentially just different languages for describing the same physics (except most of them are rather lacking; Bohmian mechanics can't into relativity and many worlds can't make sense of the Born rule).

There is no why, unless you assume that there is intelligence or reasoning behind the universe, which is silly. Things are the way they are for no reason other than they must be the way they are.

If people use God as a way to stop asking questions, you must be doing the equivalent.

Is science slowly taking the attributes that used to be given to God and applying them to the universe?

multiple universes. new ones are "born" all the time. they are separate from one another, there own "time". they are not different "time lines" like back to the future and other pop sci time travel shit. there is only one unique you, i guess you could call it a soul/spirit. there will be similarities because all universes share the same laws of physics. they don't share multiple versions of the same soul/spirit but could have a similar outer appearance.

fuck do i ramble or what.jpg

If there was nothing that existed, like nothing at all, then physical laws wouldn't exist either. The laws of thermodynamics would be meaningless, time and space would be meaningless. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" would not be a physical law since nothing at all exists. In this scenario all possible states of existence and physical laws would spontaneously begin existing and only the ones which are stable (having a configuration of physical laws which lends itself to existence) would remain in existence.

i agree.

You're confusing the seperate mathematics used to explain quantum mechanics and general/special relativity, even them they aren't independent of each other; qm simply uses more operators and returns simpler solutions.

It doesn't allow for simultaneous possibilities but depends on the assumption of both untill a calculation is made either way to determine certainty.

On your final point, actually this specifically exists in qm in the vacuum state and quantum tunnelling. Where there is no conservation of energy in a classical sense but the net conservation of its expectancy.

There is no way to show that the existence of the Universe was "probable" at t zero.

>Universe:
First, we have the quantum view of time which is that it's fairly irrelevant, in fact most dimensions are kind of irrelevant unless you wish to make a measurement. or an observation.

Which is a bit of a diffuse way of saying it has an effect on something else in some place at some time.

Cause-effect becomes a bit diffuse as well in viewing time, since it makes just as much sense to read our diagrams backwards in time.

That puts us at the other side of a long series of events, which are observed in their effect. (Which timeline is the True timeline kinda loses meaning too, unless we have an observation along the line. Think Feynman diagrams)
>probability:
Now let's divulge into the probability of us, our universe, and everything.

We are looking backwards at what is the culmination of a long chain of events, with varying probabilities.
At each of these junctions we can imagine a parallel universe.

This is in some sense the Multiverse theory. Because we could just as easily (well... let's just say we could) be at a different tail-end of events.
All the way from the start.

> the big question.
Now why should there be anything at all ?
In the observation, we are, in a sense, creating the event. (non-woowoo kind of creation)

If you were to draw a tiny circle, and say that inside that circle is nothing. then we could in theory have any number of virtual events. As long as they average out in Nothing.

To do this we may need to invoke some pseudoprobabilities. (see Wigner Weyl - transform and the theory behind these )
As long as these conform to the smallest quantization of space. (that means, there is a smallest circle in time and space you can draw)

Beyond this, you can have zero charge by averaging positive and negative, zero mass, by mass and antimass. To me it seems the negative probabilities (with another caveat; averaging probability over this smallest space needs to be within the boundaries of 0 and 1)

Action-reaction just says that for every action there's an equal reaction in the opposite direction. Not that there's a cause anterior in time.

Casualty is the one says that. And it's not necessarily a true law of the universe. We are just inferring it based on observations. But as you know from mathematics, no matter how many examples you find, it does not make it a law.

There's evidence that a previous universe existed at t

I like your line of thought