Let's discuss astronomy

Daily reminder that cosmologists have believed all kinds of whacky shit

Astronomy is interesting but the sheer scale of it all always gives me a weird existential crisis, and this like this

Why so angry, gaybo?

i'm not angry i'm suicidal tbh

by using the word "many" with the word "consensus" you're trying to imply it's a general consensus of most. In fact it's by far the minority opinion. Stop misrepresenting science.

it's happening whether you like it or not
the apeiron the universe sprung itself into existence from can be no more than a force of opposites, with nonexistence being the opposing force coupled with its existence in the first place. for the injustice of time existence imposes on the nonexistent quality - justice will be paid in accordance to the apeiron
YOU WILL DIE

What would be the majority opinion then?

he's just going to say some stupid Edwin Hubble shit about how since galaxies are moving furhter apart from each other, this implies the infinite expansion of the universe - without taking into account its by this very function of it that it'll secure its own nonexistence

Stars are just lit balls of gas hanging in space.

White holes are mainly theoretical. Do you think they exist?

Never try to discuss science on an imageboard. Way too many dumbfucks who imagine they know something about it.

that the end of the universe is several orders of magnitude further away than 2.5 billion years.

there are way better boards to actually discuss stuff on, or way better forums. ofc you will be met with tons of shitposts on Holla Forums you little niglet
t. end of universe user

Bullshit. "random" doesn't mean "nothing but porn and pol" until faggots like you abandon it.

There is no outer space except for what you perceive it to be. my perception is different to yours.

*absolutes your nothingness*
nothing personal, kid

This

Many anons just get riled up when they don't know anything about a subject that's being discussed–that said, there are a lot of internet intellectuals who suddenly become experts on a subject just because they watch a documentary or read a pop-sci book

You're just a sack of gas crawling on earth

STOP HAVING KIDS

schopenhauer needs to take a chill pill

THE ONLY REASON ONE CAN MASK THEIR SUFFERING IS BECAUSE OF AN UNAWARENESS OF HOW MISERABLE THEY TRULY ARE

Schopenhaur was EASILY the most based philosopher/anti-philosopher of all time.

Was he really just projecting all this time? Sure sounds like it.

you'd have to read him to understand why your greentext doesn't work

fair enough, where should I begin.

Not user, but pic-related.

if you have access to scholarly databases like JSTOR - there's tons of good entries in philosophy journals with philosophers critiquing/refining his work

I consider that a compliment.
Thank you.

Let's talk about colonization of space. Do you think it'll begin within this century? I want my moon colonies dammit.

Buddhist philosophy

Man on Mars? I'd give it a 50%. Colonization? heh… nope. We can barely get our shit together on Earth.

Thanks.

Sounds nice, shame I don't have access to those resources though.

I've been interested in those eastern philosophies since I started listening to Alan Watts. Full lectures, not those memey inspirational videos that leave out context. It's comfy as hell.

Speaking of which, I can't really stand digital reading formats if it's just plain black text on white background. Anyone know of something similar to those lectures on youtube where you can just zone out and listen to the voice of a decent orator?

Just search "lectures on Schopenhauer", dum dum.

Vid-related is a good intro. In fact, they have these videos for many philosophers.

Wait, so he really is inspired by Buddhist teachings. Shows how little I know.
He kind of confuses me though, I don't really understand his constant gloom and doom perspective. From what I've consumed so far, as I've stated in my previous post, buddhism shines a more positive light on being, in the sense that, to put it simplistic, "nothing really matters, so that should relieve your perceived shackles of life".

I know just going and reading up on it would be better, but for sake of discussion, isn't having a pessimistic view, to such a degree that Schopenhauer had, just a recipe to a depressing, grey life? That's the feeling I get from reading those quotes in that video.

...

Hey, you either know certain things or you don't. Pay no attention to anons who like to call people morons for simply not knowing a fact; they do that to make themselves feel smarter than they are.

Nietzsche had a problem with it as well, which is why he sought to overcome the pernicious effect that nihilism can have–his book called Thus Spoke Zarathustra might be up your alley. Nietzsche was actually heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, but he deviated from his brand of pessimism.

I think Schopenhauer simply tells us how things are, whereas Buddhists take it a step further and focus on how things ought to be.

I believe so, yes.

kinda just the set cultural norms of cancer imageboards harbor. people who say shit like that aren't necessarily committed to the bepief the poster theyre responding to is an idiot - think it's more reflexive rather than conscious

White holes are basically the polar opposite of black holes (as I'm sure you know). Since black holes are basically regions where so much matter/energy is condensed into a small enough space that the stuff within said space effectively gets deleted (much, much more complicated than that. in fact, that description is WRONG. But close it's enough for the purposes of this post) a white hole would exist wherever an extreme enough vacuum (including a vacuum of energy, so the light from stars can't reach any point within the radius either for this to happen) exists in such a large space that matter/energy gets produced at the singularity of said vacuum. This would require a reverse in entropy to the extent where it would be an insane statistical anomaly. Also, since matter/energy is generated within the radius, the white hole would cease to exist after the next moment from its creation.

Now, You're probably thinking something along these lines: "perhaps that is the origin of our universe since that was basically an infinite vacuum with literally nothing outside to enter the radius."
The answer: maybe. Probably not though as a white hole should have a singularity and our universe does not to the extent of our knowledge.

...

Nice, thanks for the recommendation.

Then, at the risk of sounding like an idiot, why bother reading his philosophy? I mean, I guess to understand his pessimism better, but I'm not sure I want to peer into such a depressing mind.

...

What is space and how does it expand? What does it even expand into? Can our brains even comprehend true nothingness outside the universe?

Can you comprehend the time before you were born?

Thunderbolts Project
youtube.com/channel/UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA
/thread

I completely agree. But I think the intentions depend on the context. In some cases, calling someone any variation of "moron" is like calling someone a faggot or cuck or any other term that anons toss around; on the other hand, if it's in the context of a debate (which it usually is), it's often a cheap tactic that anons use to try to convince their opponent/themselves that they're intellectually superior

I think it's important to gain a deeper understanding of the unpleasant realities of the human condition in order to truly reduce one's suffering–the problem is, if someone doesn't have a comfy religion to cling to, they often have a hard time getting past the nihilism and end up wallowing in misery. But hey, I'm a miserable fuck with no friends, so maybe you shouldn't listen to me.

I like Schopenhauer because he illuminated the nature of suffering with great precision and clarity, but there isn't much that's particularly original about his work; not only does his philosophy have deep roots in eastern philosophy, it's not completely unlike certain Christian philosophy (at least the Christian philosophy of Meister Eckhart).

Anyway, because of the depressing nature of his philosophy, I wouldn't necessarily recommend Schopenhauer to someone unless they're interested in philosophy; that said, with the right perspective, I think there's much to be gained.

"Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne is a great book for anyone interested in physics and astronomy. Thorne is a world-class expert on gravitation, and head of the LIGO Project that recently detected gravitational waves from merging black holes.

I bet it was awesome

"Nothing" would also mean no laws of physic or laws of causation. That means anything could happen for no reason at all. And something obviously did.

Sweet. Care to add some context? If you're referring to the "beginning" of the universe, then perhaps you're not taking into consideration the possibility of an infinite materiality in the form of a singularity that's in a constant state of flux… or something like that.

Nice to see original threads.

How exactly does "nothing" necessitate that and not the other way around? What do we mean by nothing? If there was a first unity of matter, of the universe, before the big bang as we know it - why do we ascribe of the nature of teh universe that came afterwards the same qualities as we ascribe of that nothing?
Can not the qualities of this nothing, which i don't see has been defined in this convo, be the exact qualities of a force which sprung us into existence - and by the same token take us out? Why can't there be some indeterminate originative source of all things?

It's very simple. "Nothing" means "nothing". Laws of physics and causation are "something". Therefore they're not part of nothing. Nor does nothing have any qualities or properties at all, because those are something as well.

oh my god nigga
please at least read some philosophy before entering discussion about philosophy

Did you intentionally not address my question or do you just not understand it?

Philosophy is mostly bullshit. This is a science thread.

The universe is a white hole from the perspective of a black hole.

That's fair I suppose, and I think you're right about falling into a depressive mood from it yourself if you're not grounded well. I could see that happen.
I think I'll stick to some 'lighter' stuff for now, that isn't just one-sided pessimism (maybe I'm making a gross generalization of his work, I don't know). Maybe I'll come back to it one day.

Let me rephrase - your talking of laws that pertain to things that are limited by temporal space. You are talking about physics - I am talking about metaphysics. Universal laws change as we learn more about the universe - they are not a static cosmic governing body

I think he's subtly trying to reel people into debating the "argument from efficient cause".

That about right, user?

If you mean the reply that I didn't respond to, it didn't make any sense, so I ignored it.

...

Why is it that any time someone starts a science thread, a bunch of pretentious, fuzzy-headed, half-wit "philosophers" try to hijack it?

presocratic philosophers literally invented cosmology and astronomy

Why do you not have an argument?

...

I think you're overthinking the concept of "nothing"

Go to any real science thread on usenet or elsewhere, where actual working scientists discuss actual science, and you'll find that they're adament about keeping philosophy fuckheads off the site, because they add nothing but noise and horsecrap. And this thread is a textbook example of it.

Because any half-wit can read a little philosophy and pretend to be an intellectual.

do you think science and philosophy just developed based on one persons ideas alone? no its a continuation of ideas, a dialectic

elementary school is down the street tbh

WOW that's insane, you mean to say that a site devoted to one scholarly field of study doesn't want people from OTHERS to detract from their focus of the site?
it's the same way around
science and philosophy aren't at duel. idiots who try to be dismissive of philosophy are generally people who just don't want to think, and want to instead discuss muh statistic significance of muh coral bleaching

not falling for the b8 m8. thread title is clear

Maybe the OP should have been more specific then, instead of just shitting out one sentence, using some artsy picture and calling it a day.
Besides, this isn't some dedicated forum. Conversation evolves.

refer you to this post tbh

nod an argubent, fuckstick

I'm saying that scientists don't like to waste time on moronic horseshit like your post.

It's one thing to be dismissive of philosophy, in general; it's another to understand the importance of limiting the amount of abstract concepts and woo woo that are permitted in a forum about things that are generally of a more tangible nature.

science is a methodology in pursuit of tangible data and objective truth. philosophy is "hey, let's think about this way too goddamn much and interject some subjective bullshit, and if you disagree it's because you haven't read enough muh philosophy. lurk moar faggot"

yes, which is completely understandable in the context of a website about science. which is completely unsurprising

t. gender studies major

Seems to me the fedora tippers have arrived.

...

which is completely fucking irrelevant in the subject of astronomy, where human civilizations is outside the scope of study.

...

refer you back to this post tbh

I don't think anyone is arguing that philosophy has no place in science, user. Are you really this fucking dense, or are you just being a contrarian?

...

refer you back to this post, fuckstick

so you refer me back to a post which refers back to a post empirically disproving your assertion that astronomy has nothing to do with philosophy, is that right?

obvious strawman
kike some more. i wonder what was posted ITT that you felt the need to derail it

should've taken philosophy 101, you would have learned about logical fallacies, user

I guarantee he's this user >>7401903; in which case, he's probably a Christcuck who wanted anons to engage in a debate about the origins of the universe and how it's totally impossible without God and stuff–then he got butthurt when no one was interested in his faggotry.

Post interesting shit to talk about or shut up faggots.

...

K

Does anyone believe that the Copenhagen Interpretation is mostly based on the fact that we simply don't know enough about the "quantum world", and that eventually they'll figure it out and move on to the next mysterious, """spooky""" thing they can't wrap their heads around? Or do you believe that there is no "deep reality'?

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to offer any serious insight, but I'm betting on the neorealists here. Based on my very limited knowledge of the subject, quantum physicists seem to revel in the mystery a bit too much.

Note: I realize that my position is almost undoubtedly because I'm applying preconceptions and common sense to a level of existence that rejects it.

and the fact that you're completely clueless about the subject you're speaking about but you do it anyway because you try and fool idiots into believing that you are intelligent

Lolwat 2.8 billion years? What timescale is this based off of? That's a blip in the grand astronomical scheme of things gone need some sort of sources to back this up.

Must be nice not being able to read.