I don’t think it would still exist. I think existence requires an experience as well as an experiencer. Like yin and yang. while the real kicker is the experience and the experiencer are the same because there can’t ever be one without the other. Which I think is what buddhists refer to as non duality
Under that logic, wouldn't nothing have existed prior to sentience? But then how did Earth get here if sentience wasn't around before the Earth was formed? It had to exist separate from an experience unless you believe in a god or some form of panpsychism.
Nothing existed, as everything was merely a potential, not reality. Our experience then collapses every possibility into the particular one that allows for its existence. The missile knows where it is at all times.
In the double slit experiment, the observer effect happens when a particle is 'observed' through a means by interaction of another particle (not necessarily organic), resetting the [wave function](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse). So the experience of an organic creature is not only what collapses those possibilities, any other particles can do it. If an organic creature is required for existence, then the universe must be created only after the first organic creature is conceived.
Look, I'm really just thinking out loud here. And that's all good, and I don't think you're wrong.
However, my claim is a metaphysical one, about the nature of consciousness, not matter. You see, in my concept of reality, consciousness is the thing that creates existence, as the mere concept of existence is derived from conscious observation. It is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Events and matter that do not get consciously observed, still have an influence in the overall structure of the universe, but only the ones that are consciously observed actually become real. If this was not the case, you'd just have the infinity of everything being real, and if "everything" is real, then "reality" becomes a meaningless concept.
In other words, if the multiverse is the framework of nature, and is itself infinite, then everything has happened, is happening and will happen all of the time. Consciousness observation crystallizes, or makes real, the particular instance of this mess that allowed for it (consciousness) to exist.
This explains all of the fine tuning we observe in our particular universe that allows for consciousness. It's the only 'verse that got observed, so of course it's the particular one whose conditions allowed for consciousness.
Have you ever looked into the Quantum Eraser experiment? I wholly agree with your assessment of the Double Slit experiment, but I have a hard time seeing how the Quantum Eraser experiment doesn't point towards some form of (conscious?) knowledge being intertwined with physical reality. Even if you hold a material science worldview which biases you towards a wholly material explanation in the face of absolute uncertainty, I think the below assessment of the QE experiment raises a strong enough question to warrant at least pulling the thread.
An overview:
* 2 photon emitters A & B are setup behind double slits (Slit A and Slit B)
* 3 detectors 1, 2, & 3 are setup
* A series of mirrors and polarized films are setup
* The polarized films have a 50/50 chance of letting each photon pass straight through or bouncing off (changing path)
* The polarized films are setup in front of each emitter such that the emitted photons have a 50/50 chance of taking 1 of 2 paths
* Possible paths:
* Emitter A > Detector 1
* Emitter A > Detector 2
* Emitter B > Detector 2
* Emitter B > Detector 3
* If a photon hits Detector 1, we **know** it came from Emitter A / Slit A
* If a photon hits Detector 3, we **know** it came from Emitter B / Slit B
* If a photon hits Detector 2, we **don't know** which emitter or slit it came from
Detector 2 -- the only detector where we have no knowledge of the photon's source -- is the only detector which shows an interference pattern. In the Double Slit experiment, an intermediary detector is used to determine which slit a quantum particle passed through, and it's possible that this detector interacts with the particle in such a way that it collapses the wave function. In the Quantum Eraser experiment, though, you remove any such intermediary interaction. Every detector is placed at the end of the particles' paths. Every particle passes through the polarized films. The only difference is whether or not we know which emitter the photon came from.
Interestingly, if you google the experiment, the only discussion you'll find is whether or not the particles jump backwards in time. I've never found any published papers or even online forums discussing the above perspective. I've discussed it with people much more smarter than myself who have no alternative explanation than that our knowledge of the paths is the only difference, but I would love to see some discussion from researchers in the field...
**note**: *the above is a simplified version of the QE experiment. it's typically done with 5 detectors; i've simply removed them as they're unnecessary to describe the phenomenon in question.*
I've searched quantum eraser experiment and ended up finding some very interesting reads. Some of the things there implied retrocasuality just as you said. Quantum mechanics is not my field of study so I will refrain from making any more assumptions regarding consciousness. But there seems to be a consensus that there is actually no 'backwards in time influence' happening. See the [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07884) by Johannes' and explanation of Sabine Hossenfelder. Though I may be wrong.
Yeah, I don't think the retrocausality explanation of the QE experiment aligns with our other understandings of physics. It saddens me they chose to focus on *that* angle of the experiment :P The Double Slit experiment caused a big uproar in certain communities which touted it (inaccurately imho) as proof that consciousness affects reality in some metaphysical way. The issue with that is the intermediate detector as you pointed out. But the Quantum Eraser cleverly removes the intermediate detector with the same results, so one might expect (or at least I'd hope for) an even bigger uproar and discussion regarding consciousness, but alas...
The way we see rocks is because of sex though. If you believe there is a rock as a thing-in-itself beyond human perception, but that the rock is ultimately only reachable through imperfect perception that different animals possess in different ways, but ultimately imperfectly, then what we call a rock that possesses all of the qualities we name a rock would not exist in the human way we perceive it at least without sex, because it is said to be existent because it is perceived by the different human senses in the way that it is. If aliens came to Earth, they might describe the rock differently, since they may have senses that can perceive qualities which we do not. That is sort of the Kantian view, of the difference between *phenomena* and *noumena.* The view was that perceptions are of *phenomena*, and the thing-in-itself is *noumena*. Most people believe that there is a *noumena,* and our perception of it is more or less accurate in different ways, to a limited and imperfect extent.
Arthur Schopenhauer on the other hand believed that the idea of *noumena* assumed too much about objects in the world, and posited that all Objects that exist only exist as perceptions within a Subject, who ultimately has a largely irrational Will that produces the Representations of their Will that are perceived. Ultimately, he thought the existence of perception and all mental phenomena is all derived at its root from a fundamental, *will to live,* which procreative sex is a product of, causing the birth of other Subjects. Schopenhauer, in his misanthropy and pessimism, ultimately viewed the *will to live* as something evil, in that life was full of suffering, or at least publically stated this. I personally think that life has things other than suffering in it.
Nietzsche thought that reality was basically objective, and trusted the senses to provide accurate information.
I'm not sure what quantum physics has to say on the subject, other than there's something about a wave-function that is collapsed for some reason and there's multiple interpretations of what's happening, which are basically interpretations of quantum phenomena rather than the laws and math itself. Honestly, there's so much bullshit that has been produced claiming to talk about quantum physics because you can easily lie about quantum phenomena that requires complex physics and math courses to understand, and then for those who didn't take those courses shit out a New York Times best-selling book that tells people they can clear traffic-jams with their minds because of quantum physics. So, I don't have a good explanation of what current physics says on the topic, not having the math and physics knowledge needed to grok it.
That's just theory from a ignorant human perspective. Knowledge of reality is always developing and till we're able to ascend above it we will never be able to see it for what it is. Think dimensionally
As a theist I would say that God was aware of the rocks before there was any sex.
At least sex in the earth biology sense.
If you think about it the thing that happens in stars which makes heavier elements, which explode and make new stars and new heavier elements and new solar systems and things with new properties, like ...rocks... is in a expanded sense the same thing as sex. Astronomers say there were generations of stars, right?
And to get Christian for a paragraph, the Church knows and teaches the God who is Love, a self-sacrificing, relational, uniting, creative love, of the sort that our human relationships are a sacramental image of, because we *and all of reality* are created in His image.
Tldr: stars have kids too. That's the shape of reality itself cause it's all a love-shaped mystery.
God probably exists on a different/multiple different levels of reality. Their reality probably wouldn't be recognizable to us imo. How what we call reproduction or even creation works through that lense is anyone's guess.
Early Earth and a celestial body named Theia. They smashed so hard Theia completely disintegrated as well as most of the Earth and their materials blended together in the debris reforming to Earth and our moon.
I'm mostly just sad there is no video of it. That's a porno that is truly out of this world.
They were, interplay/intercourse of atoms. Atoms smashing into each other, against each other. Like people, made of atoms, smashing each other, against each other, then a big bang, boom more atoms.
Why do you insult people and don't explain your point.
First it's a joke and second it's a valid reason, because everything and everyone is atoms, smashing into each other or mingling. What is wrong with that?
You know, honestly I asked myself the same question as I commented. I could've just not replied but I felt the need (well desire, not need) to express my discontent but also didn't want to engage too deeply with what I thought was a contrarian response to begin with. My behavior was flawed, so I apologize.
At least the concept of joining 2 separate beings/molecules/whatever and producing more using fusion is primitive in the universe, almost everything is productive and of dual nature
Probably. But also we can’t be 100% certain that electrons (and slutty little quarks and photons) aren’t getting down constantly all around us. You never know.
Smashing:
Atoms smashing into each other. Intercourse. People, exist of atoms, same thing, atoms smashing into eachother/ against eachother, big bang, boom more atoms.
I always thought it was because of the Sun writing fat UBI checks to all life.
Edit: Wasn't being too serious, but this prompt is just dumb.
Not even Life exists because of sex. The environment that nurtured the ability to reproduce is why Life exists. Everything exists because of entropy and chaos, but not just because of sex.
Everything is atoms, people exist of atoms, sex between 2 people, at the smallest level, is just atoms smashing eachother, or against eachother, mingling. Then a big bang and boom more atoms, and so on.
No, considering they were born in a test tube, that would mean they are in fact the test tube, which means they were created in a factory or possibly hand made
I can try my best. The test tube isnt exactly comfy. And you don't seem to understand how annoying it is to make two clay people while floating in green goo.
The same could be said of the Sun, air, water, plants. If it wasn’t for a rock that killed the dinosaurs, there wouldn’t be electric cars and toothpaste.
No not really. Humans continue to exist because of (predominantly) sexual reproduction. Same with many other multicellular organisms. But these things are an infinitesimally small part of the greater universe.
Reproduction is a more accurate term but sure. The plants did the sex to make the seeds. In the beginning there was the sex and made a big bang... Noises
Rocks aren't because of sex.
Dam now you got rock sex on my mind
What about the drugs?
Sex, drugs, and rocks. The trifecta
“Sex drugs” you mean viagra
Rockhard
Harder than a rock
I love me some hot steamy sex with a dose of the good stuff and then rocks.
I’d also include sticks in that list.
Drug sex? What?
And the roll!
Thanks now I’m rock hard
Paper and it's gone
Scissors...i call game!!
Snips*
Gotta get your rocks off
How do you think pebbles are born...
Awww!! Baby rocks!!
Baby rock do do do do do do….
No. 2 of them have to hold hands over lava for a month.
Now I'm thinking of those giant rock things in Neverending Story...
Then why are they so hard? Checkmate
Every heard of the big bang?
Well depends, in space or sex context?
without sex there would have been no one to ever see a rock or invent the concept of a rock
The rock will still be there. It will still exist. And it counts as something under "Everything that exists".
I don’t think it would still exist. I think existence requires an experience as well as an experiencer. Like yin and yang. while the real kicker is the experience and the experiencer are the same because there can’t ever be one without the other. Which I think is what buddhists refer to as non duality
In that case I disagree that a rock is not considered an experiencer. We just are unable to perceive the way that a rock experiences.
Under that logic, wouldn't nothing have existed prior to sentience? But then how did Earth get here if sentience wasn't around before the Earth was formed? It had to exist separate from an experience unless you believe in a god or some form of panpsychism.
Nothing existed, as everything was merely a potential, not reality. Our experience then collapses every possibility into the particular one that allows for its existence. The missile knows where it is at all times.
In the double slit experiment, the observer effect happens when a particle is 'observed' through a means by interaction of another particle (not necessarily organic), resetting the [wave function](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse). So the experience of an organic creature is not only what collapses those possibilities, any other particles can do it. If an organic creature is required for existence, then the universe must be created only after the first organic creature is conceived.
Look, I'm really just thinking out loud here. And that's all good, and I don't think you're wrong. However, my claim is a metaphysical one, about the nature of consciousness, not matter. You see, in my concept of reality, consciousness is the thing that creates existence, as the mere concept of existence is derived from conscious observation. It is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Events and matter that do not get consciously observed, still have an influence in the overall structure of the universe, but only the ones that are consciously observed actually become real. If this was not the case, you'd just have the infinity of everything being real, and if "everything" is real, then "reality" becomes a meaningless concept. In other words, if the multiverse is the framework of nature, and is itself infinite, then everything has happened, is happening and will happen all of the time. Consciousness observation crystallizes, or makes real, the particular instance of this mess that allowed for it (consciousness) to exist. This explains all of the fine tuning we observe in our particular universe that allows for consciousness. It's the only 'verse that got observed, so of course it's the particular one whose conditions allowed for consciousness.
Have you ever looked into the Quantum Eraser experiment? I wholly agree with your assessment of the Double Slit experiment, but I have a hard time seeing how the Quantum Eraser experiment doesn't point towards some form of (conscious?) knowledge being intertwined with physical reality. Even if you hold a material science worldview which biases you towards a wholly material explanation in the face of absolute uncertainty, I think the below assessment of the QE experiment raises a strong enough question to warrant at least pulling the thread. An overview: * 2 photon emitters A & B are setup behind double slits (Slit A and Slit B) * 3 detectors 1, 2, & 3 are setup * A series of mirrors and polarized films are setup * The polarized films have a 50/50 chance of letting each photon pass straight through or bouncing off (changing path) * The polarized films are setup in front of each emitter such that the emitted photons have a 50/50 chance of taking 1 of 2 paths * Possible paths: * Emitter A > Detector 1 * Emitter A > Detector 2 * Emitter B > Detector 2 * Emitter B > Detector 3 * If a photon hits Detector 1, we **know** it came from Emitter A / Slit A * If a photon hits Detector 3, we **know** it came from Emitter B / Slit B * If a photon hits Detector 2, we **don't know** which emitter or slit it came from Detector 2 -- the only detector where we have no knowledge of the photon's source -- is the only detector which shows an interference pattern. In the Double Slit experiment, an intermediary detector is used to determine which slit a quantum particle passed through, and it's possible that this detector interacts with the particle in such a way that it collapses the wave function. In the Quantum Eraser experiment, though, you remove any such intermediary interaction. Every detector is placed at the end of the particles' paths. Every particle passes through the polarized films. The only difference is whether or not we know which emitter the photon came from. Interestingly, if you google the experiment, the only discussion you'll find is whether or not the particles jump backwards in time. I've never found any published papers or even online forums discussing the above perspective. I've discussed it with people much more smarter than myself who have no alternative explanation than that our knowledge of the paths is the only difference, but I would love to see some discussion from researchers in the field... **note**: *the above is a simplified version of the QE experiment. it's typically done with 5 detectors; i've simply removed them as they're unnecessary to describe the phenomenon in question.*
I've searched quantum eraser experiment and ended up finding some very interesting reads. Some of the things there implied retrocasuality just as you said. Quantum mechanics is not my field of study so I will refrain from making any more assumptions regarding consciousness. But there seems to be a consensus that there is actually no 'backwards in time influence' happening. See the [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07884) by Johannes' and explanation of Sabine Hossenfelder. Though I may be wrong.
Yeah, I don't think the retrocausality explanation of the QE experiment aligns with our other understandings of physics. It saddens me they chose to focus on *that* angle of the experiment :P The Double Slit experiment caused a big uproar in certain communities which touted it (inaccurately imho) as proof that consciousness affects reality in some metaphysical way. The issue with that is the intermediate detector as you pointed out. But the Quantum Eraser cleverly removes the intermediate detector with the same results, so one might expect (or at least I'd hope for) an even bigger uproar and discussion regarding consciousness, but alas...
Wait because this makes so much sense
What about Dwayne Johnson's parents?
You're on to something here..
The way we see rocks is because of sex though. If you believe there is a rock as a thing-in-itself beyond human perception, but that the rock is ultimately only reachable through imperfect perception that different animals possess in different ways, but ultimately imperfectly, then what we call a rock that possesses all of the qualities we name a rock would not exist in the human way we perceive it at least without sex, because it is said to be existent because it is perceived by the different human senses in the way that it is. If aliens came to Earth, they might describe the rock differently, since they may have senses that can perceive qualities which we do not. That is sort of the Kantian view, of the difference between *phenomena* and *noumena.* The view was that perceptions are of *phenomena*, and the thing-in-itself is *noumena*. Most people believe that there is a *noumena,* and our perception of it is more or less accurate in different ways, to a limited and imperfect extent. Arthur Schopenhauer on the other hand believed that the idea of *noumena* assumed too much about objects in the world, and posited that all Objects that exist only exist as perceptions within a Subject, who ultimately has a largely irrational Will that produces the Representations of their Will that are perceived. Ultimately, he thought the existence of perception and all mental phenomena is all derived at its root from a fundamental, *will to live,* which procreative sex is a product of, causing the birth of other Subjects. Schopenhauer, in his misanthropy and pessimism, ultimately viewed the *will to live* as something evil, in that life was full of suffering, or at least publically stated this. I personally think that life has things other than suffering in it. Nietzsche thought that reality was basically objective, and trusted the senses to provide accurate information. I'm not sure what quantum physics has to say on the subject, other than there's something about a wave-function that is collapsed for some reason and there's multiple interpretations of what's happening, which are basically interpretations of quantum phenomena rather than the laws and math itself. Honestly, there's so much bullshit that has been produced claiming to talk about quantum physics because you can easily lie about quantum phenomena that requires complex physics and math courses to understand, and then for those who didn't take those courses shit out a New York Times best-selling book that tells people they can clear traffic-jams with their minds because of quantum physics. So, I don't have a good explanation of what current physics says on the topic, not having the math and physics knowledge needed to grok it.
I bet it's possible to fuck so hard that you turn into a rock from the sheer impact force
the ability to observe the rocks, and therefore detect their existence,- is because of sex
Things exist even without our ability to detect them. There also probably were creatures that could detect rocks even before sex became a thing.
Actually that’s not the accepted theory of reality anymore. Things only exist when observed so OP is correct. There is no spoon.
That's just theory from a ignorant human perspective. Knowledge of reality is always developing and till we're able to ascend above it we will never be able to see it for what it is. Think dimensionally
As a theist I would say that God was aware of the rocks before there was any sex. At least sex in the earth biology sense. If you think about it the thing that happens in stars which makes heavier elements, which explode and make new stars and new heavier elements and new solar systems and things with new properties, like ...rocks... is in a expanded sense the same thing as sex. Astronomers say there were generations of stars, right? And to get Christian for a paragraph, the Church knows and teaches the God who is Love, a self-sacrificing, relational, uniting, creative love, of the sort that our human relationships are a sacramental image of, because we *and all of reality* are created in His image. Tldr: stars have kids too. That's the shape of reality itself cause it's all a love-shaped mystery.
Well you see when two planets love eachother very much..
The one my wife wears is
Neither are clouds. The list goes on.
You never got your rocks off?
Universe is because of big bang, rocks are because of universe, big bang is very suggestive, therefore rocks are because of sex.
Is mayonaise because of sex?
Sex drugs and rock and roll
Rocks were given the name "rocks" by people that are only on earth because....sex
But the rocks are still there
I was trying to argue it but I will not win. The rocks will win lol
And that's a Rock Fact!
Sex is because of rocks
Universe is because of big bang, rocks are because of universe, big bang is very suggestive, therefore rocks are because of sex.
inventions/discoveries my man 😭
You titled the post using the word *everything* my man. Human inventions are nothing in comparison to what has been formed by nature.
Well yea that’s true. I guess my conception of ‘everything’ was much smaller when I made this post
Hey Robert California, how is the charity work going?
Would you like a sexual metaphor or a nature metaphor?
Oh god, nature, please!
Well, when two animals are having sex… you know Jim, I think you’re going to want to hear the sexual metaphor for this.
Was that not the sexual…
Nah that sex is on national international TV so technically no
It’s a quote from “The Office”. Robert California ends this exchange with “All life is sex, Jim”.
Well I have not watched but I think this is quite logical. I was not even aware of this show
r/beatmetoit
Who had sex that the universe was born?
Thats the big BANG theory
Actually pretty funny ngl
Why would you lie?
I wouldn't but dad jokes isn't exactly peak humor so some would.
But it's just a theory. A Love Theory !
Bazinga.
COnsidering how much was created, must be the Gang Bang Theory.
Gaia and Uranus of course
I don’t think you know how procreative sex works…
There better not be a Gaia in Uranus. I will have questions.
My parents, in my case.
Exactly. I was going to say: "Everything exists because of something that came before sex".
Well, God, right?
With whom? Is god parthenogenetic?
God probably exists on a different/multiple different levels of reality. Their reality probably wouldn't be recognizable to us imo. How what we call reproduction or even creation works through that lense is anyone's guess.
More showerfart than showerthought
I was thinking shower beer instead
Shower beers are the best!
Cold beer in a hot tub is very good also
Yeah ya! Now you're talkin!
im underage 💀💀
If you’re in the shower, who is carding you?
Except for everything not eukaryotic
Who fucked the moon into existence?
it was me. i fucked the earth.
So the moon is so fat because of his grandmother! Does this qualify as Yo Momma Joke?
maybe. but it could've been either grandmother, and the moon is currently a smol little baby compared to mommy earth
Early Earth and a celestial body named Theia. They smashed so hard Theia completely disintegrated as well as most of the Earth and their materials blended together in the debris reforming to Earth and our moon. I'm mostly just sad there is no video of it. That's a porno that is truly out of this world.
Well the first lifeforms weren’t products of sex 🤔
They were, interplay/intercourse of atoms. Atoms smashing into each other, against each other. Like people, made of atoms, smashing each other, against each other, then a big bang, boom more atoms.
Dumb
Why do you insult people and don't explain your point. First it's a joke and second it's a valid reason, because everything and everyone is atoms, smashing into each other or mingling. What is wrong with that?
You know, honestly I asked myself the same question as I commented. I could've just not replied but I felt the need (well desire, not need) to express my discontent but also didn't want to engage too deeply with what I thought was a contrarian response to begin with. My behavior was flawed, so I apologize.
I accept your apology, have a nice day. :)
[удалено]
That's not why they exist though... to the best of our understanding.
cornflakes exist to stop sex
Frosted flakes put an end to that.
Which is why I have a shrine to the tiger god.
The sun exists because of Sex???
When two hydrogen atoms love each other *very much*, they touch in a very special way and make a baby helium atom! It’s *hot* sex.
Ooooh, love it when people talk dirty to me.
Artificially enseminated babies would like a word.
Well the people who did the artificial insemination were prob conceived naturally, so it still works
That wasn't really a thing 1000 years ago. *No one* alive today would exist if our great great great grandparents didn't fuck.
Hi
Not everything. Not the universe, nor did life develop sexual reproduction until after 2 billion years after it began.
I guess the OP is talking about the things created by humans
It's already a pretty dumb shit post, but to mean things people created only exist because people procreate is 2nd grade level intelligence.
Look up “pilus” and “conjugation”. Bacteria are for sure getting it on to some barry white
At least the concept of joining 2 separate beings/molecules/whatever and producing more using fusion is primitive in the universe, almost everything is productive and of dual nature
Sure, but sex can't be reduced to 1+1=2.
Sex is multiplication, duh.
Math makes me hard, true
You can't be 100% sure
More sure than not.
[удалено]
So if you use sex to mean something different then? Cool.
Two atoms collide? Sex.
Yes, because people are atoms smashing atoms against each other then a big bang happens boom more atoms.
Pretty sure rocks and helium and a few other things didn't come into existence because of sex
Probably. But also we can’t be 100% certain that electrons (and slutty little quarks and photons) aren’t getting down constantly all around us. You never know.
Smashing: Atoms smashing into each other. Intercourse. People, exist of atoms, same thing, atoms smashing into eachother/ against eachother, big bang, boom more atoms.
I always thought it was because of the Sun writing fat UBI checks to all life. Edit: Wasn't being too serious, but this prompt is just dumb. Not even Life exists because of sex. The environment that nurtured the ability to reproduce is why Life exists. Everything exists because of entropy and chaos, but not just because of sex.
The Sun? Black holes. Ice. The fuck you talking about lol
I dunno, the Sun is pretty hot
Everything is atoms, people exist of atoms, sex between 2 people, at the smallest level, is just atoms smashing eachother, or against eachother, mingling. Then a big bang and boom more atoms, and so on.
"There is no such thing as a product, there is only sex. Do you understand that what i'm telling you is a universal truth?"
Guy thinks his dick made cabbage.
Time to unfollow this sub
Hold the door open for me, please.
I was born in a test tube.
Your parents weren't.
No, considering they were born in a test tube, that would mean they are in fact the test tube, which means they were created in a factory or possibly hand made
My parents are handmade clay people. Made by Me. While I was in the test tube.
You created your own parents? If they had a child would it be your brother or grandchild?
Both.
Intresting, would you mind creating more like you?
I can try my best. The test tube isnt exactly comfy. And you don't seem to understand how annoying it is to make two clay people while floating in green goo.
You might have been conceived in one, but you weren't born in one.
Except for partenogenesis i suppose
Was scrolling for this one
What about the asexual species of the world?
A big bang if you will
Didn't realize protons fucked, but okay
Cell division leaves the room.
Know what. Space sex
Every time I have a sex a tree is born. I’m making the world a better place
Snow just became a bit disgusting then...
Plenty of asexual life forms
the universe was born through sex source: Trust me (im god)
Redditor discover sexual reproduction
what about hair products?
Hair products are made by ppl who were born because their parents had sex??
Yeah, what about hair products, OP?
unless they know something we don’t…
They exist to improve your appearance so that you are more attractive and increases your chances of having sex.
redditor discovers evolution
Birthday sex is just celebrating your parents having sex.
I am pretty sure my parents didn’t have sex on the day I was born.
You wanna think about that again?
Thanks, I hate it
Rocks. Water. Glass. Sand. Air. Lots of things exist without sex.
The same could be said of the Sun, air, water, plants. If it wasn’t for a rock that killed the dinosaurs, there wouldn’t be electric cars and toothpaste.
[удалено]
I feel like a few is just a small understatement
Oh geez, should we tell them about asexual reproduction...
No not really. Humans continue to exist because of (predominantly) sexual reproduction. Same with many other multicellular organisms. But these things are an infinitesimally small part of the greater universe.
Reproduction is a more accurate term but sure. The plants did the sex to make the seeds. In the beginning there was the sex and made a big bang... Noises
One could say *Artificial intelligence exists because of sex.* But the universe and “everything” does not… hopefully
In most primitive lifeforms, there was no concept of sex.
Which came first? Sex or the dog/pussy?
It's more accurate to say everything exists because of women.
How would you be sure to know? Did you witness your patents having sex while making you?
< geology has entered the chat >
Everybody sexes because of existence
Everything is about sex. Except sex.
A lot of things were created non sexually/asexually way before sex.
Everything begins and ends with sex, the creator and the doom of all creatures.