Is the Universe Fine-Tuned?

[Oppositionless]

The fine-tuning argument is one of the best ways of proving the existence of God (although it's certainly less than 1% as powerful as awakening).

If any of the known physical constants , say the gravitational constant, was different by a fraction of a fraction of a percent, the universe would simply collapse into an entropic soup.

When I learned about this argument I immediately became intrigued and started watching videos about it.

But the results have been frustrating because all the videos I've found are either :

Christian apologists arguing for it or

atheists arguing against it

I even specifically looked up "fine-tuning from a nondual perspective" and found absolutely nothing online.

The only person I've heard talk about it from an awakened perspective is Leo, in his video about the exquisite balance of life.

This to me is proof that no spiritual teacher is AWAKE. None of them understand that God literally imagined the universe perfectly to support life. 

 

Edited Monday at 09:29 PM by Oppositionless

[Breakingthewall]

16 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

The fine-tuning argument is one of the best ways of proving the existence of God (although it's certainly less than 1% as powerful as awakening).

If any of the known physical constants , say the gravitational constant, was different by a fraction of a fraction of a percent, the universe would simply collapse into an entropic soup.

When I learned about this argument I immediately became intrigued and started watching videos about it.

But the results have been frustrating because all the videos I've found are either :

Christian apologists arguing for it or

atheists arguing against it

I even specifically looked up "fine-tuning from a nondual perspective" and found absolutely nothing online.

The only person I've heard talk about it from an awakened perspective is Leo, in his video about the exquisite balance of life.

This to me is proof that no spiritual teacher is AWAKE. None of them understand that God literally imagined the universe perfectly to support life. 

 

There is another possibility. Reality is being without opposition, it is positive momentum because negative momentum does not exist. Reality explodes and coordinates with itself in infinite synchronistic patterns. The fit is perfect because that which is not perfect does not arise. Potential is infinite and selects itself by synchronizing itself in increasingly complex ways in infinite cyclical dimensions. Everything is like a holographic bubble, infinite reflections of reality with itself infinitely synchronized in infinite directions, dancing. Nothing that is not absolutely perfect to infinite power can appear 

[Hojo]

Its fined tuned with logic. It makes itself tuned before logic then uses logic as a way to finely tune itself  by making the logic user think its finely tuned with logic.

Edited Monday at 10:26 PM by Hojo

[Ishanga]

50 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

The fine-tuning argument is one of the best ways of proving the existence of God (although it's certainly less than 1% as powerful as awakening).

If any of the known physical constants , say the gravitational constant, was different by a fraction of a fraction of a percent, the universe would simply collapse into an entropic soup.

When I learned about this argument I immediately became intrigued and started watching videos about it.

But the results have been frustrating because all the videos I've found are either :

Christian apologists arguing for it or

atheists arguing against it

I even specifically looked up "fine-tuning from a nondual perspective" and found absolutely nothing online.

The only person I've heard talk about it from an awakened perspective is Leo, in his video about the exquisite balance of life.

This to me is proof that no spiritual teacher is AWAKE. None of them understand that God literally imagined the universe perfectly to support life. 

 

Sadhguru talks about this all the time, he uses Geometry as his reference, and that with Hatha Yoga one can aline their individual Geometry with that of the Cosmos and the perfection of it...

 

[Breakingthewall]

11 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

Sadhguru talks about this all the time, he uses Geometry as his reference, and that with Hatha Yoga one can aline their individual Geometry with that of the Cosmos and the perfection of it...

 

This video is good, but his way of looking at it in my opinion is the other way around, he says: the universe is perfect geometry, if it weren't it would collapse, that's why it works. It's the other way around, perfect geometry is the only option, all the other possible options can't arise, perfection is not the cause but the consequence. His description of aligning yourself, emptying yourself, so that the cosmos enters you is accurate, he's talking about real enlightenment there

[Breakingthewall]

But in other hand, this is so horrible 😂 the lyrics of the song , I can't listen it 

 

[Leo Gura]

Of course it's fine-tuned, but not in the way that foolish Christians or scientists talk about it.

The scientific notion of fine-tuning doesn't do it justice.

Edited Tuesday at 01:15 AM by Leo Gura

[Oppositionless]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

There is another possibility. Reality is being without opposition, it is positive momentum because negative momentum does not exist. Reality explodes and coordinates with itself in infinite synchronistic patterns. The fit is perfect because that which is not perfect does not arise. Potential is infinite and selects itself by synchronizing itself in increasingly complex ways in infinite cyclical dimensions. Everything is like a holographic bubble, infinite reflections of reality with itself infinitely synchronized in infinite directions, dancing. Nothing that is not absolutely perfect to infinite power can appear 

Ayy you referenced my name 

I think what you're talking about and what I'm taking about are two sides of the same coin. And I don't think 99% of Buddhists understand it.

[Oppositionless]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course it's fine-tuned, but not in the way that foolish Christians or scientists talk about it.

The scientific notion of fine-tuning doesn't do it justice.

Do you agree that the vast majority of spiritual teachers don't understand? I see nondualists like Bernardo Kastrup replacing materialism but not fundamentally deconstructing the scientific idea of reductionism and naturalism.

[SOUL]

I don't know the way to explain it other than there are other manners of tuning that exists but cannot be measured by the devices of this manner of tuning so they are functionally nonexistent to 'science' but can be accessed with consciousness.

Edited Tuesday at 01:28 AM by SOUL

[Oppositionless]

2 minutes ago, SOUL said:

I don't know the way to explain it other than there are other manners of tuning that exists but cannot be measured by the devices of this manner of tuning so they are functionally nonexistent to 'science' but can be accessed with consciousness.

On psychedelics I perceive an underlying structure to what we call physical reality consisting of living geometry. I think I'm seeing what you're saying.

[Ero]

@Oppositionless One concept even more awe-inspiring than fine-tuning is universality. In mathematics (of which physics is a strict subset), there are ideas and concepts that appear to be connecting every field. We are only seeing tiny glimpses of it, but even those are enough to make you question everything.

Most of it is pretty abstract stuff like the Langlands program, but there are some stuff that is more accessible and has pretty awesome videos about it. Look into the "monstrous moonshine", busy beaver proving conjectures like the Riemann hypothesis, statistical physics universality and many more.

Ramanujan is one person who almost certainly had a spiritual access to the underlying source code. The Rogers-Ramanujan identities appear in different form in all of the latter examples. He is an example and inspiration I keep coming back to remind myself that the ontology of modern "science", i.e rationalism, formalism, logicism or instrumentalism is simply false. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:35 AM by Ero

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Oppositionless said:

Do you agree that the vast majority of spiritual teachers don't understand? I see nondualists like Bernardo Kastrup replacing materialism but not fundamentally deconstructing the scientific idea of reductionism and naturalism.

Kastrup is not that advanced.

More serious spiritual people should understand. Although I have stopped trying to account for what others are conscious of as that is a fool's game.

Edited Tuesday at 02:37 AM by Leo Gura

[Buck Edwards]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Kastrup is not that advanced.

More serious spiritual people should understand. Although I have stopped trying to account for what others are conscious of as that is a fool's game.

You should make a video on materialism.

[Inliytened1]

5 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

The fine-tuning argument is one of the best ways of proving the existence of God (although it's certainly less than 1% as powerful as awakening).

If any of the known physical constants , say the gravitational constant, was different by a fraction of a fraction of a percent, the universe would simply collapse into an entropic soup.

When I learned about this argument I immediately became intrigued and started watching videos about it.

But the results have been frustrating because all the videos I've found are either :

Christian apologists arguing for it or

atheists arguing against it

I even specifically looked up "fine-tuning from a nondual perspective" and found absolutely nothing online.

The only person I've heard talk about it from an awakened perspective is Leo, in his video about the exquisite balance of life.

This to me is proof that no spiritual teacher is AWAKE. None of them understand that God literally imagined the universe perfectly to support life. 

 

Yes. Exactly.  It's so obvious. 

But science will dismiss this as this universe is an anomaly.  And that other universes failed to form because they weren't the perfect formulation.  From the Big Bang.

[Terell Kirby]

5 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

This to me is proof that no spiritual teacher is AWAKE.

Of course not, spiritual teachers are imaginary after all . 

[Carl-Richard]

I've never understood the appeal. The fine-tuning argument is essentially "the universe is a particular way, therefore God".

And it's yet another way to anthropomorphize or anthropocentrize something that is not human. The universe is fine-tuned to be exactly what it is, nothing else. It doesn't care about life any more than a rock or a black hole or empty space. It cares about everything. And all of these things fundamentally necessitate each other. They're perfectly interrelated. That's fine-tuning.

Edited Tuesday at 05:06 AM by Carl-Richard

[mmKay]

5 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

Do you agree that the vast majority of spiritual teachers don't understand? I see nondualists like Bernardo Kastrup replacing materialism but not fundamentally deconstructing the scientific idea of reductionism and naturalism.

Look up Bashar Darryl Anka vídeos, he talks about it a lot

[zurew]

I dont really understand how this argument shows that theism is more probable than atheism ( or how it is an argument in favour of theism ).

As far as I understand it, this is used to push atheists for an explanation for the existence of mentioned the constants. If the constants were created by random chance, then the universe existing this particular way would be very improbable ( I dont think that randomness is necessarily entailed by atheism, there are other alternatives). But I dont see how theism or the fine tuning argument solves the explanation problem, because it just seems to push the problem 1 step further.

Did God create these constants? If yes, then we get into the problem of searching for an explanation why he would create these constants this particular way and not in any other way. If God has the ability to define from scratch what supports life and freely choose contants for a given universe, then that leaves us with a scenario where this universe existing this particular way, with these constants is just one scenario from infinite other scenarios (making the existence of this universe just as improbable under theism as under the random chance atheism).

If the answer is no (God didn't create these constants), then the existence of God doesn't help with solving this problem at all.

Edited Tuesday at 11:30 AM by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

None of them understand that God literally imagined the universe perfectly to support life. 

That's a mistake, god is the universe, not an entity who imagined the universe

Edited Tuesday at 09:11 AM by Breakingthewall