Is the Universe Fine-Tuned?

[The Crocodile]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

I know what you meant.

It is literally impossible for you to know what I meant.

Maybe it's because my position doesn't come from a place of self-pity?

It's like you're starving to death, and I show you a mango.

And you get offended because you didn't know you could have been eating mangos this whole time because of your refusal to swim across a bit of water to another island, where there are mangos.

Edited Wednesday at 03:04 AM by The Crocodile

[Ero]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

@Ero Again, I'm not seeing a specific enough question to answer.

Noted, I will be sharper and spell the essence of my questions:

What are the pitfalls in seeing a never-ending abstraction ladder of relative ontologies? - I know it by definition this won't lead to Truth, but Truth itself must be reflected in each, which is currently not accounted in this epistemic model.

How do you relate the mutually-exclusive perspectives at the meta-layer when there isn't a fundamental "ontology"? Building from first principles/ axioms does not work, neither does "empiricism" due to the selection-bias of each. 

[Ero]

10 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

You could expand your visual field and awareness outside of physical reality and twist it to another spatial location, or the physical world is just a rendering destination that's spatially smaller than the magic and at the other end of a "spiral" or "galaxy". Or the magic can twist you down into a single particle of a table, maintaining the size of the body but using the colors.

I have had deeper spiritual and visionary experiences than this. None of it invalidates a rigorous and continuous sharpening of one's intellect. 

[The Crocodile]

5 minutes ago, Ero said:

Noted, I will be sharper and spell the essence of my questions:

What are the pitfalls in seeing a never-ending abstraction ladder of relative ontologies? - I know it by definition this won't lead to Truth, but Truth itself must be reflected in each, which is currently not accounted in this epistemic model.

How do you relate the mutually-exclusive perspectives at the meta-layer when there isn't a fundamental "ontology"? Building from first principles/ axioms does not work, neither does "empiricism" due to the selection-bias of each. 

Again, he's not seeing a specific enough question to answer.

3 minutes ago, Ero said:

I have had deeper spiritual and visionary experiences than this.

You don't know what I'm talking about.

Your visionary experiences came from doing drugs.

Your spiritual experiences could be rivaled by any woman on her period taking a soothing bath or sleeping in on a cold winter day.

Quote

None of it invalidates a rigorous and continuous sharpening of one's intellect. 

I didn't say invalidate, I implied it would naturally drop it since it's unnecessary and doesn't serve anybody.

[aurum]

9 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

It is literally impossible for you to know what I meant.

Maybe it's because my position doesn't come from a place of self-pity?

It's like you're starving to death, and I show you a mango.

And you get offended because you didn't know you could have been eating mangos this whole time because of your refusal to swim across a bit of water to another island, where there are mangos.

Never liked mangos much, more of a kiwi guy.

[Ero]

Just now, The Crocodile said:

Your visionary experiences came from doing drugs.

This is your assumption and it is false. 

2 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

I didn't say invalidate, I implied it would naturally drop it since it's unnecessary and doesn't serve anybody.

Also false. The only reason you are not in a cave right now, wiping your ass with leaves, is because millions of humans before you have used their intellect to mold existence. Nobody forces you to use your brain if you don't want to. Just don't expect others to follow in your steps. 

[The Crocodile]

6 minutes ago, Ero said:

This is your assumption and it is false. 

Well, then it was just visualization, and that has a 99% chance of being true. If it's false then it's a miracle and I congratulate you.

[The Crocodile]

11 minutes ago, Ero said:

The only reason you are not in a cave right now, wiping your ass with leaves

Bold of you to assume I would not prefer this. Or that I have not done this. Or that we both have not done that in past lives.

Quote

is because millions of humans before you have used their intellect to mold existence.

You are ignoring the physical, subtle-physical, vital, mental, and spiritual planes all individually and interconnectedly.

The mind has its place in evolution, it is not the end-all-be-all, it is not the highest principle. Intellect itself is a specific general type of structure or organization the mind uses and is not even "the mind".

You should be able to perceive one day biology may not be useful to a being anymore, and likewise the mind. There are planes above the mind which are not explicable by the mind, or if they are it takes a pain tolerance and laboriousness.

16 minutes ago, Ero said:

Nobody forces you to use your brain if you don't want to. Just don't expect others to follow in your steps. 

Not what I said. I and the Universe consider myself more intelligent than you.

[Ero]

2 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

Bold of you to assume I would not prefer this. Or that I have not done this. Or that we both have not done that in past lives.

Then suit yourself. I grew up in the mountains, no warm water and having to shit in a hole. You are an American in MA, so how uncomfortable could your life really be?

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, Ero said:

Then suit yourself. I grew up in the mountains, no warm water and having to shit in a hole. You are an American in MA, so how uncomfortable could your life really be?

My life is not uncomfortable.

[Ero]

7 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

My life is not uncomfortable.

Precisely. The privilege of being born in a developed society. So spare me the new-age woo woo. Until you show me how your "magic" can power nations and lift people up from famine, I will stick with my mathematical and scientific undertakings.

[Terell Kirby]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

2) I deconstructed a lot of spiritual illusions and fantasies, to the point where my understanding of consciousness became so deep that many of the human spiritual pursuits just flew out the window.

I think people really do underestimate how psychologically taxing this is-not a casual endeavor whatsoever.

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Or perhaps you want my experience to validate your perspective.

Heh. Another mild dopamine shot for me.

[Quader]

@Ero @The Crocodile You're wrestling with an Ox and asking it to tell you how it's being tangoed. I personally ascribe to a no source method of magic, as in, it is given only how it is received. If you subscribe to an outwards notion of validity, of concrete power, you will lose it all because it wasn't yours. I would focus on reducing the impact of your relative state as an imposition of what is and accept graciously what is given in absence of your want. If you desire black magic, you'll get it. But this is weak and vulnerable. If you ascribe to black magic as a conduit for protection, for undoing what is afflicted, you might stand a chance in undoing what you're asking as an ego. It's a be careful what you wish for scenario because if you play in this way you will be played by that way. So don't request anything you wouldn't do unto yourself. If you seek more than that, be warned. The piper will be played/paid. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:30 AM by Quader
I meant to call upon the Croc but I misfired and shot at Ero

[Oppositionless]

11 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

Scientists get around the fine-tuning argument with the Multiverse theory.    If there are an infinite number of universes than one of them by chance will be capable of supporting observers and those observers will, of course, note that the universe is fine-tuned.  But ironically by Occam’s razor this scientific theory is a less simple explanation than God as a designer.   

Yes absolutely, there must be a designer. What the Christian doesn't understand is that they themself are the designer

 

[zurew]

16 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

But ironically by Occam’s razor this scientific theory is a less simple explanation than God as a designer.   

Not really , unless you pressupose a set of things about God's preferences. If God has the ability to create any kind of Universe in any particular way, then you need to explain why he would  create the Universe this particular way. If the explanation for God's preference is randomness or if there is no explanation at all, then you won't have any upperhand over any atheist on this one.

If you are allowed to just pressupose things, an atheist the exact same way could just pressupose a principle (involving no mind) that creates the Universe's constants.

This is not about the multiverse ,because thats not the only alternative option, this is about an explanation involving a creator vs an explanation involving no creator. Also the multiverse is compatible with both option (both creator and no creator)

The challenge is giving an answer to this question - What set of characteristics can you attach to a creator mind (that explains the Universe's constants), that you couldn't attach to a non-mind?

Edited Wednesday at 04:40 PM by zurew

[Aaron p]

i like the hexagonal manifestation of temporarily crystalised hydrogen and oxygen particles:

theyre my friends lol

[vibv]

@The Crocodile You want to win at chess by just breaking the rules.

[The Crocodile]

21 minutes ago, vibv said:

@The Crocodile You want to win at chess by just breaking the rules.

You don't know what the rules are.

You're like an atom saying reality shouldn't have molecules.

Or a molecule saying that reality shouldn't have cells.

Or an ordinary, third-density being saying reality shouldn't have sorcerers, avatars, and gods! Or that reality shouldn't evolve!

[vibv]

3 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

Or an ordinary, third-density being saying reality shouldn't have sorcerers, avatars, and gods!

That doesn't seem to be part of this reality to me — but I'm open for the possibility. Though I've yet to see any sign, that that would be true.

Quote

Or that reality shouldn't evolve!

Oh it does But magic is such a lazy storytelling technique