Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no secular version of God did it since secular academics do not include the supernatural. God did it is a fallacy based on the position that something is unknown or the cause of something is God is the cause, God of the gaps. So no only do you not understand secular academics you do not understand the fallacy you bring up.

Be that as it may.....that was not the point....it was that you responded to the quoted comment of my post 340, where I said that George Lemaitre first proposed the big bang theory, to.say in your post 346...."Nope, he put some distance between himself and this claim. ...."

Now note in my next post, I did not refute your point out of hand, but only to make clear to you that I posted in good faith based on what I had read in a Wiki article on Lemaitre, I responded in my post 349 saying...."Shad...seems you had better go edit Wiki..." ...and went on to provide the link to the Wiki article and the excerpt where it clearly states that Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory.

Your responding post 350 started with...."Read what you link so you do not present yourself as a fool in public" ....and went on to quote an excerpt that supported your assertion. Now I had indeed read the Wiki article and quoted the Wiki article verbatim where it stated Lemaitre proposed the BB theory. I was not missing your point in your earlier post, I presumed you were familiar with the option to edit Wiki articles, if they can be shown to be in error, so that was your best option if you thought the Wiki article was incorrect. But no, instead of calling out Wiki for something you don't agree with....you took out your anger on the messenger...

 

[Shad]

Be that as it may.....that was not the point....it was that you responded to the quoted comment of my post 340, where I said that George Lemaitre first proposed the big bang theory, to.say in your post 346...."Nope, he put some distance between himself and this claim. ...."

If you actually read my post you would see I provide clear parameters for the scope of the message.

"Nope, he put some distance between himself and this claim. He even told the Pope to avoid making this statement. The theory makes no claims to anything external to the scope of the BB and universe. Such claims were made by others after the fact. The only way this view works within science is if "God" means "We have no idea"

Now note in my next post, I did not refute your point out of hand, but only to make clear to you that I posted in good faith based on what I had read in a Wiki article on Lemaitre, I responded in my post 349 saying...."Shad...seems you had better go edit Wiki..." ...and went on to provide the link to the Wiki article and the excerpt where it clearly states that Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory.

This response is due to your miscomprehended post detailed above

Your responding post 350 started with...."Read what you link so you do not present yourself as a fool in public" ....and went on to quote an excerpt that supported your assertion. Now I had indeed read the Wiki article and quoted the Wiki article verbatim where it stated Lemaitre proposed the BB theory. I was not missing your point in your earlier post, I presumed you were familiar with the option to edit Wiki articles, if they can be shown to be in error, so that was your best option if you thought the Wiki article was incorrect. But no, instead of calling out Wiki for something you don't agree with....you took out your anger on the messenger...

Again due to your first misunderstanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you actually read my post you would see I provide clear parameters for the scope of the message.

"Nope, he put some distance between himself and this claim. He even told the Pope to avoid making this statement. The theory makes no claims to anything external to the scope of the BB and universe. Such claims were made by others after the fact. The only way this view works within science is if "God" means "We have no idea"

This response is due to your miscomprehended post detailed above

Again due to your first misunderstanding.

Be that as it may...the Wiki article still says that Lemaitre was the first to propose the BB theory of the Universe...

 

[Shad]

Be that as it may...the Wiki article still says that Lemaitre was the first to propose the BB theory of the Universe...

I never argued this point. Hence why I highlighted the parameters which direct my comment to a specific point which I put in bold above.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I never argued this point. Hence why I highlighted the parameters which direct my comment to a specific point which I put in bold above.

And I never argued that point....the matter is closed....

 

[Curious George]

Ilusion as a nomer falls short, because while Ilusion is not physical, illusion is still fact. When I fantasize about a leprechaun, then this fantasyfigure is in fact in my imagination. And with all matter of facts the laws of nature apply. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion. When something can be subject to the force in evidence, it is subject to some or other forces of nature.

One has to categorize the self apart from facts, which is to say that the existence of it is subjective, a matter of opinion. The self is spiritual. So we can say that the self chooses, and only by choosing can we reach any conclusion about what the self is, resulting in an opinion. Those rules work without contradiction, it means the brain can turn out several different ways, the brain is decided over, and we cannot measure what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

And we can see in common discourse, that these rules are already used. We can see that people talk as though there are several possible answers to the question what emotions somebody has in their heart, all of which answers are regarded as correct.

How is the leprechaun you imagine a fact, but not the self you conceptualize?

 

[jonathan180iq]

The answer is...yes.

Welp, I guess the discussion is over then...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How is the leprechaun you imagine a fact, but not the self you conceptualize?

The leprechaun in my imagination, I can just accurately 1 to 1 copy it to paper. Or well something that looks like it because of my drawing skills.

But the emotions I feel inside, to put that on paper requires choosing. I cannot copy it, I can only choose with those emotions what to do with the drawing pen.

 

[Curious George]

The leprechaun in my imagination, I can just accurately 1 to 1 copy it to paper. Or well something that looks like it because of my drawing skills.

But the emotions I feel inside, to put that on paper requires choosing. I cannot copy it, I can only choose with those emotions what to do with the drawing pen.

So any abstract concept is not fact?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So any abstract concept is not fact?

No, only all what is refferred to as choosing is not fact but opinion.

 

[atanu]

How is it possible that you and I have control over our brains if you and I are illusory? And if you and I are illusory, and part of some single consciousness which is in control, then in theory any part of the consciousness could have control over the illusory you or I. Thus, all attacks you have made on the deterministic pov are also applicable to your theory.

Excellent post. You have got to the core, i feel.

We are able to meditate, calm our turbulent mind, do great feats -- all though power of consciousness that is single. Once an access to the undivided consciousness is established, there is no You and I and thus no ego that is trapped in determinism.

A simple analogy is an ocean and its waves. Waves may act as individual waves opposed to all other waves. Or a wave may become Buddha.

 

[Curious George]

No, only all what is refferred to as choosing is not fact but opinion.

But why would some other conceptualization be fact but not self. We certainly cant draw abstract thoughts. How is conception of self-an abstract thought different from other abstract thoughts. And what do u mean by opinion. Isn't opinion different from self?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But why would someone other conceptualization be fact but not self. We certainly cant draw abstract thoughts. How is conception of self-an abstract thought different from other abstract thoughts. And what do u mean by opinion. Isn't opinion different from self?

Yes, what it is that chooses is a matter of opinion, it does not consist of opinions, obviously...

We can draw out the mechanics of abstract throughts certainly, mathematics is highly abstract, we can draw it. Abstract is a different issue from subjective things.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion.

So when you would say what the self is, as what chooses, is a matter of fact, then you would be equally saying that; "what is free is forced", because of the force required for obtaining a fact. That is a logical error of contradiction, so that is how facts are excluded, because all force is excluded by the freedom in choosing. That is how the self, as what it is that chooses, is categorically a matter of opinion.

 

[atanu]

Oh I get it.

I think you're saying that If I hold to a materialist view of consciousness, then I must accept a solipsistic viewpoint.

Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an idealist viewpoint. You're far closer to accepting that view from your premises than I ever will be from mine.

[

My view will be solipsism if I believed in discrete separate consciousnesses. I have experienced a single consciousness as the truth on which all objects (physical and mental) are forms. For example, Gold is the substance but a bangle is a shape made of that substance.

So, our individual consciousnesses are emergent -- modified in particular ways --- but the pure source of intelligence is not emergent. It is here and now. In deep sleep mind dissolves in that.

If I believe material processes create emergent consciousness, then I can already accept that other emergent consciousness exists in others. It's not a contradiction. . . It's already part of my material worldview.

If I'm incorrect about this logical assumption on your part, please correct. If it is correct, then you have a lot more to explain to demonstrate why I am solipsistic and you somehow are not.

You are correct .... partly. We, Hindus believe in a general consciousness (which is formless, objectless, partitions, infinite, timeless) and particular consciousnesses that are emergent. But the particular consciousnesses are not discrete units but are merely forms and names of the GENERAL (called brahman).

If consciousness is merely emergent then the beings subsisting on that emergent consciousness cannot unravel the root of the consciousness. Characters in a film cannot dissect the director of the film. Further, an emergent intelligence derived from blind processes cannot have any control over those processes. But we know that we have will. We know that we can control the turbulence of mind through meditation.

Consciousness is.

 

[Curious George]

Excellent post. You have got to the core, i feel.

We are able to meditate, clam our turbulent mind, do great feats -- all though power of consciousness that is single. Once an access to the undivided consciousness is established, there is no You and I and thus no ego that is trapped in determ

Excellent post. You have got to the core, i feel.

We are able to meditate, calm our turbulent mind, do great feats -- all though power of consciousness that is single. Once an access to the undivided consciousness is established, there is no You and I and thus no ego that is trapped in determinism.

A simple analogy is an ocean and its waves. Waves may act as individual waves opposed to all other waves. Or a wave may become Buddha.

Doesn't this just turn the dualistic vs. Singular approach into a simple abstraction? I can look at complex system as an individual. For instance, the concept of an ecosystem in biology.

When we abstract so there is no self, no choice can persist in that macro view. I find it interesting that the deterministic approach which focuses on microcosms such as particles and chemicals, and the metaphysical approach which focuses on the macrocosm, all as one, both lead to the same place which is no free will. Where is the atman(for lack of a better word) in the metaphysical argument.

And for the physical argument(the determinists) how is it possible to ever account for the seemingly infinite variables to reach a conclusion?

 

[Curious George]

.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion..

I don't think I understand what is meant by this, and I think it is causing a hang up on my part, from understanding your perspective.

 

[atanu]

Well, hold your horses, lol.
After all, people make computer because they cannot determine the weather themselves.

- viole

That is simply not correct. People make cars since they cannot move that fast. But they determine the outcome much in advance. The example of computer parts being non intelligent and yet the computer being intelligent is flawed. The whole process is determined.

 

[atanu]

Doesn't this just turn the dualistic vs. Singular approach into a simple abstraction? I can look at complex system as an individual. For instance, the concept of an ecosystem in biology.

When we abstract so there is no self, no choice can persist in that macro view. I find it interesting that the deterministic approach which focuses on microcosms such as particles and chemicals, and the metaphysical approach which focuses on the macrocosm, all as one, both lead to the same place which is no free will. Where is the atman(for lack of a better word) in the metaphysical argument.

And for the physical argument(the determinists) how is it possible to ever account for the seemingly infinite variables to reach a conclusion?

You are correct to an extent. We are all bound to chain of determinism. But since intelligence is actually free, we have the power to break away from the chain.

And, the metaphysical approach which focuses on the macrocosm, all as one, is not at all deterministic. Is output of a novelist deterministic?

 

[atanu]

- things that operate under deterministic laws cannot make reliable assessments about true predicates
True or false?
Ciao
- viole

Yes. True.

 

[Curious George]

You are correct to an extent. We are all bound to chain of determinism. But since intelligence is actually free, we have the power to break away from the chain.

And, the metaphysical approach which focuses on the macrocosm, all as one, is not at all deterministic. Is output of a novelist deterministic?

The novelist is individual, and therefore part of the me-you differentiation. To understand how oneness makes free will impossible, we must examine our understanding of choice. Free will cannot exist if no choice is possible. So, if all is one, the only possible choice is to differentiate or not. If differentiation is an illusion then you are saying that differentiation was not a choice thereby eliminating the only possibility of free will.