Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[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.

It is not a correct analogy. The explanation may be a bit complicated but if you wish I may try.

 

[atanu]

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.

One without a second has no will, which comes with ahamkara - ego sense. Once, the one without a second creates (conceptualises) a character, it (the character) goes through a deterministic chain. The one without a second however is not part of that chain. It can conceptualise infinite characters.

We are really not the characters (body-mind-personality) and that knowledge sets us free.

 

[atanu]

The novelist is individual, and therefore part of the me-you differentiation. ---

The metaphor, it seems, did not go down well. What I meant was that a novelist is not bound to the fate of a character in his novel.

 

[viole]

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?

And how do you know that you have that power? Do you really think that the novel causation chain cannot be traced back to prior conditions existing before the birth of the author? In other words: do you think that a given state of the Universe cannot determine the future uniquely?

If you could prove that, you would have shown that information in the Universe is not conserved or that our laws of Nature are not microscopically reversible. And you would win a Nobel prize.

Macroscoplcal irreversibility is only due to our ignorance of the microstate of a macroscopic state. If we knew that, the future of ant macrocosm would be perfectly determined.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious George]

It is not a correct analogy. The explanation may be a bit complicated but if you wish I may try.

Please.

 

[Curious George]

One without a second has no will, which comes with ahamkara - ego sense. Once, the one without a second creates (conceptualises) a character, it (the character) goes through a deterministic chain. The one without a second however is not part of that chain. It can conceptualise infinite characters.

We are really not the characters (body-mind-personality) and that knowledge sets us free.

If we are not also the characters in an equally valid way as we are one, then how is free will not an illusion. If differentiation is not as equally valid as oneness, then the differentiation is illusory. By taking away the reality of differentiation how are you not limiting the oneness' only choice?

 

[atanu]

And how do you know that you have that power? Do you really think that the novel causation chain cannot be traced back to prior conditions existing before the birth of the author? ....

- viole

Simply because consciousness IS. It is not created. Every night in sleep we touch that unborn consciousness. And master meditators enter that unborn, partless consciousness while fully awake.

 

[atanu]

If we are not also the characters in an equally valid way as we are one, then how is free will not an illusion. ...

Free will is not even an option in our dreaming state.

 

[viole]

Simply because consciousness IS. It is not created. Every night in sleep we touch that unborn consciousness. And master meditators enter that unborn, partless consciousness while fully awake.

Master meditators? How do you know that they are master meditators, whatever that means?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious George]

And how do you know that you have that power? Do you really think that the novel causation chain cannot be traced back to prior conditions existing before the birth of the author? In other words: do you think that a given state of the Universe cannot determine the future uniquely?

If you could prove that, you would have shown that information in the Universe is not conserved or that our laws of Nature are not microscopically reversible. And you would win a Nobel prize.

Macroscoplcal irreversibility is only due to our ignorance of the microstate of a macroscopic state. If we knew that, the future of ant macrocosm would be perfectly determined.

Ciao

- viole

This is certainly a simplistic view on determinism. Most determinists would agree that randomness alone would prevent any perfectly determined state. Which brings us to question how are deterministic approaches testable? If there are too many variables for which to account, and some of those variables are random so no accurate predictions can be made save those which reinforce the intuitive concept-choice is limited by environment-how can we in any definitive way abandon our concept of control, a concept by which, whether illusory or not,we live. A similar problem exists with causation. We cannot prove causation but for our use of inductive logic. And though there is no reasoning that allows for us to make the jump in logic we accept it because we cannot detach ourselves from inductive logic in a very similar way that we cannot detach ourselves from the concept of choice.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

[

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 while I claim I can believe material things based on their reliability, and the reliability of my interactions with other humans, none of that is to be trusted because there is a minute possibility that this is an illusion of my
emergent consciousness.

Instead, because of the possibility of this unreliability, I should take your word for it. You have experienced the true nature of the universe, and I have not. Simple as that.

Well, this is a magnificent logical fallacy that you are trying to get me to accept, called the Nirvana fallacy. Please read it.

Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also brings to mind another, perhaps more personal question for you. If you have experienced this oneness, and it is a desirable state, then why aren't you doing it right now. Is it a weakness on your part, or can you only achieve the state once a day? Why are you reading my post when you could be meditating?

 

[Curious George]

So while I claim I can believe material things based on their reliability, and the reliability of my interactions with other humans, none of that is to be trusted because there is a minute possibility that this is an illusion of my
emergent consciousness.

Instead, because of the possibility of this unreliability, I should take your word for it. You have experienced the true nature of the universe, and I have not. Simple as that.

Well, this is a magnificent logical fallacy that you are trying to get me to accept, called the Nirvana fallacy. Please read it.

Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also brings to mind another, perhaps more personal question for you. If you have experienced this oneness, and it is a desirable state, then why aren't you doing it right now. Is it a weakness on your part, or can you only achieve the state once a day? Why are you reading my post when you could be meditating?

I am not sure if this is a question to all, but my understanding is that nirvana or mokshka or Brahman or the universal soul concepts are hyped largely by western accounts of various eastern religions. While one who has access to that connection deserves reverence for their wisdom they share, it is not a magical state of heaven. Rather the states of connection and disconnection are equally valid, thus the ego maniac is no greater or worse than the aloof ascetic. So it doesn't matter whether you spend your life typing away at a keyboard or locked in meditation. Either way you are painting the story of your life one brush stroke at a time. If you were to dissolve into some universal consciousness or spend hours incessantly bickering on rf, you still exist individually the same as we exist together. The question relating to free will however, is does choice exist when referring to your existence individually.

Also, desirability comes from self-so any interpretation of a oneness that deals with desirability comes from a place of not oneness.

So from my understanding-and I am no meditation master- what you believe (the material things you sense and the thoughts you have) are real not illusory. However, there is a connection shared by all things that is also real.

Keep in mind that I am not speaking authoritatively, or with wisdom, but just commenting on my understanding of others points of view, which would probably be better articulated by those who hold such points of view. So I would suggest speaking with many outside of just rf with an open mind. Maybe you will come to the same conclusions about other people's points of view as me, or perhaps you will better understand the various points of view and help me understand them better.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

While one who has access to that connection deserves reverence for their wisdom they share, it is not a magical state of heaven. Rather the states of connection and disconnection are equally valid, thus the ego maniac is no greater or worse than the aloof ascetic. So it doesn't matter whether you spend your life typing away at a keyboard or locked in meditation. Either way you are painting the story of your life one brush stroke at a time. If you were to dissolve into some universal consciousness or spend hours incessantly bickering on rf, you still exist individually the same as we exist together. The question relating to free will however, is does choice exist when referring to your existence individually.

Also, desirability comes from self-so any interpretation of a oneness that deals with desirability comes from a place of not oneness.

So from my understanding-and I am no meditation master- what you believe (the material things you sense and the thoughts you have) are real not illusory. However, there is a connection shared by all things that is also real.

Keep in mind that I am not speaking authoritatively, or with wisdom, but just commenting on my understanding of others points of view, which would probably be better articulated by those who hold such points of view. So I would suggest speaking with many outside of just rf with an open mind. Maybe you will come to the same conclusions about other people's points of view as me, or perhaps you will better understand the various points of view and help me understand them better.

Okay, I get what you're saying.

But when you say "one who has access to that connection deserves reverence for the wisdom they share," this illustrates my point.

One might say a priest has a connection to god that allows them the ability to hear confessions that a Catholic congregation does not. Do they deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

One might say that someone who speaks in tongues received the Holy Spirit. Do they deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

One might say that someone who travels on the astral plane and saw one consciousness as Brahmin. Do they deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

One might say that someone who follows Buddhism can remember past lives. Do thy deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

This isn't about a closed mind. It's a continual inability for these viewpoints to be demonstrated. The believer believes because they trust in something that cannot be verified.

I am open to anything, anything . . . that can be reliably repeated and verified. I claim no knowledge beyond that. Technically, that makes my mind more open than anyone who believes any of the above examples.

 

[Curious George]

Okay, I get what you're saying.

But when you say "one who has access to that connection deserves reverence for the wisdom they share," this illustrates my point.

One might say a priest has a connection to god that allows them the ability to hear confessions that a Catholic congregation does not. Do they deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

One might say that someone who speaks in tongues received the Holy Spirit. Do they deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

One might say that someone who travels on the astral plane and saw one consciousness as Brahmin. Do they deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

One might say that someone who follows Buddhism can remember past lives. Do thy deserve reverence and my suspension of disbelief?

This isn't about a closed mind. It's a continual inability for these viewpoints to be demonstrated. The believer believes because they trust in something that cannot be verified.

I am open to anything, anything . . . that can be reliably repeated and verified. I claim no knowledge beyond that. Technically, that makes my mind more open than anyone who believes any of the above examples.

Yes I personally think all of the examples deserve reverence. They all search for and try to disseminate wisdom. This doesn't mean that you need to believe them.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yes I personally think all of the examples deserve reverence. They all search for and try to disseminate wisdom. This doesn't mean that you need to believe them.

Fair enough.

Start with Aristotle, then add ever other practitioner of scientific inquiry to the list of reverence.

Some searchers of wisdom may die, and their perspectives die with them.

But the wisdom gained from the processes of scientific inquiry is still as verifiable today as it was then, spoken in a common language that survives independent of culture, and capable of being adjusted as we gain more knowledge. And I need no faith to believe it.

If the search and dissemination of wisdom is the criteria, then I think we're agreed.

 

[Curious George]

Fair enough.

Start with Aristotle, then add ever other practitioner of scientific inquiry to the list of reverence.

Some searchers of wisdom may die, and their perspectives die with them.

But the wisdom gained from the processes of scientific inquiry is still as verifiable today as it was then, spoken in a common language that survives independent of culture, and capable of being adjusted as we gain more knowledge. And I need no faith to believe it.

If the search and dissemination of wisdom is the criteria, then I think we're agreed.

Just as long as the dissemination doesn't come in the form of self help books for which the author attempts to make a profit. ;-)

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Just as long as the dissemination doesn't come in the form of self help books for which the author attempts to make a profit. ;-)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

Simply cause and effect. There is the actual moon, and there is a science book about the moon, containing the facts about the moon. The book about the moon is basically a model of the actual moon. A 1 to 1 copy in principle from the physical universe to a world of words, maths and pictures. The moon is the cause, the book is the effect, the evidence forces from the cause to the effect.

 

[Shad]

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

Actually you did since I clearly pointed this out in your secular god post.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually you did since I clearly pointed this out in your secular god post.

Good grief man....your reading and /or comprehension skills do not impress.. I will therefore proceed incrementally one step at a time per post so as to find the precise point where the misunderstanding begins...

Step 1.

In my post 340, I stated George Lemaitre first proposed the big bang theory

In your post 346 responding to my post, you stated ...."Nope, he put some distance between himself and this claim.

Do I understand this context correctly.....just a plain yes or no answer is all that is required....