philosophically....get ready to have your head explode....

Post Reply New Topic

Disagree. Zeno asked us to apply mathematical concepts to phenomena in an 'inappropriate' way. The fact that we can divide 4 oranges by Pi apples in a system of math does mean that the result exists in the real world or makes sense outside of the mathemental constructs. I propose that we divide Zeno by zero. If you have a problem with that, try multiplying him by zero.

Zeno's motion paradoxes are easily refuted.

The perpertual loss of energy to heat will eventually result in the death of the universe. Fine-tuning, my eye.

The laws of nature aren't like the laws that are written in some book, and they aren't adjusted like the volume on a radio. The system just works out to be that way. If you can't figure out how by sitting on your rear end in front of a computer monitor, pay a few bucks' extra tax for some scientist to sort it out for you.

And by the way, the sciences are over-glamorized: scientific labs are boring places, and the work is mostly a bunch of mind-numbing drudgery. I happen to like it, but, then again, I am also a masochist. I post here, after all.

Some interesting points in the OP. When it comes to why the constant has been 'set' in a way that allows atoms etc to exist in the way they do, I think it's partly a circular answer because if they weren't set at that particular value, we wouldn't exist to be able to place that value on them. The only option that exists for us to be able to see these things is for them to exist in the way they do. Its kind of like evolutionary theory where people can anthropomorphise the adaptations that have occured: "Creature X evolved into creature Y because of selection pressure Z." This implies some sort of conscious direction in the evolutionary process, which is not the case. What actually happened was that there are continuous genetic changes occurring at the molecular level and when circumstances change one of these may prove to be more adaptive than the genotype that was selected for by previous circumstances. It is random and (when we develop the computing power and understanding of molecular genetics) will one day be explainable and predictable.

As for the idea of the self as an illusion, this is almost identical to the highest Buddhist teachings on the nature of reality, where the individual is not considered to have an inherently existing self but is an illusion to be recognised as such when enlightenment occurs. Consciousness itself in considered an illusion in these teachings. As for the nihilistic perception that nothing exists at all this is also considered wrong because there is somehing on the relative level that we can clearly see and identify as a person. Enlightenment is considered to be the unison of these two views and paradoxical to the unenlightened mind. The rejection of nihilism prevents us from denying responsibility for our lives. To paraphrase one Tibetan teacher, its all a dream, but the trick is to keep good intentions throughout the dream.

I can't remember the name of the author but there's a book called the Tao of Physics which explores the similarities between quantum physics and some of the Eastern religions. Its worth looking at if you're into this kind of thing.

"Fine-tuning"?

. . .



The only thing for which this world seems to be "fine-tuned", is itself, which is to say: It doesn't seem fine-tuned at all.

The current state seems to fit the current state perfectly ZOMG!


But yeah, I get the point of many uncertainties. We can't know what is outside of existence because, obviously, nothing can be outside of existence. That would be like (A = NOT-A).
And the "I" is a very uncertain thing, an everchanging process, I would think.