Is the Universe Fine-Tuned?

[Jodistrict]

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.   

[vibv]

7 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

No, that's like saying toasters ruin the point of life and existence. It's just not true.

No you misunderstand me. Toasters don’t break the laws of this reality, they bend them in a way to benefit us. That’s exactly what I said we should do.

Toasters are the real magic. What you propose is child’s play.

Edited January 8 by vibv

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I've seen the wizards' promises and found them to be a mirage.

You assume too much.

Random idiots with pretend magic and reiki are not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about real magic, places where magic is still undiluted, which naturally includes actual understanding of consciousness. Just getting a higher mental perspective or interpretation of your perception isn't enough, the perception has to radically change.

What I offer does that, and it totally alters your relation to space and time.

[The Crocodile]

8 minutes ago, vibv said:

No you misunderstand me. Toasters don’t break the laws of this reality, they bend them in a way to benefit us. That’s exactly what I said we should do.

I didn't misunderstand anything. Magic doesn't break the laws of reality either. What I offer is objectively better for improving your situation and the world, like how a toaster is a technological innovation so that you can toast bread, not violating the "precious" limitation of not having a toaster.

And this isn't a particularly good example since I don't like toasters.

You don't know how impoverished your perception and comprehension of reality is, which is why I understand why Leo can be so harsh and have such an attitude sometimes, because he's seen the same thing from a different angle. And you fundamentally understand what magic is about, it's not about making everything as easy and smooth and butter as possible so there are no features in reality, that's literally not what it is, it raises, expands, deepens, and complexifies reality and improves things and is a tool for improving things in accordance with higher principles--and there's no contradiction between it and the physical world existing or being an environment or being a learning environment.

Primarily I thought instead of cities and towns there should just be the natural forests and other beautiful nature landscapes which already exist, and any human dwelling spots would be more like parks or villages instead of towns or cities.

With gardens/horticulture instead of massive farm fields.

And progress made in the mind, mental and psychic progress instead of technology.

If technological progress is to occur it would be through the mind directly wielding matter, rather than simply using the material hands to build material tools and using the laws of physics, physics would be malleable according to mental and psychic development.

But spiritual progress and occult progress and progress of intelligence and comprehension of consciousness is not incompatible with material or technological progress or events or happenings, quite the contrary.

Saying that spiritual consciousness or phenomena contradict the "needed" limitation of stupidity, ignorance, unconsciousness, unintelligence, incomprehension, lack of magic, etc. and therefore are not needed or contrary to the "purpose" is just wrong and is The Devil talking. Likewise with specifically magical phenomena, which are part of the heritage of humanity.

Keep in mind that it takes a formidable effort to get there anyway, so it's a challenge, not a useless experienceless ease. Individually and collectively. And once you are there that's the new level of reality, and progress twists up with that as the new level with INCREASED information upwards, upwards into the sky, sideways, and downwards with roots into the earth.

Edited January 8 by The Crocodile

[aurum]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It does not exist in my reality.

I relate but have struggled to make sense of this.

There was a phase where I thought my spiritual growth might naturally activate some of these paranormal skills. I spent a good amount of time trying, but struck out completely.

Zero success with remote viewing, telekinesis, telepathy, distance healing, OBEs, seeing auras or anything else.

At a certain point I just quit trying and figured I don't have that skillset for whatever reason.

Perhaps it's for the best. 

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, aurum said:

Zero success with remote viewing, telekinesis, telepathy, distance healing, OBEs, seeing auras or anything else.

At a certain point I just quit trying and figured I don't have that skillset for whatever reason.

It's genetic.

[Ero]

@Leo Gura That makes sense, thank you for elaborating. I would love to hear your feedback on the following:

I have definitely come to appreciate more the ontological significance of relativity in the sense that for some people it is literally true that those things do not exist. I know you have referenced it before when speaking of a "Christian reality" vs. different "histories" or when referring to genetic aptitudes.

This is also the trickiest piece of the "scientific" puzzle. Currently my understanding is that the monadic ontology "peers through" no matter what relative perspective you take, signified by the general transition towards more unified and "universal"/ "interconnected theories" that are nonetheless perspective-dependent (model universes in math, different constant values in physics).

What is hardest in pinpointing is the meta-interactions, since the unity of it all makes it paradoxically "undefinable" from within the system itself, which makes you have to chase your tail ad infinitum up the ladder of abstraction, i.e. there is no "ultimate end"/ToE in science or mathematics. Possibly somewhere along it you get constructive control of genetic or vacuum configurations (neither are theoretically inconsistent).

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Ero said:

@Leo Gura That makes sense, thank you for elaborating. I would love to hear your feedback on the following:

I have definitely come to appreciate more the ontological significance of relativity in the sense that for some people it is literally true that those things do not exist. I know you have referenced it before when speaking of a "Christian reality" vs. different "histories" or when referring to genetic aptitudes.

This is also the trickiest piece of the "scientific" puzzle. Currently my understanding is that the monadic ontology "peers through" no matter what relative perspective you take, signified by the general transition towards more unified and "universal"/ "interconnected theories" that are nonetheless perspective-dependent (model universes in math, different constant values in physics).

What is hardest in pinpointing is the meta-interactions, since the unity of it all makes it paradoxically "undefinable" from within the system itself, which makes you have to chase your tail ad infinitum up the ladder of abstraction, i.e. there is no "ultimate end"/ToE in science or mathematics. Possibly somewhere along it you get constructive control of genetic or vacuum configurations (neither are theoretically inconsistent).

I don't see a clear question here.

What is it you want to know?

[The Crocodile]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

I relate but have struggled to make sense of this.

There was a phase where I thought my spiritual growth might naturally activate some of these paranormal skills. I spent a good amount of time trying, but struck out completely.

Zero success with remote viewing, telekinesis, telepathy, distance healing, OBEs, seeing auras or anything else.

At a certain point I just quit trying and figured I don't have that skillset for whatever reason.

Perhaps it's for the best. 

You probably just weren't putting in enough time.

You could go in a totally dark room (really totally dark, total blackout) for three hours each time and gaze into the dark and watch for the phosphenes, which are probably purple at first. You pick them up, and can blow on them, and can scoop them into shapes and smear them all over your body. If you swing your arms in a specific direction you can see the colors on your arms, despite the pitch blackness. It creates echoes in the darkness, and goes into a non-temporal or hyper-temporal state, and you realize things about how humans could never realize this ever. You'll get third, fourth, and fifth arms. Once you get into real sorcery all movement creates magic. It's why Castaneda created this:

yes, the main woman Kylie is scary and uncomfortable to look at, but it is what it is

And Daniel Ingram puts in twelves hours per day on a retreat, using fire kasina, which is where you do trataka on a candleflame staring at it blinklessly, then shut eyes and go to the inner imagery, repeat.

Telekinesis doesn't come from a spiritual power, it's like a "subtle-physical" thing. I know someone named John who took only a few days to verify it practicing fifteen minutes per day. That's a case of "genetics", but it's not the rational materialistic explanation of genetics explaining something supernatural but rather something supernatural like reincarnation or some identifying container of consciousness that explains the overall pattern which may include genetics. It's completely different from God-Consciousness or spirituality but could obviously correlate with it.

The fastest way to telepathy is doing a half hour of mirror trataka where you read your own thoughts in the mirror. And then you read thoughts on other people's faces as a natural consequence.

[Ero]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't see a clear question here.

What is it you want to know?

I was asking for your general feedback, i.e where do you see pitfalls/ epistemic blind spots in my current understanding.

When I am contemplating at the meta-layer where the paradoxes/ multi-linear truths emerge, parallel to Euclid’s fifth axiom opening distinct geometric universes (pun intended) or the Continuum Hypothesis, I am having difficulty relating the distinct ontologies.
 

“Grounding” at this level doesn’t really work, as you have previously clarified, so other epistemic tools are needed, which I am currently not equipped with. I would appreciate a nudge or direction. Thanks.

[Leo Gura]

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

[aurum]

9 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

You probably just weren't putting in enough time.

Or perhaps you want my experience to validate your perspective.

[The Crocodile]

17 minutes ago, Ero said:

I was asking for your general feedback, i.e where do you see pitfalls/ epistemic blind spots in my current understanding.

When I am contemplating at the meta-layer where the paradoxes/ multi-linear truths emerge, parallel to Euclid’s fifth axiom opening distinct geometric universes (pun intended) or the Continuum Hypothesis, I am having difficulty relating the distinct ontologies.
 

“Grounding” at this level doesn’t really work, as you have previously clarified, so other epistemic tools are needed, which I am currently not equipped with. I would appreciate a nudge or direction. Thanks.

Your epistemic tool is to intellectually abandon Leo and do four hours of candle trataka everyday forever, or at least give it a serious try.

You are very talented-ly developed at using the mind / intellect to explain high-level post-intellectual ontological stuff and nonlinear multi-linearity you're developing into, but you the grounding comes in the form of a full perception (ie. summoning demons, magic, the occult) that is already nonlinear and multi-linear and remains so in a nonlinearly multi-linearly fluxing stable way. No intellectual modeling required to be defended as your awareness heightens and your perception expands.

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.

[The Crocodile]

Just now, aurum said:

Or perhaps you want my experience to validate your perspective.

No, I meant you weren't trying hard enough to have an effect at all, and assumed there was another explanation.

[aurum]

1 minute ago, The Crocodile said:

No, I meant you weren't trying hard enough to have an effect at all, and assumed there was another explanation.

I know what you meant.

[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 January 8 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.