Absolutley stunned by the mindlessness of academic philosophy / daniel dennet

[Oppositionless]

@cetus Theres an argument for God called the fine-tuning argument. It says that the fundamental constants of physics are so precisely tuned that if they were different by an absurdly small amount , not only would there be no life but there wouldn't even be complex particles .

Unfortunately this argument isn't taken seriously as it should be because it's usually religious people using it.

 

The best materialist argument against fine tuning seems to be the multiverse . That there are infinite "dead" universes and we just got lucky . It's interesting because the OTHER multiverse theory , based on quantum mechanics, is to avoid the observer effect and collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics.

In short, materialists seem to invoke the multiverse for two discoveries in nature that point to idealism / God. And these are different types of multiverse , so for it to work for both you would need infinite universes branching into yet more infinite universes.

 

To be specific , the multiverse used to argue against fine tuning is based on string theory , and the one to explain quantum observer wave function collapse is the Everett multiverse.

Yet idealism explains both, and it explains consciousness.

Edited yesterday at 02:41 AM by Oppositionless

[Aaron p]

On 01/01/2026 at 10:40 PM, Leo Gura said:

Group-think is a much more potent force than anyone appreciates.

@Leo Gura quick question bro, would group think be inherently bad (bad in the regular sense, like harmful)? Because I grew up quite deeply blue and had to learn how to think more explicitly about green ideals like anti-racism and anti-sexism or anti-homophobia etc. of course it's better to have a realisation rather than just parroting...but I mean some group think is essentially unavoidable without thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. So some group think is better than others?

Like, not often, but I would find myself parroting some things sometimes and I just trust that they're right because they're spoken by someone who've I've found to be correct with other things. Wouldn't do it much, but better than parroting the kkk..?

Edited yesterday at 03:21 AM by Aaron p

[Leo Gura]

On 1/6/2026 at 7:07 PM, Aaron p said:

would group think be inherently bad

It is bad relative to thinking independently. However, thinking independently is very hard and you don't have time to think through everything from scratch for yourself. So group-think is a way of dealing with the insane vastness of mindspace.

It has its pros ans cons. You could think yourself into something even worse than the normie worldview if you aren't careful.

Group-think is like living in a herd. It is generally safe, but the herd will sometimes all run off a cliff together.

[nerdspeak]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You could think yourself into something even worse than the normie worldview if you aren't careful.

What most people do who try

Edited 16 hours ago by nerdspeak

[Inliytened1]

Reference Neil's Bohr and Einstein. Discuss quantum physics.  Quantum physics proved material wrong out right. 

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is bad relative to thinking independently. However, thinking independently is very hard and you don't have time to think through everything from scratch for yourself. So group-think is a way of dealing with the insane vastness of mindspace.

It has its pros ans cons. You could think yourself into something even worse than the normie worldview if you aren't careful.

Group-think is like living in a herd. It is generally safe, but the herd will sometimes all run off a cliff together.

This has nothing to do with anything.  He asked how his paper could prove materialism wrong.

Reference 20th century physicists but what else? What can prove science wrong?

Edited 16 hours ago by Inliytened1