Analyzing Leo's Point of Life Video - Critiques and Affirmations (Part 1)

[Dylan Page]

This is going to be almost a word for word dissection of Leo's video, as I had some disagreements with/questions about what he said. 

After spending 1.75 hours on the first 7 and a half minutes of the video, I have decided to release it and see if I get a response. If you guys want me to finish this, please let me know. I am only not finishing it now because I don't want to type this entire thing out only to get no response. So here is a little sample. 

T = Time

Q = Question

T = 0:00 - 0:30

Introduction - No qualms.

T = 0:31 - 1:17

Lots of why questions that many of us have, all perfectly valid, although I have some questions about the way a few of them are structured. 

Q 1: "Where is evolution headed?" - This is an interesting question, although I am not sure there is an answer to this. It is entirely possible that evolution isn't headed anywhere, and that we will go extinct, just like the dinosaurs. But, to be fair, it is entirely possible that all life struggles to converge to some sort of point, with the universe setting it back, only to start again. There are a lot of possibilities, I am just pointing out that there is no reason for us to assume that it is going anywhere at all, but at the same time, no reason to assume that it isn't going anywhere.

Q 2: "What is reality really up to?" - The only problem I have with this question is that it seems to assume intention, which I don't think is something we can justifiably do. Many physicists, such as Michio Kaku or Lawrence Krauss, have pointed out that it's better to ask "how" questions rather than "why" questions, because often times, a why question assumes a who. For example, asking "why did the chicken cross the road?" is totally different from "how did the chicken cross the road?" There are counter examples of this of course, such as "why did the tree grow" and "how did the tree grow", in which they can be used interchangeably. A better phrasing of the question "what is reality up to?" might be, "How does reality operate?" or "Is there a purpose or reason for all of the mechanisms that exist within reality?" I want to be clear that I am not certain that Leo meant to anthropomorphize reality, but if he did, and was aware of everything I just said, I would really like to know how he can justifiably do that.

T = 1:17 - 2:13

Leo criticizes the notion that the universe we live in is arbitrary, as often claimed by many scientific, materialistic thinkers.

1. I agree that we shouldn't assume that there is no further logic behind the reason the universe is the way it is, but I also don't think we should assume that there was some sort of design or intention behind it. 

To think that the universe literally came from the philosophical notion of nothing is absurd, and logically impossible. There has to be more of a reason behind why the big bang occurred. If it came from either quantum fluctuations or the multiverse, you still have to explain the origins of both of those. However, it seems entirely possible that the reason we are here is simply because this universe happens to allow for life, while possibly most of the other universes, simply don't. That of course leads to many other questions, such as, "why was I born at this time rather than any other time?" "why am I experiencing me and not you?", or "if there is no Cartesian self, then what is the nature of this illusion and how is it so persistent?". The point is, this leads to many questions, but it doesn't totally rule out the possibility of a universe that isn't here for any particular reason, it is just one that allows for life to exist, full stop. Oh, and you also have to define life in order for much of this to make sense. I guess we can use consciousness, but, trying to pinpoint what that is or whether it's even a valid word is a discussion for another time.

T = 2:14 - 2:55

Leo claims that life isn't dumb, or arbitrary, or accidental. 

I can see this in some sense. Let's assume that the universe is entirely deterministic. If this is the case, then evolution by natural selection isn't what we think it is. It isn't a process that creates entities that can survive in their environments, it just seems as if that were the case, and that fundamentally, everything that has happened or will happen is supposed to happen given the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe at the big bang. Given this, we can deduce that life was MEANT to happen, it had to happen. Now the only questions are, why was the universe in that initial state and why are the laws of physics the way that they are, and for that, read the paragraph above. 

T = 2:56 - 3:44

A quick hyping up of the nature of reality lol

I'm in strong agreement over here. 

 T = 3:45 - 4:16 

Leo: To explain the point of your life you must first zoom out and understand the point of the universe, as they are ultimately one. 

Reasonable, going along with it. I think that you can get some framework of ought without understanding the purpose of the universe but I'll go with what he is saying in regards to the function of life from a macroscopic point of view.

T = 4:17 - 5:21 

The Universe (with a big U) is a hyper dimensional, infinite sphere, with no boundaries. 

Ok, this is a great idea for solving questions such as "what is outside of the universe?" And when I say universe here, I don't mean our universe (because universe doesn't really mean everything anymore when we are now starting to talk about a multiverse), I mean like, THE UNIVERSE, totality, everything. Conceptually, I am a fan. 

T = 5:22 - 5:52 

This sphere is sentient, conscious, infinitely intelligent, all loving, and is essentially god. It's limitless. 

My reaction to this is "huh? what?" 

I don't want to pull the word salad card but I really don't know what it would mean for something to be all of these things, or how something could be all of these things. I am just at an utter loss here, I don't know what to make of what this means, or how I or anyone else could possibly come to know this, especially given epistemology and the limits of human understanding. I do want to make it clear though, I am not writing it off, I am simply asking for more explanation. 

T = 5:53 - 7:30 

Inside of the infinite hyper sphere exist an infinite number of sub-realities. They exist out of necessity, as they construct this infinite hyper sphere.

Can't find any flaws here. However, he did say that there is no distinction in between division and unity, which I was a little confused about, some elaboration would be helpful. It's a classic non-dual notion, but conceptually I don't get how two things that are fundamentally opposite are the exact same thing. I like Alan Watts' description of non duality, which is that opposites are like the two ends of a magnet, and that they imply each other, like life and death, and negative and positive.