Paul Davies (Part 1) - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

[@EannaButler]

What a wonderful, open minded, and clearly spoken man. Thank you for having conducted these interviews.

[@paulrharmer]

Remember - if you state that the universe is meaningless, then so is the statement that it is so!

[@johnh7411]

I think it’s a false distinction. Invention is actually a form of discovery. It’s discovering how to use, and combine, available knowledge and objects in order to make something useful.

[@RK-ln5kx]

My salute to Dr Paul Davies. His book "The Run Away Universe" changed my world view and life in general. I was 18 when I read the book and I was just a village boy at that time, knowing nothing about this world or science. The thinking process that the book kindled is still aflame. Many thanks, Dr Paul Davies.

[@douglaswayne8916]

" I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Mechanics

[@georgedoyle2487]

Well said!! the fact is that at most all the “natural sciences” can provide us with is what Emanuel Kant referred to as the hypothetical imperatives (for example, if you want X, then obviously do Y). But it can not pontificate and dictate categorical imperatives (do Y). Science can tell us what will happen if you drop a brick off the Empire State Building and that gravity etc will make it fall!! But it can’t tell you that you (ought) not to throw a brick off the building because it will kill an innocent person!! You (ought) not do Y!! The assumption that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism can prove, justify and ground categorical imperatives, that is value claims, ought claims, morals and ethics in a self refuting, strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system that clearly excludes metaphysical realities is just a scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacy. Also known as the (Is/Ought) Fallacy or (Naturalistic Fallacy). Furthermore, the fact is that the “natural sciences” can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be!! You can’t prove, justify or ground metaphysical presuppositions, that is transcendental categories such as morals and ethics, that is truth claims, value claims and (ought) claims in a self refuting, strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system that clearly excludes metaphysical realities!! “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) “Science progresses one funeral at a time” (Max Planck).

[@rogerjohnson2562]

Max Planck, Father of Quantum Religion. But like Jesus, I doubt he meant to be...

[@jerryk3280]

Why is it so hard for us to understand we are not separate from the universe?

[@mobiustrip1400]

Or as Alan Watts said "You are it!"

[@MrJamesdryable]

@Reed Marcotte Wow. You are not intelligent enough to give your opinion here. Reading your comment was purgatory.

[@mobiustrip1400]

@Reed Marcotte I'm waiting.... For your argument, that is.

[@TheStruggler101]

@Reed Marcotte Well technically you can't be anything other than the universe or existence itself. It's not as if you were outside the universe and someone threw you into it when you were born, like you were a completely seperate entity or something. You are a process, something that the whole universe is doing. The feeling of seperateness, self and other, is just the human condition. There's no metaphysics or any woo woo about it, you just physically can't be 'in' the universe and be separate from it, it's just one big show. Another analogy would be a human life, as being represented by a wave in the ocean. The wave forms (Birth), it goes on for however long (Life), and then finally crashes and dissapears (Death). Not once throughout the whole process, was the wave ever seperate from the ocean. The wave may have felt like it was just an individual wave, seperate and unique from other waves, but the thought was an illusion, because it was just the whole ocean waving all along. The Ocean waves, and the universe people's. Hopefully that made sense, my Analogy skills aren't the best haha.

[@WhirledPublishing]

Books and magazines and movies tell us we have a universe, a cosmos and a galaxy but do scientists own the publishing houses that print that evidence? No, scientists don't own the multi-million dollar publishing houses that print the photos and articles about our universe, cosmos and galaxy? Who owns the multi-million dollar publishing houses that print that stuff? Anyone? Anyone? Would it be the same ones that control the banks and stock markets? The same ones that control the corrupt politicians and military forces? Would it be the same freaks the control the corrupt CEO's and their toxic corporations that poison our air, water, lands, food, beverages, medicines and nutritional supplements? Would it be the same ones that control the medical mafia, the genetically-engineered toxic food and the supermarkets that sell it? Would this be the same group that hoards the wealth as billions of babies and children suffer and die from malnutrition and curable diseases in horrific poverty? That's the guys you want to trust with your understanding of your world? How about we have a look at their "scientists" that graduate with their C average in Chemistry, Geology, Physics and Calculus from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements in Idaho, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Iowa and thousands of other "institutions" in North America, Latin America, Africa, Australia, Europe and Asia... let's look at the IQ's of the "scientific community" since they're uploaded - online - by Psychologists who tell us that with few exceptions, the IQ's of geologists are 85 to 115 which is the intellectual equivalent of the smart kids in fifth and sixth grades. Why is the public oblivious to this? Why don't they care? Why don't they realize they're being deceived? Because they're dumbed down, drugged up, numbed, poisoned and programmed to be in awe of the unintelligent fake science gods that have the mind of a child because the fake experts are propped up and paraded around - propaganda style - "but we've seen the photos that the Voyager took way out in space - we know we live in a universe - we know this." Are you sure? Consider the source and stop being so gullible.

[@michaelcorenzwit6860]

I found the comments “ that the universe is self designing” eye and mind opening. I greatly enjoy all of the broadcasts. Bravo!

[@anarchorepublican5954]

I'm glad you acquired some insight.. ...could you please explain that to me... I mean how that could ever be? ..you don't rather think... that, Prof. Davies, after concluding a mathematically "meaningful Universe"...just reviewed the various "theisms" available...and settled on a sort of Pantheism, as being the least offensive to himself, and his materialist and darwinist colleagues?...

[@jonathanjollimore7156]

invented the same way we invited language and the only reason we give it this much credit is because it's such an effective technical language it feels like its some how special

[@didack1419]

Language was not a conscious invention in the way math has been. Math as such has been engineered, compare to natural languages.

[@dannydoj]

Interesting that the Latin infinitive verb, 'invenire' means to 'come into' or 'discover.' It is also the source of 'invented.' A Platonic view would say that the universe is something we discover as derived from a template already in existence beyond the material.

[@spacesciencelab]

I love these talks so much, so fascinating!!!!

[@zadeh79]

It' just struck me that we've gotten to the point where GOD is no longer the strangest explanation........

[@DrFuzzyFace]

"Can we explain Cosmos and Consciousness?" It depends, I suppose, upon what you're attempting to explain. If your ambition is to explain "Why" the Cosmos and Consciousness, then, I would argue, you're looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. By looking to discover a "why" presupposes a purpose, where one is looking to discover a teleological basis for the Cosmos. But as Paul stated, teleology is anathema to science and the scientific method. There simply does not have to be a reason "why" our universe exists. "How" it came to exist - the mechanisms by which its existence may be explained - is for me, at least, the more intellectually satisfying goal; an objective that is likely to keep physicists and cosmologists employed for generations to come.

[@mr.w.146]

All science is opinion and consensus.

[@marcomasi2066]

But if there is a reason, then we will never find that mechanism.

[@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297]

It's sort of pointless to have a 100bllion LY observable universe when the entire conciousness is obviously limted to this damn little planet.

[@KEvronista]

bingo. "how" is a scientific question, while "why" is a philosophical one. KEvron

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

True, but upon examination of the "how" the extreme improbably, and perhaps even impossibility of the circumstances necessary then heavily connect the need for a "why" Which is why rescuing devices like the MWI were made.

[@rogermouton2273]

I cannot conceive of anything more profound than what this man is saying. What also leaves me awestruck is the somewhat matter-of-fact way in which he says it.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

Awestruck, the characteristic of a true believer.

[@sampleowner6677]

I just had a eighteen day old grandchild die. It was sad. The worst part was the effect on my son and his wife. But after my tears dried my thoughts turned consciousness and how conscious was he? I don't remember being eighteen days old so was I conscious at that age? Can you have consciousness without awareness? We don't achieve awareness until years later. He died because he had a genitic screw up in his body so he didn't suffer.

[@joeroberts453]

www.laszloinstitute.com/a-new-concept-of-consciousness/

[@frankhoffman3566]

It is an issue that has troubled me for years. Quantum physics tells us that observers change or in another sense create the universe. Much thought and experimentation has been undertaken to get at how and why that is. Davies now asks why does the universe create observers. This is the troubling question which has mostly been neglected. I'm gratified that someone at that level is trying to answer it.

[@johns294]

Paul mentioned “Why” - when the question should be “How” the universe came to be. I’m a skeptic 🤨 that truly does not know if God exists but would love to find out . Maybe we will all know one day. “Intellectual honesty” needs to remain our guide in this search ...✌🏼

[@tomjackson7755]

I agree. I think the "why" question only applies to motive and is only used to smuggle in their favorite god concept.

[@billnorris5318]

Do you also entertain the potential reality of an immortal human soul?

[@tomjackson7755]

@@billnorris5318 Is it a "potential reality" or just wishful thinking?

[@billnorris5318]

@@tomjackson7755 In my opinion Wishful thinking is CORRECT ! Wishful thinking motivated by an inability to except that we are animals with a finite existence, like all other animals.

[@michaelvivirito]

bill norris I do

[@stephencummins7589]

Absolutely fascinating

[@Charlie_Crown]

Top notch interview 👍

[@farhadfaisal9410]

An interesting conversation indeed! Yes, the super turtle sequence could be broken at the "minimalist level" (or by Occam's razor), by postulating that the universe is the only "self-sustaining super turtle", needing no extra super turtle to support it that itself needed to be supported next, etc. Well, a reduction of the quantum state to an objective fact requires only a registration by something, say, a mica sheet in a mountain (recording a track of cosmic ray that passed through it billions years ago) and not necessarily by a living and/or a conscious observer. Our knowledge of the fact is another matter (of epistemology) -- it appears when we as living/conscious beings stumble upon the track, or find it, and know how to interpret it.

[@bingbong4729]

yeah but that dont explain the plumbus the dinglebops or the extra shleam.

[@nyworker]

Dr Davies is so top shelf in his thinking and his scholarship.

[@stevesayewich8594]

I love the idea of the self aware universe.

[@miroru1]

We realize the universe. But we are a part of the universe. So we are the part of the universe which realizes the universe. So the universe realizes itself at least this way.

[@stevesayewich8594]

@@miroru1 Quite and Exactly.

[@KEvronista]

@@miroru1 to quote vonnegut, we are "the eyes and ears and conscience of the universe." KEvron

[@lindal.7242]

A self aware universe by another name is called pantheism.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

For example, in 2-dimensional space, relationships such as Pythagoras formula, circles and Pi, the counting numbers, the geometry of the 5 Platonic solids, are fundamental concepts and axioms, regardless of any differences in the properties of matter or the strength of the forces, charge, spin, etc.

[@alainborgrave6772]

Problem is decoherence theory removed "consciousness" from the collapse of the wave function principle.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

The title of this video is incorrect

[@benaberry578]

Yer consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

[@BiswarupRay]

Yes, consciousness is the only real thing, the rest of it is like virtual reality.

[@dionysian4689]

I have literally no reason to believe that and neither do you!

[@BiswarupRay]

@@dionysian4689 you believe in whatever you choose to prefer..

[@dionysian4689]

@@BiswarupRay my brain is so important that it helps stars form on the other side of the galaxy and holds the universe together. It's fundamental and serves a purpose. Even if there is no God, believing that I'm important in some way gives my life intrinsic meaning that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's just a way i cope with my own meaningless. Denial.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Anthony a No one observes consciousness without brains just as no one observes brains without consciousness. Materialists have failed to see what’s right under their noses. They hide nature’s marvelous simplicity behind a veil of hubris and “materialism of the gaps”. Materialisms continuing survival in the face of the accumulative evidence in the quantum world and mounting odds of reason, probability and direct experience requires constant and deliberate contrivance and maintenance. It speaks volumes that humanity has evolved to be conscious longing for wonder and transcendence beyond the boundaries of materialistic dogma. Something in the human spirit shouts loudly that there is more to ourselves than anything that could ever be described in the language of science. This mysterious part of our psyche demands lucid recognition of what it knows to be the true breadth and depth of our existence... “The simplest truth about man is that he is a very strange being; almost in the sense of being a stranger on the earth. In all sobriety, he has much more of the external appearance of one bringing alien habits from another land than of a mere growth of this one. He has an unfair advantage and an unfair disadvantage. He cannot sleep in his own skin; he cannot trust his own instincts. He is at once a creator moving miraculous hands and fingers and a kind of cripple. He is wrapped in artificial bandages called clothes; he is propped on artificial crutches called furniture. His mind has the same doubtful liberties and the same wild limitations. Alone among the animals, he is shaken with the beautiful madness called laughter; as if he had caught sight of some secret in the very shape of the universe hidden from the universe itself. Alone among the animals he feels the need of averting his thought from the root realities of his own bodily being; of hiding them as in the presence of some higher possibility which creates the mystery of shame. Whether we praise these things as natural to man or abuse them as artificial in nature, they remain in the same sense unique” - GK Chesterton

[@rolandkaschek9722]

I have watched now a couple of videos concerning whether or not mathematics was invented (or discovered). I found it surprising that none of the interviewees first defined what mathematics is (to him) before he stated his answer to the question. To me that observation is a strong hint into the answer given (in each case) is more a result of what they want to be logically defendable rather than, what actually can be defended.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

It's pretty obvious most 0f these people know that math is discovered, and that we just come up with symbol conventions to describe the objective concepts. And it's also obvious that most of the time these people don't want math to be discovered because that carries heavy antimatterialistc implications.

[@copperdove056]

We aren't meant to know. The designer did leave clues though, and a signature.

[@bryandraughn9830]

How then do you know that?

[@DavidCunningham65]

What if the universe was purely mathematical instead of physical?

[@julianmann6172]

Paul has a point regarding retro-causality, but the ultimate inference must be that only G-D can create such a universe with a dual arrow of time.

[@richardventus1875]

I don’t think this episode goes far enough to explain how simplicity can generate infinite complexity. Of course, I’m thinking of fractals of which the Mandelbrot set is an example. I believe that scientific evidence suggests that the universe is fractal rather than quantum in nature. For example, looking at the boundaries of the Mandelbrot set we know that there are an infinite number of similar 'looks' and complexities regardless of how closely we look - even if we look trillions of times more closely. Perhaps 'locality' and 'non-locality' are the axes to plot the fractal of the universe on an Argand diagram? This could also be a substitute for the 'multiverse' theory so that every possible outcome of the wavefunction collapse plays out in all the other 'fractal scales' all at once - and we only observe the result that is at our fractal scale. By mathematics we can now envisage that the Big Bang seeded a fractal structure to the universe so that other universes could lie within each other at differing fractal scales. Indeed, an infinite number of fractal scale universes could lie within every one of our fundamental particles! Furthermore, could dark matter be the evidence for the ‘information energy’ of the sum of an infinite number of fractal scales which we are not aware of? It was only in the 70’s that we discovered fractals by mathematics, but perhaps in this case the results really do give a hint to reality rather than reality leading to the discoveries of mathematics

[@Mr.Magic_O]

Beautiful exchange but does not directly address the question raised by the title of the video. I've seen much more direct exchanging the question of invented/discovered elsewhere.

[@NothingMaster]

It’s likely that 42 mustaches should figure into the ultimate reason.

[@Phobero]

Levitating Super Turtle - what a great band, I have all their albums!

[@longcastle4863]

Mathematics can be invented and still do a great job at figuring things out

[@Michael-tq6xm]

The universe itself invented maths with no choice in it, the moment it began. We are lucky we're here to discover it

[@farhadfaisal9410]

In a "feed back loop" there is a cyclical relation between what comes first and what comes next in a sequence but no backward or retro causation. How could this may generate a teleological universe from within?

[@spacesciencelab]

OMG! He makes such a valid point on '''the universe self engineering its own awareness'' this is something I have pondered for a long time. It seems to me that evolution is doing just that!

[@chrisc1257]

Nature is constantly changing, on the move. The eye keeps no secrets but the ego tries. There are no questions, only subtle fits of confusion in degrees of aptitude or behavior. We are digestion and decay. Digestion of time and decay appears limitless.

[@EannaButler]

I have often wondered, would a different set of mathematical axioms 'work' if the fundamental constants of the universe were different?

[@BritishBeachcomber]

The fundamental constants may be different in other universes, but the axioms (the accepted foundations of math) would be the same. For example, in Euclidean geometry, the 5 Platonic solids would be the same.

[@johncoyle8139]

How many eyes has 40 flies, a ugo and a gander???????

[@eddenz1356]

“ I don’t know” would have been quicker

[@pauljasmine353]

From some form of ancient proto life to me writing this on my phone and I'm supposed to believe that the increase in complexity of life over time is an allusion.

[@yubz1496]

The constants are beyond chance

[@bradsmith9189]

God is the obvious answer that makes complete and ultimate sense. God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. God is the best explanation why the universe is fine tuned for life like ours. God is the best explanation for the moral laws that ALL of us know deeply. God is the best explanation for mathematical laws on which the universe is built and why we being designed in his image, can comprehend them. God, being independent of neither time or space solves the infinite regress difficulty. And on and on … We are sometimes just too arrogant to accept an intelligence bigger than ourselves. Finally, I get tired of scientists with the mocking comment of “God did it so that’s the end of the story”. As if we’d all simply accept that and end the scientific endeavour. Newton and all the early great scientists believed in God and strove to understand the mechanisms which he employed to create his infinitely great work. It’s drove them on. It did NOT end they work they were doing and they didn’t just “all go home”… They developed works such as “The Principia”. Arguably the greatest scientific work ever published.

[@opencurtin]

Archaeologists discovered dinosaurs , mathematicians discovered Maths .

[@australiatrekk]

terrific insights.

[@superscienceshow]

Beautiful. Conscious life is the collapse of the universe's wave function.

[@realcygnus]

Kylo Meek I agree, though you'll only hear that in philosophy & hardly ever in physics(nowadays). They'll argue that its just the "detection process" even though consciousness will ALWAYS be at the end of such entanglement chains. That is, a die hard materialist/realist thinks that fact is just incidental where as an Idealist would argue that its consequential. They've even gone so far as to seriously consider a nearly infinite # of nonfalsifiable imaginary universeS, because at least they'd still be "physical". Satisfactorily determining either could be forever an issue. But my $ is currently on Fundamental Consciousness as in an Idealism based model such as Campbell's VR's or Kastrup's Altars.

[@AL-SH]

@@realcygnus My only question is, what does our consciousness have anything to do with entropy and the structural state of our universe? Can't one argue that, regardless of conscious living beings, the universe would be in the same state with the same laws of physics. We have become what we are today after 4 billion years, on a planet where life flourishes within a short period of time, respectively. I just don't understand why some people try to relate biological evolutionary patterns to the characteristics of quantum mechanics.

[@realcygnus]

Al H. Good Q, Relativity(both special & general) showed us that the notions of time(durations) & space(distances) are not objective. & QM posits that the stuff(matter/energy) in space-time is not objective. Between both, that says that everything is not objective, albeit they both operate on different halves. So no, we can't really nor should we say what the universe was or would be outside of perceptions. Even the information we acquire from our sense data & instruments regarding the outside shared/consensus world is still in our consciousness, which is the only thing we can ever be sure of. A VR model(of any flavor) gives a good reason for c being a constant in the 1st place, hence a why GR as well as a simple & sensible interpretation for QM(rendering). But for a less intentional/designed argument for idealism, using phycology metaphors of Kastrup's altar's, what the universe was before the 1st dissociations(life), was mind at large behaving like the laws of physics. Objective causality has had issues since the advent of GR & QM, determinism since QM, reductionism will fail by definition if/when we ever approach the Planck. Such notions can really twist realism imo. & as per Occam's Razor, no need to add that extra inference/dualism of materialism for the "outside" stuff. In short, existence itself is/became a mind at large/LCS/VR/digital information system we know as reality.

[@thetruthchannel349]

Well when you say 'Consciousness' you have to ask the next logical question, 'Whos Consciousness?' It couldnt be human consciousness because ALL of this was here before the first human opened his eyes and looked up at the stars. We're not talking about human consciousness. We're talking about a master consciousness beyond anything we could begin to possibly comprehend. It would also occur to me that speaking of consciousness in this context would go well beyond the aspect of just mere thought itself but a definition of life and being that again is so radically different from our own that we couldnt understand it even if it were explained to us. Ive always believed that gravity is weak here because its infinitely strong somewhere else. I think they have it backwards. Gravity particles arent leaking out through higher dimensions but rather permeating in from outside. You pick up a pencil you defy trillions of ibs in mass yet youre held in a position of stability not just up and down or side to side but from all directions. Yet when you pick up your leg to take a step youre defying the entire inverse square of the entire mass of the earth and one tiny bone in your body balances your entire weight and a biological level in your cochlea allows you to perceive your stability in 3 dimensional space. We ourselves would have to be the product of this 'consciousness' because we are every bit a construct of material as the solar system itself is. Yet it would appear we ourselves are more than the sum of our parts. Its completely non-computational. At least according to our comprehension.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

That's not what he said, at all

[@TheGaetanomariadigio]

Our science is logic But the universe is not logic, is ART!.

[@theway5258]

What he answered is theology plus science and devide by two is the path of knowledge hmmmmm

[@MaxBrainDevices]

Reasons are something from man universe don’t work in this way

[@chiraggupta7580]

But it does. By definition. The process of reasoning is based on just pure observations about how the universe works (or seems to work).

[@MaxBrainDevices]

Chirag Gupta true but here is the problem is who is observing that search and see a meaning is not necessary that there really is

[@goodsirknight]

I love Paul Davies.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

This video is not about math. It's philosophy, the precursor of science. Pure math is intrinsic to Euclidean/non-Euclidian geometry, number theory... I believe that these principles are fundamental to reality and self-consistent, regardless of any physical properties, such as the strength of the fundamental forces.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Thoughts I entertain before watching... It seems to me very likely that mathematics was not invented or discovered but evolved very much within culture as an aspect of language. I'd bet the growing social and technological complexity of early civilizations had great influence on linguistic and mathematical progress (which must have been extremely limited until folks started augmenting their memories by notching sticks and making marks in clay). (And I'll bet it was mainly the bean counters who got writing started).

[@TheKrazyLobster]

Professor Davies had the legendary Fred Hoyle as his postdoc advisor. How cool is that?

[@Graybeard_]

imo Mathematics is a language used to describe things and rules. (things: pyramids, cubes; rules: addition, subtraction) The things and rules preexisted the language used to describe them. They exist regardless of us. Much like English (or Latin, etc.) can be used to describe trees, but trees existed before English was invented to describe them. When you have one apple and then you add another apple, you now have two. We didn't invent that, nor did we discover it. We observed it and then figured out a way to describe it. I would say that we discovered the Pythagorean theorem. The rules, however, that constitute the Pythagorean theorem all exist regardless of us.

[@KEvronista]

*"When you have one apple and then you add another apple, you now have two. We didn't invent that"* actually, those two apples are part of a set. we establish sets. KEvron

[@diycraftq8658]

The problem is if we are not everlasting we will not find out lol

[@Paulus_Brent]

I never heard that the "concretization of the fuzzy quantum reality can stretch back in time". It is well known and not disputed?? What on earth is he talking about?

[@eddenz1356]

Look up double slit quantum eraser experiments

[@cole141000]

7:16 the necessity of special revelation is evident

[@tyamada21]

The Law myoho-renge-kyo represents the identity of what some scientists refer to as the ‘unified field of all consciousnesses’. In other words, it’s a sound vibration that is the essence of all of existence and non-existence, the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the true creator of everything that is, ever was and ever will be, right down to the minutest particles of dust, each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves by tapping directly into it by way of self-produced sound vibration. On the subject of ‘Who or What Is God?’, when we compare the concept of ‘God’, as a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to Nichiren’s teachings, the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people call ‘God’ is our enlightenment, which exists nowhere else but within us. When the disciples asked Jesus where the Kingdom of God is, didn’t he tell them that it was within them? Some say that ‘God’ is an entity that can never be seen. I think that the vast amount of information that is constantly being conveyed via electromagnetic waves gives us proof of how an invisible state of ‘God’ could actually exist. It’s widely known that certain data being relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects, including instant global awareness of something or mass emotional reaction. As well as many other things, it’s also common knowledge that these waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to even enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars. However, none of this is possible without a receiver to decode the information that is being transmitted. Without the receiver, the information would remain impotent. In a very similar way, it’s important for us to have our ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our life, all other life and what we and all else that exists truly is. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and switch it on. That’s because the sound vibration of myoho-renge-kyo represents the combination of the three major laws that underlie all existence. Myoho represents the Law of latency and manifestation (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. One state of myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists. This includes our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them, our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re not being expressed, our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma, and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes obvious to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory, whenever we experience or express our emotions, or whenever a good or bad effect manifests from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it simply means that it has come out of the state of ‘myo’ (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s simply the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing something. The second law, renge, governs and controls the functions of myoho, ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect. The two laws of myoho and renge, both functions together simultaneously, as well as underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination, kyo, is what allows the law myoho to be able to integrate with the law renge. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects together all Life and matter, as well as the past, present and future. It is often termed the Universal Law of Communication. Perhaps it could even be compared to the string theory that some scientists now suspect exists. Just as our body cells, thoughts, feelings and all else are constantly fluctuating within us, everything in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux, in accordance with these three laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible for us to calculate or describe. And it doesn't matter how big or small, important or trivial that anything may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of myoho-renge-kyo. These three laws are also the basis of the four fundamental forces and if they didn't function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. Simply put, all forms of existence, including the seasons, day and night, birth, death and so on, are all moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation, rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two universal states of myo and ho in absolute accordance with renge and by way of kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn in accordance with the workings of what the combination myoho-renge-kyo represents. Nam, or Namu, on the other hand, is a password or a key; it allows us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with myoho-renge-kyo. On a more personal basis, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives from moment to moment, as well in our environment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is turning, and rhythmically chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo for a minimum of ten minutes daily, anyone can experience actual proof of its positive effects in their life. In so doing, we can pierce through even the thickest layers of our karma and activate our Buddha Nature (the enlightened state). We’re then able to summon forth the wisdom needed to challenge, overcome and change our negative circumstances into positive ones. It brings forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that is preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we truly are, regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexual preference. We are also able to see and understand our circumstances and an environment more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. Actual proof soon becomes apparent to anyone who chants the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo on a regular daily basis. Everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect, so the strength of the result from chanting depends on dedication, sincerity and determination. To explain it more simply, the difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a song and so on. NB: There are frightening, disturbing sounds and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It's the emotional result from any sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day you are producing a sound vibration that is the password to your true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things, such as your fears and desires etc. The important way to get the best result when chanting is not to see things in a conventional way (difficult to achieve but can be done), rather than reaching out to an external source, you need to reach into your own life and bring your needs and desires to fruition from within, including any help that you may need. Think of it as a seed within you that you are bringing sunshine and water to in order for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s important to understand that everything that we need in life, all the answers and potential to achieve our dreams, already exist within us. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHS9YYuApryFqJY OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN sings about Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

[@gariochsionnach2608]

What is mathematics? May be put simply - it consists of formal schemes of abstraction and quantification of relationships or patterns... Things may be mathemati-zed in so far as they are ordered / patterned... Mathematics is the very intelligibility of the patterns of things... In other words, maths is a part of the formal intelligibility of the world. Is mathematics discovered or invented? Both, one or the other from certain point of consideration.

[@freedomfromthemind]

Seems like a lot of head-talk. How much of this is actually tangible, sensible (of the senses), and grounded in the reality of my experience which is my body and these senses. Oh, how us men love to get around and head-talk about all fancy sorts of things, but not address the real Universe, the universe inside my body - my restlessness, my anxiety, my fears and doubts, my (self) criticisms, and so-on. What does it matter what any silly scientist says about "infinity" when it comes to me living more joyfully, more at peace with what is going on inside me, when it comes to learning how to love my partner, and love who I am? Nope, not very important compared to this "vast multi-universe" outside me where I lose myself in all these grand ideas, clouds in the sky. A grand waste of breath if you ask me, but perhaps some people are just born to talk about theories. I don't need theories, and I don't need to use the word "we". I just watched the movie about Steven Hawking tonight on Netflix. What's crazy is that people actually think that what scientists say is important, instead of looking at their lives, especially their love life - because as most of us know that is the most difficult to get right. Instead, we lose ourselves in fanciful 'theories' that have no truth in them about the universe, and ask each other "what do you believe?" as if our beliefs as well had any importance to this Life, to this Love of Life that I am on this earth to realize in this body.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Good comment at last! The natural sciences has nothing to say about “value”. What’s the cosmos to the importance of taking care of our loved ones, especially during a pandemic Reminds me of a GK Chesterton quote... Take first the more obvious case of materialism. As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. He understands everything, and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman, seems unconscious of the alien energies and the large indifference of the earth; it is not thinking of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest hole that a man can hide his head in” (G.K. Chesterton).

[@claudiochianese9850]

Really surprising that theoretical physicists produce theories about physics, I guess...

[@YogiCecily]

So many interesting comments! Am I the only one that hears something like; All of the energy that is must be impregnated by consciousness in order to be defined. To this regard the Hindu philosophy of the male and female energies coming together to create the universe. Just spit balling 😅. Carry on 😊

[@TheGaetanomariadigio]

Paul, the Observer effect don't make nothing. When a Observer creates reality, the same is already present in the particle. Reality is objective, not subjective.

[@redbearwarrior4859]

Self causation is not logically possible. It would require the causal agent to both exist (so it can do the causing) and not exist (so it can be caused) at the same time in the same relationship which violates the law of non contradiction. I find his position to be the least likely of all the theories that he mentioned.

[@sanjosemike3137]

Barrett Warren Agreed. The Von Neumann chain cannot be broken by a consciousness which by definition does not exist yet, because nothing itself exists before space-time. Except for an outside consciousness like God Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@marcomasi2066]

But if the agent IS the "existence" itself it does not need to cause itself but only do the causing.

[@redbearwarrior4859]

@@marcomasi2066 right. Self causation and self existence are often confused but they are very different things. Self causation is logically impossible. But self existence does not appear to be logically impossible.

[@sanjosemike3137]

@@redbearwarrior4859 Word salad. Self causation is impossible because it violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. All systems will degenerate. For life to form, there had to be discrete areas that permitted concentration of systems which existed long enough to themselves become living. The odds of this happening were literally the closest thing to impossible. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@redbearwarrior4859]

@@sanjosemike3137 I agree. Self causation has multiple problems.

[@robertos4172]

I became a mathematician because I felt it the path to truth, but disillusionment was almost immediate. One realizes pretty quickly that "how" is much more useful that "why" and thus I spend my time now much more engineer than theoretician. I occasionally am drawn back to these philosophical arguments, and almost always have these images of great minds sitting amongst the flowers pondering the nature of existence rather than getting on with it.

[@WhirledPublishing]

As an engineer, at least you're able to make some worthy contribution.

[@stoictraveler1]

Fascinating, but distracting me from my cosmological considerations ;)

[@davepangolin4996]

Does the sun rotate on a polar axis ? In the same direction as the planets ?

[@dougg1075]

How old are these interviews?

[@eric144144]

Yes, In believe Davis shaved off the moustache some time ago.

[@kenlogsdon7095]

I agree.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

The multiverse he mentioned isn't totally "accepted on faith". It's a theory that comes out of the inflationary cosmology model

[@gabrielfeliciano5287]

The inflationary model is also based on faith, not evidence.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

@@gabrielfeliciano5287 Not quite

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

The multiverse is based on faith. The entire idea is just just rescuing device that was cooked up with once QM showed that observation collapses wave functions.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

@@anthonypolonkay2681 We're not talking about the QM many-worlds

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The Eternal Life- and Consciousness-Structure, is Mathematic, 'in it self', it is Logical, Beautiful, Simple, and add up 'in it self'. Intelligence, (4) is one of our Six Eternal Basic Abilities, it stands for 'Logic and Order'. The Perspective-Principle, and the Contrast-Principle, makes Feeling (3) into Sensing. The Perspective-Principle, 'means', All Relations Relationship. (Is voven into absolutly everything) Perspective-Principle + Intelligence = Mathemathic. As the Life-Desire, Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principles, is the Motor and Compass, Life wants to Re-New it Self, through new Developing-Circuit's, to higher Developing-Circuit's. 1/3 into a Developing-Circuit, Mathematic, will be Re-discovered, or Re-invented, in a whole New Consciousness and Language.

[@alainborgrave6772]

There's something that is not clear for me, what does he mean when he speaks of "meaning" of the universe.

[@ultimateman55]

Well he doesn't mean "meaning" in the usual, theological sense. From what I gathered, he's speculating (via "retrocausation") that perhaps our existence is not a coincidence, but that our existence somehow influences the laws of physics. He ties in the idea of the significance of the observer as a way to allow for the existence of observers, humans, to somehow cause the universe to be what it is. So by "meaning" he's saying that the fine tuning of the universe is not a coincidence, rather, it's finely tuned because we evolved and observed it and somehow retroactively influenced the laws to be finely tuned. Personally I can't make it seem at all rational in my head, but then again, none of us can do much of that with quantum mechanics either. It's definitely the most far-out argument I've heard in a long time, not that I'm buying.

[@zair_salahuddin]

Are any of these uploads actually new or are they just new uploads from old clips of the show?

[@standardranchstash221]

Good question. I was wondering the same thing. I’m pretty sure the last time I saw Paul Davies his hair was “a little” greyer.... having said that, I’d settle for any hair.

[@redshift6743]

Old.

[@thetruthchannel349]

Why do these people always have to give God a 'magic wand?' Basically, what you're saying when you say that is 'We're already stumped with Gravity. We're already stumped with Non-Locality. We're already stumped with consolidating the forces. Now, you want to bring an invisible God who does things in ways we could never possibly begin to measure or study or figure out' While at the same time 'Your stumped with Gravity and non-locality and the uniformity of the forces' lol. Its called 'Silly goes in circles'

[@idofriedman1]

I love to hear poul's ideas and read his books. for me, each idea is a new door to understanding God. even a Godless idea is a Godfull to me.

[@williammontesinos1806]

Amazing interview. Professor Davies has the answer for hard question: who created to God ?

[@laurenth7187]

How do you think c² = a ² + b ² was " discovered " ? There is no geometrical measure to discover that exact formula, you have to invent the formula even if you have the metric; and then prove it to be right, because else you can't draw a law from it. Since maths are a general science, and nature is particular, maths can't be found were there are not, in nature. Even in spiral shells, the geometry is obvious but the formula isn't there. It's in your mind.

[@machinefannatic99]

That's the problem with maths it needs to grasp hold of something but the universe or nature is infinite.

[@Boogieplex]

We already know there is a “Universe generator “ because we live in one.That should be proof enough. Multiverse is perfectly plausible,since the beginning of science we are shown time and time again that existence is much,much,MUCH larger than we thought.That said, i love Paul Davies outside the box thinking.

[@rogerfisk2488]

You are conscious, your ideas exist in a material universe but they are immaterial until you apply energy to transform them into the physical world,God is the ultimate consciousness,the cause of everything,but he is not caused,and we are derived from him.he is apart from the physical,but he is there,and we are proof of that truth.he is both infinite and personal,that is why we seek him.

[@GeoCoppens]

That a whole lot of utter crap you pull from your ignorant ass!

[@TheBruces56]

Many scientists limit themselves by refusing to entertain the possibility that the cosmos was created by a power far greater than themselves and which exists outside of our reality. Most will admit that the cosmos "appears" to be designed and to counter this string and other multiverse theories have been put forth. However none of these can be proven or even tested. I believe that there are questions that we simply can never answer but of course we should continue trying.

[@anikettripathi7991]

Humans are so clever and thanklessly wants to take credit of everything. But just knowing and modifying we become scientists and doctors . All law and principles were functional even before they were discovered. So some part of credit nature also deserve.

[@louisbrassard9565]

If the Universe is alive, keeps creating itself, with aspects of itself gradually becoming stable, then what we call today's laws of Nature are later stabilisation but not original then there is no fine tuning to life but constant living creation and stabilisation. Such constant creation stabilisation will favor paths where there is more of this creation and stabilisation , i.e. the more alive naturally produce more than the sterile, then instead seeing the phenomena as an initial fine tuning , we should see it as a gradual creation favoring later creation and thus an acceleration of the forms of life.

[@samuelarthur887]

Every theory must answer why there is something rather than nothing, and whether you can have something from nothing. 0+0=? Is there a mathematics that could produce a result greater than zero from zero?

[@NathanMian]

What if one quantity is negative and the other positive? So the total energy is zero?

[@samuelarthur887]

@@NathanMian That is wrong, "why is there something (positive) rather than nothing (0)" and whether you can produce something (positive) from nothing (0). These syllogisms exclude an initial negative and positive.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@samuelarthur887 Sorry anti mater is a something. The "why" question implies a motive. You need to demonstrate there is a need for a "why" to get an answer. You don't seem to know what a "syllogism" is either.

[@samuelarthur887]

@@tomjackson7755 Antimatter is a something because it is a particle, only called "antimatter" because its properties are opposite that of normal particles; "syllogism" as I have used it is correct, from the Greek word: syllogismos, meaning conclusion or inference. Thus, 0+0=0; and the question as to whether there's a mathematics that could, please pay attention to this, derive (conclude) a greater than zero result from 0 (premise); nothing.

[@samuelarthur887]

@@tomjackson7755 And by "why", I am not asking a why of motive but of account; that's, how come?

[@phildiamond3627]

Why should the Universe be meaningful and what would that mean anyway?

[@Wonderboywonderings]

I guess if you knew, then you'd know.

[@phildiamond3627]

@@Wonderboywonderings smart arse :) My humble advice to those who can't find meaning in their lives - stop looking for answers in the sky and start looking much closer to home.

[@JupiterMoonTune]

Real - The Dreamstate, i.e. reality as we know it is temporary, just an appearance. True - The non-finite, non-temporal. The subjective and the objective are flipped. But the true objective has no objective descriptors ... Is is🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣✌✌🙏🙏

[@renehernandeza.7309]

The question that has no answer. Was mathematics invented or discovered? Is the same as asking, what came first the chicken or the egg?

[@drbonesshow1]

Everything in the Universe is or is to be discovered not invented.

[@CeezGeez]

It's crazy to think about but if your past somehow got altered by a current or future event you probably wouldn't know it happened.

[@PrescottValley]

Maybe you had a great relationship with an ex-girlfriend in the past. Then you have a run in with her at some point in the future and the meeting goes horribly wrong for various reasons and it gives you both an overall negative outlook on the entire relationship you had then. You just altered the past even though it was already over with and didn't change any of your actions then.

[@CeezGeez]

@@PrescottValley true but that’s different from actually modifying past events and memories

[@b0tterman]

Someone help me out here, please. So am I right in summing this up that he thinks we, as the observers, create the cosmos as we go along, affecting the deep past as well as the far future? Have I got that right?

[@markc5025]

Yes

[@b0tterman]

Well that is some fucked up shit.

[@uremove]

Jim Fields “Reality is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine!” (JBS Haldane). What Davies describes is the “Participatory Universe” model of the Physicist John Wheeler - based on his “delayed choice experiment”. It’s not so much that we create the Universe, but that by observing it, we make real one of many possible timelines leading up to the present, (which can include the past). We choose to measure light from a distant galaxy as a wave, we see it always behaved as a wave. Measure it as a particle and it always behaved as a particle. It’s not creation so much as realisation or concretisation of a single event from many possibilities.

[@b0tterman]

@@uremove Yes, I've heard of Wheeler's experiment. There's been some doubt cast on that and all of the quantum observer influence so the jury's still out and probably will be for a very long time. fascinating tho. thanks.

[@uremove]

Jim Fields Yes... Very true. It relies on the Copenhagen Interpretation... rather than Many Worlds or Pilot Wave or Transactional interpretations. Dunno if we will ever be able to tell which is the right one.

[@tomtomy8702]

Interesting, the key moment is this discussion is the 'jump' from observer observing an atom, to observers observing the laws of nature and that act taken together is the universe self designing itself and that very act in total (across times) accounts for fine tuning for life and consciousness. Suppose that 'jump' is correct and valid. The problem is earlier, if we take the very first observers observing the laws of nature somewhere in the universe in place and time (maybe we are the first and only observers maybe not) how did universe produce those observers since they the first ones observing and self designing only started with them, yet they already exist so fine tuning happened somehow ? I don't get it, even though it's intriguing but it only to me makes sense with the first observers already existing

[@gregoryhead382]

I will discover an invention for quantum gravity through connecting my consciousness to the Infinite Mind, and The Creator provides the equations, with do unto others.

[@jenniferrossiter6894]

I am a levitating super-turtle.

[@drbonesshow1]

Each Hubble Bubble has its own trouble.

[@sanjosemike3137]

Even if you have retro-causation you still need SOMETHING to break the Von Neumann chain. How can humans break the Von Neumann chain and start a universe to exist before THEY themselves exist? We are forced, whether we like it or not to seriously consider God, even if some of us find this possibility abhorrent. Atheist/materialism is coming under attack, ironically not from any “holy books”, but science itself. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@richard20thcentury.90]

San Jose Peter Atkins is absolutely right when he characterised the notion of god in science as lazy thinking. it can only be suggested so long as you are unwilling to look at the word seriously and is easily Discredited as a hypothesis as soon as you do. Materialism is not coming under attack by science in any way nothing in this interview or the world suggests this because science is based entirely in materialistic reality and theoretical physics that is getting more developed in its investigations of the causation of the Big Bang is doing so by looking at the materials of the natural universe not by prying.

[@sanjosemike3137]

@@richard20thcentury.90 There is a general confusion among atheists about "Intelligent Design" and Creationism. I think you are in that state. Intelligent design is not "lazy thinking." For example, it was long thought that the very large amount of DNA not being "obviously necessary" was "junk DNA." At least this is what scientists said. But ID scientists disputed this and they turned out to be correct. That is not "lazy thinking" because they produced experimental evidence to prove it. Materialist scientists had to retract their "junk DNA" theory. Douglas Axe, PhD has done some very valuable studies on protein synthesis. He is a representative of the Intelligent Design movement. I would not characterize his scientific studies as "lazy." Again, you are just confusing biblical creationism with ID. They are not the same. A number of previous materialist scientists are now calling for an OPEN NEW theory to replace Darwin. This is especially true in Europe, where it is possible to "publicly admit" that you are no longer a materialist. Here, it is illegal, or at least will destroy your career. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@georgedoyle7971]

San Jose Mike Totally agree with you! The fact is we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind and consciousness, as we are infinitely enclosed in mind. All we observe are the contents of perception and they are limited by a small range of sense organs, which are fundamentally mental perceptions that have evolved to survive on just this one planet . Even the complex tools we have developed for measurement and collecting data is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived. Equally, materialism is an incomplete theory of reality. Because the fact is that matter is a theoretical abstraction in and of mind. So when materialists try to reduce mind to matter, they are in fact attempting and to reduce mind to one of mind’s own conceptual creations. It’s is like a painter who, having painted a portrait of himself stood outside his own home, afterwards points at the painting declaring himself, his home, the world and reality to be the actual portrait. The painter then unwittingly has to explain his entire subject experience in terms of brush strokes, colours and textures on canvas. Many will say but surely this is a straw man but it is very much analogous to the situation materialists have put themselves in.

[@astralsentient8259]

Describing the universe as "ordered" and "ingenius" seems a bit misleading. There are intriguing aspects of our universe that seem to fit this description such as the extremely low entropy state of the beginning of our universe and it being fine-tuned for life, but these are only described as ordered and ingenius once we acknowledge that the universe is otherwise purposeless chaos, random and a bit of mess. Purpose seems rather ambiguous, we see a universe with constants being in a small narrow range conducive to the development of life and there must be something special, right? Yet, if the universe is to be fine-tuned for something like the existence of black holes, not so special, right?

[@jerome_david]

Your question answers itself -- a universe fine-tuned for the existence of black holes could only be interesting vs. uninteresting with the aid an observer to pass that judgment, and you seem to have passed yours already. If emergent complexity relied on the existence of black holes as a byproduct, would black holes suddenly become more special according to your sensibilities? What criteria are you using to pass that judgment? Are these questions self-contained within the realm of human sensibility? If so, then personally, I think there's something shallow and misleading about dichotomizing reality in this fashion. In short because the intellectual motive force is aimed inwardly toward self-understanding but convinces itself the motive force is aimed outwardly toward an understanding apart from human sensibility.

[@astralsentient8259]

It was meant to be rhetorical question putting "right?" at the end. I don't understand your questions. I just don't think of black holes as special period, neither do I think of stars as special. But we as humans seem rather special, yet the universe we live in fits the description of a random messy universe rather than a well ordered nature as previously supposed by ancient societies up through medieval. This is part of why I don't find theological interpretations of nature compelling. They have a tempting fashion at times like with the fine-tuning of the universe ("looks" like an intelligence monkeyed with physics perhaps), but they don't square well with the broader picture. That being said, I don't like nihilist interpretations either (like when some say "get over it, life is meaningless, we are not important"), it is fine to understand that we aren't privileged observers in the universe, but I think we can understand ourselves as special yet not priviledged or significant in relation to the grand scale of things.

[@jerome_david]

@@astralsentient8259 Special relative to what? Messy/Random relative to what? These terms are conceptually meaningless without a concession of their opposites. Hence, claiming everything is random and meaningless is a superfluous statement in your worldview -- you might as well just be saying "everything is" without making room for notions like order and meaning. It's a conceptual error on the same order of magnitude as claiming "everything is meaningful" or "everything is ordered". Ordered relative to what, and meaningful relative to what? More to the point, what is the evidentiary threshold for determining such value-judgments? If they're completely self-contained within the realm of human sensibilities, then I think we have a real problem. These sort of conceptual systems of categorization lead to epistemological conclusions that have a lot more to do with our a psychological assessment of reality than reality as such. Which is fine if internal understanding is your goal, but that's never the real claim being made with these sorts of arguments.

[@astralsentient8259]

I would basically reject the "relative to" categorizing, we have an understanding of what it means for something to be random without trying to conceive of alternative scenarios to compare. And there is no need for an "evidentiary threshold" for these 'value judgments', they are a product of how we relate to each other as a society.

[@jerome_david]

@@astralsentient8259 You don't have a system of categorization without differentiation though, so you have to ask "relative to what", or you aren't categorizing. Just as up is relative to down and right is relative to left, meaningful is relative to meaningless or there's no categorization. You need an evidentiary threshold if you're concerned with holding a worldview with minimal error.

[@robotaholic]

I'll grant the question valid once creationists explain all conditions under which life can exist and also after we define what life actually is. Until then it's all hog air.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

In other words, you would like to play word games gotcha, prove to me why skepticism is a first principle...

[@robotaholic]

@@lifewasgiventous1614 would you rather be gullible?

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

It’s not an either or for me, I can assess things as they present themselves, I don’t need to refer to a dogma that tells me “always this” or “never this”

[@pkosh1]

He's right that it is ridiculous

[@edgregory1]

Pass the bottle..........

[@drbonesshow1]

The creation of lesser beings: Did God need fans? Celebrities certainly need fans or they wouldn't be celebrities.