If the universe was fine tuned for our life...

[Smaug]

Sub-Realities could not exist.

I didn't mean that. I meant that no adequate definition had been given throughout the topic by those who advocate the ideas of sub-realities mentioned above. We need a definition before we could reasonably discuss whether they could exist or not.

[dyresand]

Sub-Realities could not exist.

I didn't mean that. I meant that no adequate definition had been given throughout the topic by those who advocate the ideas of sub-realities mentioned above. We need a definition before we could reasonably discuss whether they could exist or not.

if i had to describe a sub-reality it would have sentient being that we could interact with such as sentient beings in a computer program or on the off hand when that time comes we recreate the big bang one day and keep repeating the process or at least have the technology and environment that is a vacuum to house a small universe. but i like the computer way of a sub-reality because the person on the outside with a monitor and keyboard and can manipulate the environment for better or worse.

[Anomalocaris]

Back to our world. You are correct. When we make observations at the quantum level it appears some events have no local causes. But causality tells us they have causes none the less. The notion that our reality is just a sub-reality of a larger reality is easier for me to accept than the idea that causality doesn't always hold.

The universe doesn't care what is easier for Heywood, myself, or anyone else to accept.

I find the double-slit experiment results difficult to accept - nonetheless, the results are what they are.

The crux of the matter is this - we don't know those things (your premises D & E) to be true, so your conclusion F is, as far as we can tell, unsupported. (And before you get your panties in a twist, I'm not arguing against causality - I just happen to think your argument is shit.)

But in the christian subreality, the universe is ordered by an omnipotent being to be exactly how uneducated bronze age goat fucking bedouins and their modern day groupies would imagine it to be.

I can tell you no intelligent being lies either at the origin of or at point in that subreality.

[Heywood]

Back to our world. You are correct. When we make observations at the quantum level it appears some events have no local causes. But causality tells us they have causes none the less. The notion that our reality is just a sub-reality of a larger reality is easier for me to accept than the idea that causality doesn't always hold.

The universe doesn't care what is easier for Heywood, myself, or anyone else to accept.

I find the double-slit experiment results difficult to accept - nonetheless, the results are what they are.

The crux of the matter is this - we don't know those things (your premises D & E) to be true, so your conclusion F is, as far as we can tell, unsupported. (And before you get your panties in a twist, I'm not arguing against causality - I just happen to think your argument is shit.)

You are conflating acceptance of an observation with acceptance of an explanation. I have no problem accepting an observation that some events have no apparent causes. I have a problem accepting the explanation of that observation is the notion that randomness is an intrinsic property of matter on fundamental levels.

And just to nit pick. I am a component of the universe so yes the universe does care about these things.....at least an infinitesimally small bit.

---

But in the christian subreality, the universe is ordered by an omnipotent being to be exactly how uneducated bronze age goat fucking bedouins and their modern day groupies would imagine it to be.

I can tell you no intelligent being lies either at the origin of or at point in that subreality.

The "christian subreality" wouldn't exist without the aid of intelligence. That intelligence comes from the Christians themselves.

[IATIA]

I am not claiming there has to be a creator for every sub reality. If you think this then you clearly do not understand the argument I am making. I am claiming that since we observe sub realities coming into existence via the hand of intellect....and never observe sub realities coming into existence sans intellect....that fact gives strength to the conjecture that all sub realities require intellects to come into existence. I am making an inductive argument...not a deductive one.

By that logic, god must have a creator. If one can allow for a spontaneous reality, then any reality can be spontaneous and "sans-intellect".

[Cyberman]

That intelligence comes from the Christians themselves.

Well, that's debatable.

[IATIA]

No one has an experience of "realities" coming into existence.

Would not our initial awareness of ourselves count as a reality coming into existence?

---

I consider the possibility of a multiverse and the possibility of purposeful fine tuning. I lean toward one more than the other because in my experience realities cannot come into existence unless there is the involvement of an intellect.

So god is not real or god had a creator.

[Heywood]

Chameleon-like animals create simulations of the appearance of their background without the use of their intellect.

You'd have to try awfully hard to be more condescending. And no, I don't have to try harder. The chameleon example stands. Their subrealities aren't the result of design.

I think you're on to something. Think about it like Plato's cave, as Heywood's spider suggests. The world we perceive is limited to our senses, sight, hearing, touch, taste. But a bat's perception includes radar (playtypus' too BTW) and in many bats its radar perception out-stripes its sight and the nighttime world it perceives is quite different from ours. If discrete perception is all that's necessary to create a sub-reality than evolution has created many, many different sub-realities.

Bats and paltypi are not the only animals which use echo location. This boy uses it too.





Now I disagree with your claim that discrete perception creates a sub realities. That being said, even if your claim is true, discrete perception requires the existence of intelligence.

---

So god is not real or god had a creator.

I find the notion of God existing outside of a reality to be nonsensical.

[dyresand]

I think you're on to something. Think about it like Plato's cave, as Heywood's spider suggests. The world we perceive is limited to our senses, sight, hearing, touch, taste. But a bat's perception includes radar (playtypus' too BTW) and in many bats its radar perception out-stripes its sight and the nighttime world it perceives is quite different from ours. If discrete perception is all that's necessary to create a sub-reality than evolution has created many, many different sub-realities.

Bats and paltypi are not the only animals which use echo location. This boy uses it too.





Now I disagree with your claim that discrete perception creates a sub realities. That being said, even if your claim is true, discrete perception requires the existence of intelligence.

---

So god is not real or god had a creator.

I find the notion of God existing outside of a reality to be nonsensical.

The first part of the principle implies that due to this complete harmonic unity, there is no room for accidents; and because accidents do not exist, therefore with the second and third part of the principle we can know past, present, future and the nature of all things.

Sub- realities could be anything, for example the formation of human bodies, animals, plants, mountains, winds, etc., also geophysical and atmospheric phenomenon like earthquakes, floods, storms, droughts; economical trends like the rise and fall of prices and stocks; in medicine it could be for example the progress of diseases or recoveries; in biology it could be, say, epidemics, the growth progress of vegetation's like forests, crops and so on.

Although the definition and nature of sub- realities play an important role, but at this juncture it is sufficient to define them as any subject whose frequency can be plotted on the time scale. The harmony of the reference sub- reality can be used to infer upon the harmony of the unknown sub- reality and in this way accelerate the progress of understanding the nature of the unknown sub- reality. We must have sufficient information of the reference sub- reality in order to make inferences on the unknown sub- reality.

A big aid which is available in our age of information is the presence of a vast amount of sufficient reliably recorded data along with date and time which can be taken as control and research material.

[Cato]

Sub- realities could be anything,...

Which is why the concept, particularly as it has been thrown around in this thread, is meaningless.

Moving the reason for fine tuning from life to emergent complexities is an amateurish maneuver to avoid addressing anthropic principle rebuttals. This is just kicking the can down the road. Either way, this isn't your biggest concern.

The reason fine tuning arguments are dead on arrival is that we only have one observation for any of the physical constants. There is absolutely no reason to think that they could be any different. Anyone, including Fred Hoyle if he were alive, that assigns probabilities to entities or events that have not been observed need to take a remedial statistics course. Imagining the physical constants to be different and then invoking god or the multiverse is nothing more than wild unsubstantiated speculation. Nothing more.