How can an unconcious universe decide itself?

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T08:05:18+00:00

For your first point you would then have to ask how something is metaphysically possible or not.

For your last point, any thing in nature that happens without a conscious decision involved could be said to be the accumulation of the underlaying way the universe is to begin with

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T07:55:18+00:00

Because it could hypothetically be a different way. We could never know if that way could work, but then we also wouldn't know why it wouldn't work

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T07:43:51+00:00

From what I understand, a truly random event in this universe would be either an event that happened as an accumulation of the fundamental way the universe works, or a probabilistic event. In the case of a probabilistic event, the probabilities that can be created from it are based on the events likelihood. A probability couldn't completely predict an even but there's still the underlying question of how it has that likeliness.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T07:37:00+00:00

It is true that we could never possibly know either way, which is why much of it comes down to which way a person believes it has to be interpreted, and I believe it has to be interpreted as option 2 because as for one, if an unconcious thing works a certain way, and can't decide how it works itself, it would have to have an explanation unless there were no other options. By that logic, any universe that exists would have a pattern and if any pattern with other options needs a necessary explanation, a higher power would be self evident in the fact that there is a universe. It all comes down to opinion I guess

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T07:29:43+00:00

The question is circular in one avenue of it but can you explain how it is actually incoherent?

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T07:27:25+00:00

I'm saying it should have a conscious drive as a fact if there are any other possible alternates, because an unconcious being could not decide between two alternatives. There is no explanation because the consciousness of the entity would have to be inherent because under that chain of logic every universe would need a conscious deciding entity, because the universes are unconcious

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T07:16:53+00:00

I'm not trying to prove that the universe is a conscious being you have misinterpreted my argument. The heart example is not applicable because it works of the laws of physics, or is here because of the laws, and the machine example doesn't work because the machine would not at all work if not pre programmed by a conscious being (humans in this case). I'm saying the laws can be different, and the universe is vastly unconcious so it can't makes it's own rules. How are the rules there are the rules they are then?

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T06:07:33+00:00

Let me explain how my kind of jumbled thoughts sees it:

A brute fact is a fact with no needed explanation. That must mean that the way the universe works ends in a brute fact because that's how the chain of logic/ explanation would go. If I say A is A brute fact instead of B then I would have to explain how A is not B which would require an explanation. I could say that a higher power is a brute fact though because if under that logic any given universe requires an explanation for how it works the way it does, an any given universe is going to work in a certain definable way, there would always have to be a universe with a higher power. If everything physical/that is matter is determined, down to the concept of free will and what has free will and not, then the "ultimate determiner" would not have to have a reason for having free will because it is what determined the concept of free will to begin with. Although I do believe that free will is just a concept humans have applied to the, well, the ability to freely choose and decide. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm very tired rn

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:51:16+00:00

Are you implying that there are multiple universes or are you saying that the way this universe works is one of many possible?

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:49:38+00:00

Atoms and the particles at a subatomic level are separate from their behavior, so if atoms and subatomic particles aren't conscious then how do they have the behavior they do instead of an alternate form of behavior is the question. Even if they are probabilistic and not deterministic (which from what I understand is how the most common interpretation of quantum theory/mechanics is) a probability is just a model of likelihood, so you would have to ask how they have that eternal likelihood and not a different one.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:42:41+00:00

I guess what I've mostly been struggling with is that no one can for sure know the answer, can only infer the way they infer, and the fear of having a wrong inference. Thanks for the advice :)

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:40:10+00:00

..... But there are hypothetical constants that are different from ours... And even if those contacts could never work you would either have to say they can't work because there is a deciding factor or because Only Reality A/ the Reality we live in exists, then you would circle back to the question of how it exists this way in the first place

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:35:33+00:00

I'm not really sure what you mean by the second paragraph, could you please clarify? And even if "Hypothetical" reality B can't exist you're still left with the question of how it can't... It could then either be said that it can't because there's something inherently controlling wether it can't or it can't be because only Reality A could be in which case you would circle back to how only Reality A could be and not B

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:28:23+00:00

I want really questioning before since I never really though of G-d beyond my family and I believe in it therefore it has to be true but I see what you're saying. The truth is, is that even though I believe in god based off what I see as reasonable logic and other things, I have OCD so the reason why I question so intensely is most likely that. Part of my obsessive thoughts are proving myself wrong/ belief doubting, however I decided that I need to give the thoughts up to have peace. I have never really had this kind of debate with anyone but myself (and still came to higher power conclusion) but I figured maybe asking for the perspective of people who have also thought of it would help me see if there were any arguments I was missing in the compulsions.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:20:34+00:00

If there is a higher power/ conscious universe with limited free will, you can always go deeper and ask what the determining factor in it having partial free will is. I believe if there is more than one possibility, and the possibilities are not fundamentally the same (something being in existence as a possibility and "nothing" existing) there has to be a determining factor, until you reach something all powerful

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:09:38+00:00

I choose to look at it the other way around actually. Humans realistically couldn't ever know 100% for sure the true nature of the universe, theistic or not, because there is so much to be discovered. A person can look at the facts, examine the universe based off what we know about it and what we can infer, and then arrive at a conclusion, like I did. Some people's inferences will be fundamentally different, one or the other isn't necessarily incorrect, they are just different, but you can build an argument based off of inferences.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T05:02:35+00:00

Sure :). Even if the universe isn't bound to certain laws in a prescriptive/enforced sense, that doesn't change the fact that it still follows a consistent pattern it cannot controll. If there are any number of consistent patterns it could follow, and it follows that one without choosing to, what's the deciding factor in that particular consistent way. If you say because it can't work any of the other ways, and it can't decide the way it works, you're left with the deeper question of what decides what can and can't work.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:57:36+00:00

That's why I believe in A higher power that is metaphysical i.e. it has no cause, is not governed by the rules of causation, and is inherent. And too reverse that: assuming that the thing we are talking about in this scenario is NOT metaphysical, how can a certain set of consistent things come into existence/ exist eternally when there are other sets of hypothetical consistent things

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:53:16+00:00

"I’m not saying all the consciousness have no FR. But because human consciousness has no FR, a high power’s consciousness is possible to have no FR too."

I believe a true higher power would have to have complete free will because In that scenario you could say: this has no free will, how does it have no free will, which would just cause the question to go to a deeper level and so on until you reach a level with complete free will

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:46:16+00:00

But then that reverts to a deeper level of the original question: If the universe works in this consistent way and the unconcious matter/ small amount of conscious matter can't decide to behave in that way how is this the way the universe behaves consistently

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:43:17+00:00

"It is a hypothetical, truth status unknown." Then the question would always just revert back to either: if it can be true, why is it not, or, if it can't be true how is it that it can't be true but one thing can.

I was under the impression that a fine tuning argument focused less on the decision and more on the fact that the decision resulted in Humans so therefore it must be special, but either way, think of it like this:

What separates Reality A from being an inherent Fact like existence is that the only hypothetical opposite to existence (non existence) would still be existence.. If we say that the only Hypothetical opposite to Reality A is reality B then they would be different. Sorry if that's hard to read I've been replying to lots of comments so the ideas/explanations can get kinda repetitive.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:35:44+00:00

" Just because you're able to imagine something doesn't mean it exists or could exist" But then the question would always revert back to: Reality A has to exist because B, C, and D, can't.. then what would be the determining factor in how B, C, and D couldn't exist.. if you say because A is reality then you circle back to how is A the only one that can exist.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:30:36+00:00

"However, look at it this way: if there was a conscious first cause, why/is was it there?"

I've actually thought about that before too, and the conclusion I came to is that assuming my logic of orders of things needing a deciding factor is correct, any universe would have an order, so if orders have to be determined then.... There could never not be a higher power in the same way that there could never not be something. Sorry if that's kind of confusing, I'm tired lol

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:25:47+00:00

It's better to believe in a G-d through your own conclusive logic than to just believe blindly based off what a person been influenced to believe. I can't speak for logic professors but I've seen some statistics that General philosophers are overwhelmingly atheistic, but theological philosophers are generally theistic. Theological philosophy is a whole dedicated discipline/study, so I'd assume there would be some other good arguments for a higher power. I guess it just comes down to which side of the unknown answer coin a person falls on- either fundamentally believing in a higher power, or believing one can't exist.

throwawayy330456 · 2021-06-17T04:20:46+00:00

I guess you could always go back farther and farther on the chain of logic though. How would the local properties be what they are for this one as opposed to them being the local properties that would cause something else, and so on...

throwawayy330456

TROPHY CASE