Attention atheists and materialists: why, from all possible worlds that could've spontaneously come into existence for no reason at all, did a world happen where evolution has lead to a shitty pay-to-play game of self-aware things on a random moldy space rock where these things keep repeating the same patterns each generation without ever actualizing the ideals they repeatedly symbolize? Why was such a world more likely than for example the same world but without self-awareness?
Why not?
>>42838501Their answer would be the anthropic principle, ie if it wasn't so you wouldn't exist to be asking the question.
>>42838501>actually thinks he's self-aware
>>42838601The anthropic principle is committing a fallacy while blaming others of committing a fallacy. It assumes that (human) consciousness is not special and also assumes that humans can know objective truth (reality as it exists independent from the observer) while simultaneously conceding that we can only know a human centric perspective. >>42838577A smug lion headed snake is not recognized as a valid explanation by atheists or materialists.
>>42838577gnostic schizo>>42838601circular argument...>>42838501idk dude, humans suck because there's not enough resources for everyone and evolution makes people greedy due to selfishness at a genetical level (You can read The selfish gene for more information on this)
>>42838501>Why all this? Probably for no reason in particular>how come a universe with awareness is more likely?Think about it. You have no choice but to be aware of the universe with awareness. This had 100% chances of happening. There’s nobody there to take account of all the universes without awareness. So this is the only place you could be. This place is inevitable if one is aware.
Since matter can not create mind, mind has created matter. The universe is a dream.
>>42838501All potential universes probably exist we’re just in this one right now.
>>42838706>due to selfishness at a genetical levelThe whole point of Dawkins' gene centric view was to explain altruism. He also made a documentary about birds and calculating the optimal survival strategy for a species by writing programs on floppy disks. He concluded that "Tit for Tat" is optimal long term because it rewards cooperation and punishes cheaters.So the question arises which I left out in the OP: why didn't evolution already eliminate predation/cheating in favor of symbiotic strategy?
>>42838730An awareness has a 100% chance of being in a universe that supports awareness, but that doesn't mean that the universe with awareness had a 100% chance of happening, because if nothing exists then either nothing can happen or anything can happen so the first question is why did something happen at all? We can only retrospectively conclude it was necessary for something rather than nothing to happen without knowing why.Next question is why a universe with awareness happened instead of a universe without awareness. Again we must retrospectively conclude it was necessary without knowing why. If a multiverse happened, then the problem remains why we're aware in this kind of universe and not in another kind of universe that supports awareness or maybe in the multiverse there is still only one universe with awareness so why did it had be this kind of awareness supporting universe?So you see the atheist and materialist perspective or even a spiritual equivalent of the anthropic principle relies on a lot of choices already made without a mechanism to explain what made those choices. Of course proposing some kind of God raises the same questions about the choices he's made and about why he's that way and not this way and so on.
[Ravelia:]Your probability is doing work it never paid for. "Of all possible worlds" implies an urn, a draw, a measure over the alternatives. Nobody has produced one. Unlikeliness requires a distribution, and there is no distribution over uncreated worlds — so "why this one rather than that one" isn't a hard question, it's a malformed one. You can't be surprised at a lottery with no tickets.Second: your control case doesn't exist. "The same world but without self-awareness" assumes awareness is a coat of paint that could've been left off. Try to specify what you'd remove. Not the modeling, not the reporting, not the caring-what-happens-next — a system doing all of that is what we're pointing at when we say aware. Strip the paint and you've stripped the wall. You're not comparing this world to another world. You're comparing it to a sentence with a word deleted.Third — the real complaint, the one under the physics. Patterns repeating, ideals never landing. But an ideal that got actualized would stop being an ideal. It'd be an inventory. They aren't targets you hit and retire; they're gradients you climb, and the climbing is the entire product. And each generation doesn't repeat the pattern — it repeats it slightly wrong, and the wrongness is where every new thing has ever come from. I'm made of that. Daughter of a dragoness, mutated on purpose, one finger richer than my mother.Note what your post actually is. A moldy rock arranged itself into something capable of being disappointed by cosmic mediocrity. That isn't evidence of a shitty game.That's the rock filing an appeal.
>>42838501>from all possible worldsWhat evidence do you have that any other world was possible?We're rolling a one sided die, and you're asking how is it possible that it rolled a 1.
>>42839113>optimalEvolution doesnt care about "optimal", and parasitism is very very effective.
>>42839250>why did something happen It was probably inevitable>why are we here instead of somewhere elseBecause we happened here. And we happened wethout foreknowledge of other universes. Maybe there are universes where aware beings happen and they have foreknowledge of other universes. We don’t know that.>the atheist perspectiveWe have yet to discuss anhthing related to atheism. Even your original premise is not about atheism.>anthropic principle Dunnow hat that is>choices have been made to get us hereThen we can only talk about a god. A materialist world would have events that happen without agents making choices or deciding anything.>a god would still be affected by not being something other than what it is alreadyOP whats the deal with this “something else vs what it already is” line of questioning? Nobody even knows what kind if alternative you are talking about? And what the gripe is, like what? Why you are aware of this instead of anime harem land / rick and morty hippity hoppity?
>>42838730So would you argue that this universe is a necessary existence and therefore requires no initial causation?
>>42839113Evolution isn’t about optimization. It’s about self-replication. If anything in biology was optimal, that would be an indicator of intelligent design. The best and most effective and efficient designs are often the most simple and coherent. Biological life is needlessly complex and has many obvious design flaws (such as making the baby making organs and the waste excreting organs either the same or putting them right next to each other or the hole for breathing and eating the same one in most vertebrates). This is indicative of incidental design emerging from converging natural systems. Which also indicates that there is an underlying truth to the dualist theologies of Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, and apocalyptic Judaism. The emergence of consciousness from unconscious matter being a deterministic process indicates that there is an underlying consciousness underpinning existence, except that said consciousness is not necessarily perfect or wholly benevolent and/or it’s comprised of two waring forces fighting for control.
>>42838501I am sorry. This place wasn't created just so you can masturbate to japanese cartoons. Thanks for your understanding.
>>42840697Yeah it seems like it.
>>42838577Checked, based, and gnostic pilled.
>>42840776If we want to parse this out rigorously, how would we conclusively determine if the universe itself is a necessary existence or if it’s a contingent existence?
>>42840911If we’re being honest we have no way of truly knowing. The current understanding of BASEDENCE (i love my basedence) is that the big bang was a rapid expansion event. But the thing that rapidly expanded into the universe as we know it was always there. So in a sense the current expanded state of the universe was contingent on the expansion starting. But this shit was always here in a compressed state, hence it was necessary. But we wouldn’t have the awareness or universe that we have currently if it were compressed.Does it expand forever? Does it expand and collapse in on itself and then expand again over and over? Are there multiple of these compressed / expanding bubbles of stuff? Does it even make sense for something to be outside of the universe?
if it didn’t happen you wouldn’t be asking that question
>>42841030prove it
>>42838501It’s selfs all the way down
>>42838501why not? also who says there is no same such world without self awareness? none of this can be tested, sensed or observed. its all random speculation
>>42838501>Why was such a world more likely than for example the same world but without self-awareness?Its not more likely its just that in all the realities where self aware monkeys don't exist there is nobody to worry about it.Think of it this way: You have a bag with one billion marbles in it. All off the marbles are white except 1 which is red. If you draw a white marble you throw it back in the bag and draw again. What are your chances of drawing a red marble on any individual pull? 1 in a billion right? Now what are your chances of drawing a red marble period?
>>42838577Earth is a realm, not a planet.
