Fine tuning

In the sixteenth century, the biggest cosmic entity known about was the solar system. The astronomer, astrologer and mathematician Kepler was convinced that the orbits of the planets must be fine-tuned by God according to some harmonious law.
Now we know there is no such harmonious law and  the orbits of planets are the result of chaotic and unpredictable events, but we are searching for harmony at some deeper level.
The world we live in is perfectly fine-tuned for our existence in two ways:

1. We live on a 'Goldilocks' planet, just the right size and distance from the sun to be favourable to life.
2. We live in a universe with just the right physical constants (gravity, speed of light and so on) for the creation of stable atoms, molecules, stars and forces which conspire to allow us and everything else to exist.

Why?

1. Obviously the Goldilocks question is easily answered: There are billions of possible life-supporting planets so even if life is a very unlikely event, the conditions for life must be right  on many of them.
2. The answer to question 2 is a bit harder - here's 3 possibilities:

a) There is a fundamental reason for the physical constants to have the values they have, but we haven't found out what it is.

b) There is no fundamental reason, but there is a very big number of universes so the constants are just right in some of them. 

Or the incredible nature of our existence might suggest there is an INFINITE number of universes - so every kind of crazy world must exist! I have a gut-feeling that this is nonsense and for a real world to exist there cannot be an infinite number of anything - and for that matter there can't be zero (nothing) either.

c) WE ARE HERE so we must accept our existence prima-facie. All other other facts derive from this observation. This shifts the focus to us rather than the moment of creation. 

We create the universe in our minds. Reality just is because it is. 

There is no time, no space, no universe, no creation - these are all concepts of our collective minds.

Three Black Boxes

Suppose there are three sealed black boxes with locks which are impossible to open. We are not allowed to investigate them  (poke them, weigh them or interrogate them in any way).
We are told that no one can EVER open Box 1 now or at any time in the future. There is no history of it. No one knows or will ever know what it contains.
Someone has placed something in Box 2 and died, telling no one and leaving no record of its contents.
Box 3 has a time-lock mechanism so that at some time in the future it will spring open and reveal its contents.

So in Box 1 we cannot know its contents, nobody has ever known its contents and nobody will ever know its contents.
In Box 2 someone once knew its contents but we don't know its contents now and nobody in the future will ever know its contents.
In Box 3 someone once knew its contents, we don't know its contents now, but somebody in the future will know its contents.

Q. Is it reasonable to ask the question "What is in the box?"?
A. 1 No; 2 Maybe; 3 Yes.

Concepts, theories and stories

According to the scientific viewpoint: if there is no evidence for something (e.g. God) then is not reasonable to believe in it's existence.
But we believe in the 'existence' of concepts such as energy, mater, infinity, time, space, jealousy, love, empathy, and humanity because:

1. they are useful to us and 
2. we can make predictions using these concepts which can be verified in the real world out there. 

But these concepts don't 'exist' in the real world, they only exist in the world inside our heads. This theoretical world can accommodate many concepts and stories - some of them can make predictions which can be verified, and some cannot.
Even some recent theories about the universe may not be verifiable in the real world - String Theory and Parallel Worlds for example. If it can be shown that a 'theory' is not verifiable then does it count as a theory? Maybe it's more of a story.
The world is made of stories.

Are you digital?

 

Mike Wazowski is digital, he is made of nano-blocks. The more blocks we use, the closer he gets to the ‘real’ smooth Mike Wazowski.

We used to record music using a big horn (ehem!) which focused the vibrations of the smooth sound waves onto a needle which cut a groove of varying depth in a wax disk. This was ‘analog’ recording where the shape of the grooves is analogous to the shape of the sound-waves of the music. Because of the mechanics of the process, the recordings were never truly faithful to the original.

A digital recording can get very close to the smooth sound-wave patterns by using lots of bits (building blocks) of information. The more bits it uses, the closer it gets to the analog original and so the more faithful is the recording. We have now got to the point where we can use enough bits to make the recording indistinguishable from the original to the human ear.

Digital technology has rapidly become our favoured method of representing the real world, so whilst the real world is an analog world, we have started to think of the world we have designed – which is the world we increasingly inhabit - as a digital world.

The analog world is evolved, female, and yin; whist the digital world is designed male, and yang.

Nature or Nurture?

‘Nature’ is the result of the process of evolution. We were not designed for a purpose, we evolved to be human by genetic imperatives constrained and adapted by our changing environment. The whole of nature is mysterious to us – it has no purpose – we try to understand it through observation and metaphor. Currently, our favourite metaphor is the computer.

A computer is designed for a purpose, it is not the result of an evolutionary process. So it’s behaviour should be predictable.

A computer program uses the assets of the computer to intentionally produce specific results. Because we understand the computer, we can program it to produce the results we want.

‘Nurture’ is a process by which we create an environment using (intentional or unintentional) rewards and constraints to enable certain results. We don’t understand how the human works so we can never produce predicable results by nurturing.

The chap in the picture doesn’t know how he got to be like that. Clearly his eccentric clothes are the result of cultural influences. His white gloves and deferential expression suggest he might be some kind of servant. In his ‘natural’ naked state he might have been an insect.

But of course he could never have evolved – he was designed for a purpose – as a character in a (Disney?) film and a happy-meal toy to promote the sale of junk food.

Help!

‘Now, before you press that button, let’s sit down with a cup of tea and talk this over. What’s your name? What does your mother think about this? What if there is no heaven? Would you like a biscuit? Why do you want to kill? Who is your favourite super-hero? Do you want to have children? How can this do any good? Fancy a game of cards?’

An Israeli study of the psychological profiles of suicide bombers concludes:

 “They usually were very timid people, introverted, their problem was always communication…They are not violent at all." 

Quotes from a suicide bomber in the moments leading up to pressing the button (which failed to operate).

 "I never felt so calm in my life," 

 "It was the will of God.” 

 “I was very happy…waiting for the time to come."

Be Patient

Is the tiger giving sage advice “Be patient like me, I have to prowl around for days before an opportunity for a kill comes along. Even when I give chase, my quarry often escapes and I have to start prowling all over again.”  Or has he got a sinister message for us “Just you wait there, be patient and  I’ll get you in while you're prevaricating.”

God was watching a movie of The Creation. The opening sequence of the Big Bang was terrific. The dispersal of matter and the formation of galaxies and stars was really cool. But then nothing much happened for thirteen billion years.

God got bored and switched off.