Reply To: Authors Ask: Can Randomness Explain the Fine-Tuning of the Universe?

////Reply To: Authors Ask: Can Randomness Explain the Fine-Tuning of the Universe?
#5015 Score: 0

Aurora Carlson
110 votes

Tom, I too like Robert Lanza’s ideas, and also his freshness and enthusiasm and I guess that for those who have understood that consciousness is primary, a wealth of new ways of looking at their domains of research becomes possible.

I understand your point and I find it a very valuable one in the process of helping those people who are caught in a materialistic point of view. We all understand computers, we understand programming, so your parallel could awaken the new questions necessary for progress. It is, when you think of it, quite strange that many scientists who consider themselves driven by reason accept the “randomness” point of view without questioning. I guess their resistance might be due to the fact that the only alternative they see is that of a guy in the sky, and so they recoil from that but fail to understand that the consciousness perspective is something completely different.

I believe that all ways forward are good. But I also agree with Deepak when he says that understanding is not complete until we have realized that all of it, including the objects of research of any branch of science and the scientists themselves are what Deepak and others call constructs, and that they are nothing “other” than expressions of consciousness itself. Only with this complete shift does everything fall into place.