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?
#5037 Score: 0

Tom
Participant
9 votes
@tom

Hi again, and thanks Deepak for the video response and the kind email.

It occurred to me that my ideas are perceived as “dualistic” – despite meeting you briefly at th Science and Nonduality conference. Let me try to clarify and show why I believe we are in alignment….

Humans developed technology that uses symbolic encoded intelligence to calculate and make decisions through silicon chips to convey meaning.

Biologists discovered DNA and investigated further.
Using supercomputers, they were able to sequence or decode the patterns in DNA and discover that it represents symbolic encoded intelligence to calculate and make decisions through biochemistry and biologists can now discern its meaning.

The code used in computers requires teams of programmers and engineers years to develop intelligently and intentionally.
DNA has existed since the beginning of organic life, about 4.6 billion years.

How do we account for the encoded meaning operating our biology?

We can imagine that another species of engineers and programmers created us – kicking the problem down the road.

Or we can look at the more obvious answer – according to Occam’s Razor – the cleanest solution: Reality itself, out of which organic life has evolved, is infinitely intelligent.

The “shift’ is that there is no Who, What or How. Or Me or Us. There is only THIS.

In order to see “this,” we need to jettison the notion of a dualistic reality – the existence of a separate random world – and posit only one “thing” in existence – Life/Reality/Consciousness/Being. Or as Eckhart Tolle calls it – “no thing.”

Of course this would completely reorient all of our sciences in the apparent direction of quantum physics. (And remove the cachet of “objectivity” known as “Scientism”).

It will be seen that we (the observers) do NOT affect or cause phenomena, but rather that “we” as a thought-based conditioned self are simply appearing within this reality, and the phenomena actually occur via our own senses as experience according to the laws and functions of an infinite intelligence operating mysteriously “as us.”

This would also address the current “reality is a computer simulation” hypotheses – because the concept, or as Deepak says the “construct” of a computer simulation is a projection within human thought from its limited perspective on reality (and its current technical experience).

Thank you.

(For the record I am not “Editor in Chief” of Collective Evolution – that title belongs to my young friend who interviewed you at SAND, Mark DeNicola although he has left CE, and Joe Martino. I am, ironically, their Science and Tech columnist. Thanks and much love).

X