created by Huge_Pay8265 on 26/01/2025 at 13:55 UTC
0 upvotes, 11 top-level comments (showing 11)
Comment by AutoModerator at 26/01/2025 at 13:55 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines[2], please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail[3] (not via private message or chat).
2: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
3: https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
4: /message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
Comment by [deleted] at 26/01/2025 at 14:07 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Well who made the computer simulation?
Comment by Svitiod at 26/01/2025 at 14:24 UTC
21 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Atheism is not an explanation. You don't have to have the explanation for anything in order to be an atheist.
Comment by knobby_67 at 26/01/2025 at 14:18 UTC
12 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I equally hate it when philosopher tries to badly use science, to when a scientist uses philosophy to give answers. As someone who’s a microelectronics engineer I know when a specialist in one field starts talking with conference about another, it’s often bollocks. Even when they appear to be similar fields to the general public. Brain scientists linking conciousness and quantum mechanics, string theorists talking about life. It’s nice to ponder these things but don’t listen to an expert in one field talking with confidence on another.
Comment by centuryguru at 30/01/2025 at 20:56 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Kant has a great explanation, not everything can be explained by a pure reason
Comment by aries777622 at 02/02/2025 at 02:54 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
a creative intelligence exists
Comment by tctctctytyty at 26/01/2025 at 15:42 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is why scientists don't take philosophers seriously. Goff compares his assertions about purposefullness, and "fine tuning" to climate change, when the amount of causal evidence, modeling, and explanatory power is completely different. He then completely misunderstands the anthropic principle with his casino analogy. Then he suggests panpsychism as an explanation when there is literally zero evidence for it.
The casino analogy is particularly telling and embarassing. He gets the causation of the anthropoc principle backwards. It is impossible to observe a "losing" universe unlike a losing gambler in the casino. You can't just ignore this. The anthropic principle is more like if a casino calls in a consultant to check for cheating after a jackpot than someone observing a random gambler. The consultant would be much more likely to be called during a busy night, therefore they could assume the nights they are called in are busier than most. It completely breaks the analogy.
Comment by ksandbergfl at 26/01/2025 at 14:08 UTC
0 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I didn’t read the article but isn’t there already something called the anthropic principle that states the universe exists to bring forth human life?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Comment by Huge_Pay8265 at 26/01/2025 at 13:56 UTC
-6 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Philip Goff argues that it is time to move on from both God and atheism. Through an exploration of contemporary cosmology and cutting-edge philosophical research on consciousness, Goff argues for cosmic purpose: the idea that the universe is directed towards certain goals, such as the emergence of life.
In contrast to religious thinkers, Goff argues that the traditional God is a bad explanation of cosmic purpose. Instead, he explores a range of alternative possibilities for accounting for cosmic purpose, from the speculation that we live in a computer simulation to the hypothesis that the universe itself is a conscious mind. Goff scrutinizes these options with analytical rigor, laying the foundations for a new paradigm of philosophical inquiry into the middle ground between God and atheism.
Other topics discussed include (1) a God of limited powers; (2) teleological laws of nature; and (3) panpsychism.
Comment by Rockfarley at 26/01/2025 at 14:57 UTC
-2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If you find you can't live without meaning, just go find religion. This won't work, and it will prolong your existential crisis. People die in those waters & this isn't a lifeline. Having taken the time on this before, it's empty.
Meaning comes from purpose. Purpose is either objective (creative intent for this existence beyond us) or subjective (you made it up). Any argument that tells me nature did this is to say it lacks purpose because no meaning was there in creating it. **You need to make your own, then.** Just admit it's you, ok? You are making your purpose.
This is an attempt to save religious ideals but strip out the faith. Just go to church or synagogue or temple. Study religions and find faith. You are looking for faith, not philosophy. Whatever you choose, *no one is going to be happy with it, so you should be at least.* Reach out and touch faith!
Logically, though, I get stuck in the same loop after more than a few decades of thinking this over. If you need meaning, that shows intent. Intent is made from a mind. Find that mind. No natural mindless processes that favors life coming into being or necessitates it can magically have meaning now! They just are & that's good enough or there is a mind with intent for who you are. **Don't make a rock your ancestor because you are frightened about living without meaning.**
It's Absurd! Ok, then be absurd. Or admit that this deep drive means something. Not for me or them, but for you! I can't give you purpose, neither will philosophy... trust me, I tried. One exception is becoming a philosopher. Then, you can make up that meaning and assign it to yourself. Everyone else does, it's called a job. The faithful just admit that isn't transcendent... because it isn't.
Authentic self, this means something. Or there is no self to be authentic to, I made it up.
Comment by Im_Talking at 26/01/2025 at 21:09 UTC
-1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
"Philip Goff argues that the universe is directed toward the emergence of life"
It's exactly opposite. The emergence/evolution of life directs the invention of the universe. The universe is invented to provide a framework to maximise our subjective experiences.
Aristotle is correct. There is a telos or drive to all this. How could we have subjective experiences at all without a 'drive'? Look at evolution. There is an inherent force in reality to maximise the assimilation into the current environment.