I wasn't clear. What I was getting it is, you were speculating that the laws of nature weren't all that intelligent, given all the suffering in the world; and I was suggesting that since those same laws of nature gave us *our* intelligence, we couldn't really be any more intelligent than the laws, such that we could look at them and think maybe they weren't that smart. We'd have to be smarter than the laws, in other words, or at least have some other standard of intelligence to compare the laws to.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Appear intelligent *compared to what*? " - just the fact that nature > is lawful, orderly and consistent and thereby discoverable and > predictable; but also that the "constants" in nature are so fienely > tuned that even the tiniest numerical deviation and matter and energy > would not develop or exist even. These qualities of the laws of > nature point either to an underlying intelligence, as Hagelin argues, > or to their chance emergence in the right ratios, in this particular > universe (compared to the case in trillions of other parallel > universes, where the ratios etc in the constants are "wrong" and no > evolution of matter happens). > > "what provided us with what intelligence we have in the first place" > Yes as we are part of nature - but still it is surprising the > correspondence between our "models" and "nature", that our > mathematics for instance, can be so incredibly accurate. Also amazing > how the mere act of observation can alter outcomes in quantum > experiments. > > Regarding the question of "coverings" and "ignorance", it is all > rather intriguing nevertheless, metaphorically. Children like peek- a- > boo games, psychological development involves discovering self, > others and the boundaries inbetween; science is about "uncovering" > laws of nature, we like mysteries, magic etc.. even mystical > experience is about "revelation" etc. But existentially, especially > concerning all the suffering in the universe, it's infuriating! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <claudiouk@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > On the other hand this veil of ignorance & forgetting > > > implicated in the unified field itself (therefore preceding > > > karma and personal sin) might give rise to Laws of Nature > > > that themselves only APPEAR intelligent. > > > > Appear intelligent *compared to what*? By what standard? > > > > Human intelligence? Because one occasionally feels one > > could have pissed a smarter set of Laws of Nature, a > > universe in which one didn't have to go through all > > this convoluted, counterintuitive stuff to "remember" > > what one has supposedly "forgotten" but "always already > > knew"? > > > > I'm in sympathy with you on that. > > > > But these stupid Laws of Nature that condemn us to sin > > and suffering until we finally figure it out (or not) > > are what provided us with what intelligence we have in > > the first place, aren't they? > > >
