So… magic.
1 Like
What about God as an eternal being?
I don’t see how anything can be the source of itself, do you?
In the eternal words of NonStampCollector:
Every source needs a sourceror.
I think the concept of a source maybe based on our objective reality in this universe where cause and effect are fundamental. At the end of the day you need an uncaused cause or you face an infinite regress.
The evidence supports that what some are labeling “magic” is most likely objective reality.
No. The map is not the territory. Our monke brains have - or so some would argue, beats me where they get it from - an easier time modeling events with abstractions we call “cause and effect”. Nothing about nature supports or suggests that such relationships are at play at all (and what could, really?), let alone that they are fundamental. In fact, many experimentally reproducible phenomena seem to explicitly violate what some see as their intuitions pertaining to matters of cause and effect.
Frankly, I find an infinite regress more intellectually agreeable, but that’s neither here nor there, and most assuredly not at the end of the day. At the end of the day, only observing nature can reveal to us some slice of its operations. At the end of the day, what is and is not the case in nature is not a matter of taste or preference, or intellectual comfort. If we want to know how things are, no amount of deciding for ourselves how we most like them to be will get us there. Investigating the evidence will.
2 Likes
Your probability calculations have sometimes been wrong by 2600 orders of magnitude. So what you consider a probability nightmare could be a near certainty.
2 Likes
Do you have an example of an error of this magnitude?