performing noble actions for the sake of action alone can give a reward, although this reward is purely cognitive in nature. There is no justice in the world. Just actions, if performed to achieve results, or fruits of action, cause misery and bondage. Act for the sake of action alone, not for its poisonous fruit. If you disregard the fruit, then you can detach yourself from maya, or the illusion of the world. If you act for the sake of action, then you become an unstoppable force. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
When I was young, I thought the 'Dallas' series with all its intrigues and mean characters was just fiction. Today I learned that it's just the way to prevail in business.
The karma theory is the proposition that the word is just. My experience is the good get ravaged by the sociopathic, the narcissists, and the everyday sadists.
While many people around the world hold to a just-world view that is grounded in an idea of "karma," karma theory as it is presented in the Indian traditions where it originated does not imply a just-world. Karma in that original view is just activity, neither good nor bad. Any good or bad qualifiers are always only from our perspective.
[i re-post this as i dont wanna write the same text again new] Nah, karma does not presuppose that the world is good, although it presupposes that paramatma the worldsoul, is good. Karma means action, activity. It does not make a presuppoition about the world, but suggests that one should NOT hanker after the fruits/results of ones action. In the bhagavad gita, krishna suggests that when you perform a deed due to it being a prestigious deed, you expect a reward for the action, a fruit growing as a result of the action. That fruit, according to the worldsoul krishna, is poison. In other words he says, act for the sake of action, not for the believe that it is rewarded or punished. So if your oppressed, rage against it, and do it without hesitation. If you think "oh no i might go to jail" you are poisoned by the fruit of action. Which is karman. The way new agers and sects interpret karma, is indeed a kindof just-world-delusion. Karma does not suggest you always reap what you saw, but that actions have consequences, and that if you act for the sake of action the chances are less that you will be dissapointed. Vishnu suggests in the gita, that if one believes in something or not, either way, happyness comes to those who act irregarding the circumstances and obstacles (action for the sake of action alone). This is called karma yoga, and it "unties the soul from its worldy chains". Today we would say freedom from the matrix. For example you go on a date, if you have high expectations on the result [fruit] of your action, you might get disappointed, feel unhappy and create a spiral or misery, bad cognitions and negative emotions. Instead if you do it for the sake of meeting new people (for the action itself) then you remove yourself a bit from the ups and downs of such reactions. [new part] A good portrayal of Karma yoga, is the movie Amelie. In it amelie starts to selfactualize and overcomes her issues, by acting for the sake of action. Without any regard for rewards, she helps blind people, etc. That is the idea of what krishna tried to convey about karma. That if you act like amelie you liberate yourself, whereas if you ponder over the results of your actions you just might despair..my video about karma yoga: th-cam.com/video/6kHUpRuH2Vc/w-d-xo.html The protagonist in the mahabharata has this very same dilemma - his relatives are out to kill him, they abused his wife and cheated him out of his possessions. Now, finally on the battlefield ready to face the evildoers, he despairs, lets go of his bow, and laments. Krishna says to him, that victory and defeat are the same, and that hankering after the results of his actions (of finally defending himself against his alltoo close enemies, and that he should not go after his kin) will only break him. He then takes on his multiarmed universal form, and says that all these evil people have already been destroyed by him alone, and that the soul is only the witness of good and bad results, but not itself the doer - vishnu is the doer. Displaying his omnipotence and the eventual destruction of the enemies of arjuna, he realizes that it is better for him to act, than not to act. If you must act you might as well act. Do the best, and do that for your own sake and the sake of action. Not for the sake of external reward or punishment (uncondition yourself thus). If you shoot an arrow for a reward you will miss - if you shoot to shoot, you hit ;D This is called the law of neutral action in hermetic thought. Acting like krishna acted, and then arjuna, you become a force of nature. In a christian sense this would be the true meaning of "thy will be done", the hidden meaning of it. To act according to gods will - to act without attachment to it. To simply let nature work. That is the true secret behind this, to never stop doing the best you can, and to trample down on abusive people like a ton of bricks, to never stop standing against any overarching evils which people accept out of cowardice, ignorance or malevolence. Yeah that feeling in there. Thats the touch of immortality you feel when you do so. *Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should* *do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says* *Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds*
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau the Atman is not a soul, no matter whether it is the Atman of Yoga or Vedanta. Buddhists, who deny an Atman, hold a notion of karma, so karma need not be associated with an Atman in any case. Those same Buddhists would also tend to reject the Bhagavad Gita. You've taken one way of looking at karma and presented it as if it were the only one.
@@neilsims6819 Im not a buddhist, i would not be well suited to explain the buddhist view on this. The topic was more about the just world fallacy, and i wanted to separate that from karma because karma or the result of action is often misunderstood. So while i mention atman and paramatma, the relevant point of my comment is action and karma.
Atman is the self - a good translation for paramatma does simply not exist in the English language so the best i came up with is worldsoul, as paramatma is allembracing, allknowing allcreating etc. The difference between atma and paramatma is that the latter is free from any reactions at all times, and atma itself is more limited (as long as it is oblivious of its nature and that of paramatma). The atma does not change, but its causal body is it, that accumulates past expiriences, both good and bad. Atma itself is not touched by action. The causal body accumulates impressions, i think this is similar in buddhism (but im not sure, correct me if i am wrong). Atman in the upanishadic term may refer actually to many things - the self, the being including body, or just the spark. both atman and paramatman are expressions of selfness, or brahman. One is complete one is yet to be completed. Soul sometimes referres to psyche, for others the spirit spark, which would be atma. I prefer the term self, but for paramatma there is no term in this language. Anima mundi has some correlation, or pneumatic anthropos of the gnostics, as it refers to a similar idea. Actually atman does never have any connection with karma - it is embedded in buddhi, or intelligence, and intelligence processes action.
The lack of a just world is the reason why concepts of Heaven and Hell exist. They were created by humans to balance out the injustice on Earth. To give them hope that justice will be restored in the afterlife.
Belief in a next life or afterlife where the scales of justice are somehow balanced is one of the irrational techniques for maintaining the false just-world view. It has already come up in the comments here.
You of course miss out human religious endeavour which successfully rationalises the unjust world by introducing posthumous justice. That addition alters the individuals perception and the necessary techniques that people, as you've rightly pointed out, need to use to deal with the otherwise "unjust world".
Thing is, I find it incredibly sad AND confusing, AND it makes me angry, that some people's belief in a just world LITERALLY means something that is NOT along the lines of equality and have guilty people who do bad things and rights violations PUNISHED AND BROUGHT TO JUSTICE for what they do, but that they feel, with nary a conscience OR a doubt that victims deserve it etc, and NOT because they did something bad like say kill someone and then get killed for revenge etc or even in self defense, but merely being in the "wrong place and at the wrong time", and they seem to have no problem whatsoever with evil people doing evil deeds and getting away with it. Of course if we lived in a PERFECT WORLD, things like this wouldn't happen IN the first place, but if our world was TRULY "just", ordinary people would NOT be thinking along those lines like that. Am I the only one who feels a great deal of anger and confusion about these things like that?
Then again, its a well known fact that you can't please EVERYONE and that humans are very often selfish, violent, greedy, evil etc by nature, although of course, some are more so than others, and we don't exactly live in a world where good guys win and evil gets it, Hollywood movie style. Yes, there IS indeed a lot of anger, conflict, debates etc about those issues and humans are indeed humanity's very much own worst enemies. Sad but true fact of life. Although also true is that some people ARE indeed moral and compassionate whilst others are at best indifferent and at worst downright cruel and horrible, and in some cases, the dark light shines more brightly there than in others. And judging by how it is all still going, I don't think humanity overall will EVER come to one SINGLE honest conclusion about what is right and what is wrong, how to feel revulsion towards perpetrators and how to help the victims, to forgive or to punish etc, and I doubt we will have the kind of laws, morals and beliefs that will universally please everyone of us EQUALLY.
Nah, karma does not presuppose that the world is good, although it presupposes that paramatma the worldsoul, is good. Karma means action, activity. It does not make a presuppoition about the world, but suggests that one should NOT hanker after the fruits/results of ones action. In the bhagavad gita, krishna suggests that when you perform a deed due to it being a prestigious deed, you expect a reward for the action, a fruit growing as a result of the action. That fruit, according to the worldsoul krishna, is poison. In other words he says, act for the sake of action, not for the believe that it is rewarded. The way new agers and sects interpret karma, is indeed a kindof just-world-delusion. Karma does not suggest you always reap what you saw, but that actions have consequences, and that if you act for the sake of action the chances are less that you will be dissapointed. Vishnu suggests in the gita, that if one believes in something or not, either way, happyness comes to those who act irregarding the circumstances and obstacles (action for the sake of action alone). This is called karma yoga, and it "unties the soul from its worldy chains". For example you go on a date, if you have high expectations on the result [fruit] of your action, you might get disappointed, feel unhappy and create a spiral or misery, bad cognitions and negative emotions. Instead if you do it for the sake of meeting new people (for the action itself) then you remove yourself a bit from the ups and downs of such reactions. A good portrayal of Karma yoga, is the movie Amelie. In it amelie starts to selfactualize and overcomes her issues, by acting for the sake of action. Without any regard for rewards, she helps blind people, etc. That is the idea of what krishna tried to convey about karma. That if you act like amelie you liberate yourself, whereas if you ponder over the results of your actions you just might despair..
I agree , but most , almost all of the cases in this life comes from crazy and complex act's that we can't even concieve :( I mean the "just world" theory makes only 10% percent of the situations .
Hahahaha the religious questions come up. Ever wonder religious people always have an excuse to get away with anything? Fighting over the who's t chosen people... Daddy's favorite.
“Just world theory” as it was developed by Melvin Lerner is a materialistic (atheistic) concept. It doesn’t take into consideration many factors. Psychology and philosophy are linked, one actually came from the other. Philosophy comes along with religion because otherwise it would be all sentiments with no logic or reasons behind. If we use the law of Karma - the metaphysical law of universal justice, then we’ll see why a certain soul embodied in this world gets bad results even though being good. Because the fruits of action (karma) can come from the previous lives. Moreover, according to the Vedic Holy scriptures it’s said that we have both the free will and God who sanctions all the actions to happen. What happens, whatever it may be, is a result of our past deeds derived from the overall karma accumulated. There it is also said the intricacies of karma are hard to understand, that’s why we sometimes can’t know why a certain thing happened. However, there is always a reason behind it with no coincidence.
I think this is true, but not 100% of the Time. But if someone "Get's Away with" doing something bad, the consequence in the Afterlife is much more steep. So if you get bad karma from something you did, be glad it's here on Earth and not later.
its unscientific to question the afterlife, so it is an opinion you choose to believe in, which may or may not be true, it's your truth but not 'the truth' .
@@soniamendez-rodriguez7884 Man you Atheists are so catty and reactive. Can't let anything remotely spiritual get a pass, can you? I bet you go on tangents when someone says "Bless You" after a sneeze too. Lmao
@@BlackWingedSeraphX except you don't "believe" a scientific theory to be always true and pose a religious answer, not another scientifically studied answer as to why. religion can be a component actually, but ur not forming it in this way and just reverting to you OWN belief and opinion
@@dylgreco Get over yourself. You sound pretty narcissistic and self-righteous your damn self and quite frankly, it's embarrassing. At the end of the day this will always be subjective so someone giving their personal belief as a take is to be expected. Quit trying to look smart.
Ok. The world isn’t a drawing, so what is the world? 🌎 It also isn’t an emoji. This statement: The Just World Hypothesis needs to have the term World defined. Is this hypothesis stating this phenomenon is only present in us on this ball in space? Is the phenomenon present in space? I trust this phenomenon extends into the universe and would better be called The Just Universe Hypothesis. Using the term World is overconfident and presumes we even know the term fully. We still ask why we exist. Isn’t this itself a manifestation of the Hypothesis, doesn’t it explain religion and the creation of higher powers? I find this Hypothesis flawed by its usage of an invalid term. I enjoy psychological hypothesis, fallacies, and biases, but this one has its own present in its theory. What is the world?
the assumption is that 'the world' is a concept that most humans who have developed a theory of mind have. religion is unverifiable, therefore unscientific, so the hypothesis does not account for it, many people act from this bias without being religious. few humans have explored the the universe, so most people do not have a concept for it. this hypothesis does not tackle the question of existence some people have, just what processes lead someone to believe that the world/nature is fair.
People are never rewarded for their noble actions. It doesn`t hold water.
performing noble actions for the sake of action alone can give a reward, although this reward is purely cognitive in nature. There is no justice in the world. Just actions, if performed to achieve results, or fruits of action, cause misery and bondage. Act for the sake of action alone, not for its poisonous fruit. If you disregard the fruit, then you can detach yourself from maya, or the illusion of the world.
If you act for the sake of action, then you become an unstoppable force. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau Sometimes we also suffer from the Mean World Syndrome Bias.
"Never" is a strong word...
When I was young, I thought the 'Dallas' series with all its intrigues and mean characters was just fiction. Today I learned that it's just the way to prevail in business.
The karma theory is the proposition that the word is just. My experience is the good get ravaged by the sociopathic, the narcissists, and the everyday sadists.
While many people around the world hold to a just-world view that is grounded in an idea of "karma," karma theory as it is presented in the Indian traditions where it originated does not imply a just-world. Karma in that original view is just activity, neither good nor bad. Any good or bad qualifiers are always only from our perspective.
[i re-post this as i dont wanna write the same text again new] Nah, karma does not presuppose that the world is good, although it presupposes that paramatma the worldsoul, is good. Karma means action, activity. It does not make a presuppoition about the world, but suggests that one should NOT hanker after the fruits/results of ones action. In the bhagavad gita, krishna suggests that when you perform a deed due to it being a prestigious deed, you expect a reward for the action, a fruit growing as a result of the action. That fruit, according to the worldsoul krishna, is poison. In other words he says, act for the sake of action, not for the believe that it is rewarded or punished.
So if your oppressed, rage against it, and do it without hesitation. If you think "oh no i might go to jail" you are poisoned by the fruit of action. Which is karman. The way new agers and sects interpret karma, is indeed a kindof just-world-delusion. Karma does not suggest you always reap what you saw, but that actions have consequences, and that if you act for the sake of action the chances are less that you will be dissapointed. Vishnu suggests in the gita, that if one believes in something or not, either way, happyness comes to those who act irregarding the circumstances and obstacles (action for the sake of action alone). This is called karma yoga, and it "unties the soul from its worldy chains". Today we would say freedom from the matrix.
For example you go on a date, if you have high expectations on the result [fruit] of your action, you might get disappointed, feel unhappy and create a spiral or misery, bad cognitions and negative emotions. Instead if you do it for the sake of meeting new people (for the action itself) then you remove yourself a bit from the ups and downs of such reactions.
[new part] A good portrayal of Karma yoga, is the movie Amelie. In it amelie starts to selfactualize and overcomes her issues, by acting for the sake of action. Without any regard for rewards, she helps blind people, etc. That is the idea of what krishna tried to convey about karma. That if you act like amelie you liberate yourself, whereas if you ponder over the results of your actions you just might despair..my video about karma yoga: th-cam.com/video/6kHUpRuH2Vc/w-d-xo.html
The protagonist in the mahabharata has this very same dilemma - his relatives are out to kill him, they abused his wife and cheated him out of his possessions. Now, finally on the battlefield ready to face the evildoers, he despairs, lets go of his bow, and laments. Krishna says to him, that victory and defeat are the same, and that hankering after the results of his actions (of finally defending himself against his alltoo close enemies, and that he should not go after his kin) will only break him. He then takes on his multiarmed universal form, and says that all these evil people have already been destroyed by him alone, and that the soul is only the witness of good and bad results, but not itself the doer - vishnu is the doer. Displaying his omnipotence and the eventual destruction of the enemies of arjuna, he realizes that it is better for him to act, than not to act. If you must act you might as well act. Do the best, and do that for your own sake and the sake of action. Not for the sake of external reward or punishment (uncondition yourself thus). If you shoot an arrow for a reward you will miss - if you shoot to shoot, you hit ;D This is called the law of neutral action in hermetic thought.
Acting like krishna acted, and then arjuna, you become a force of nature. In a christian sense this would be the true meaning of "thy will be done", the hidden meaning of it. To act according to gods will - to act without attachment to it. To simply let nature work. That is the true secret behind this, to never stop doing the best you can, and to trample down on abusive people like a ton of bricks, to never stop standing against any overarching evils which people accept out of cowardice, ignorance or malevolence. Yeah that feeling in there. Thats the touch of immortality you feel when you do so.
*Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should*
*do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says*
*Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds*
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau the Atman is not a soul, no matter whether it is the Atman of Yoga or Vedanta. Buddhists, who deny an Atman, hold a notion of karma, so karma need not be associated with an Atman in any case. Those same Buddhists would also tend to reject the Bhagavad Gita. You've taken one way of looking at karma and presented it as if it were the only one.
@@neilsims6819 Im not a buddhist, i would not be well suited to explain the buddhist view on this.
The topic was more about the just world fallacy, and i wanted to separate that from karma because karma or the result of action is often misunderstood.
So while i mention atman and paramatma, the relevant point of my comment is action and karma.
Atman is the self - a good translation for paramatma does simply not exist in the English language so the best i came up with is worldsoul, as paramatma is allembracing, allknowing allcreating etc.
The difference between atma and paramatma is that the latter is free from any reactions at all times, and atma itself is more limited (as long as it is oblivious of its nature and that of paramatma).
The atma does not change, but its causal body is it, that accumulates past expiriences, both good and bad. Atma itself is not touched by action. The causal body accumulates impressions, i think this is similar in buddhism (but im not sure, correct me if i am wrong).
Atman in the upanishadic term may refer actually to many things - the self, the being including body, or just the spark.
both atman and paramatman are expressions of selfness, or brahman. One is complete one is yet to be completed.
Soul sometimes referres to psyche, for others the spirit spark, which would be atma. I prefer the term self, but for paramatma there is no term in this language. Anima mundi has some correlation, or pneumatic anthropos of the gnostics, as it refers to a similar idea.
Actually atman does never have any connection with karma - it is embedded in buddhi, or intelligence, and intelligence processes action.
The lack of a just world is the reason why concepts of Heaven and Hell exist. They were created by humans to balance out the injustice on Earth. To give them hope that justice will be restored in the afterlife.
Belief in a next life or afterlife where the scales of justice are somehow balanced is one of the irrational techniques for maintaining the false just-world view. It has already come up in the comments here.
You of course miss out human religious endeavour which successfully rationalises the unjust world by introducing posthumous justice. That addition alters the individuals perception and the necessary techniques that people, as you've rightly pointed out, need to use to deal with the otherwise "unjust world".
Thank you for your thorough explanation!:)
The sad thing is that is how we were taught and treated others.
good video rational, balanced and clear.
Thing is, I find it incredibly sad AND confusing, AND it makes me angry, that some people's belief in a just world LITERALLY means something that is NOT along the lines of equality and have guilty people who do bad things and rights violations PUNISHED AND BROUGHT TO JUSTICE for what they do, but that they feel, with nary a conscience OR a doubt that victims deserve it etc, and NOT because they did something bad like say kill someone and then get killed for revenge etc or even in self defense, but merely being in the "wrong place and at the wrong time", and they seem to have no problem whatsoever with evil people doing evil deeds and getting away with it. Of course if we lived in a PERFECT WORLD, things like this wouldn't happen IN the first place, but if our world was TRULY "just", ordinary people would NOT be thinking along those lines like that. Am I the only one who feels a great deal of anger and confusion about these things like that?
Then again, its a well known fact that you can't please EVERYONE and that humans are very often selfish, violent, greedy, evil etc by nature, although of course, some are more so than others, and we don't exactly live in a world where good guys win and evil gets it, Hollywood movie style. Yes, there IS indeed a lot of anger, conflict, debates etc about those issues and humans are indeed humanity's very much own worst enemies. Sad but true fact of life. Although also true is that some people ARE indeed moral and compassionate whilst others are at best indifferent and at worst downright cruel and horrible, and in some cases, the dark light shines more brightly there than in others. And judging by how it is all still going, I don't think humanity overall will EVER come to one SINGLE honest conclusion about what is right and what is wrong, how to feel revulsion towards perpetrators and how to help the victims, to forgive or to punish etc, and I doubt we will have the kind of laws, morals and beliefs that will universally please everyone of us EQUALLY.
@@alexanderdahoola8188 Great comment.. There is no justice but what we make..
Is this like karma?
Nah, karma does not presuppose that the world is good, although it presupposes that paramatma the worldsoul, is good. Karma means action, activity. It does not make a presuppoition about the world, but suggests that one should NOT hanker after the fruits/results of ones action. In the bhagavad gita, krishna suggests that when you perform a deed due to it being a prestigious deed, you expect a reward for the action, a fruit growing as a result of the action. That fruit, according to the worldsoul krishna, is poison. In other words he says, act for the sake of action, not for the believe that it is rewarded.
The way new agers and sects interpret karma, is indeed a kindof just-world-delusion. Karma does not suggest you always reap what you saw, but that actions have consequences, and that if you act for the sake of action the chances are less that you will be dissapointed. Vishnu suggests in the gita, that if one believes in something or not, either way, happyness comes to those who act irregarding the circumstances and obstacles (action for the sake of action alone). This is called karma yoga, and it "unties the soul from its worldy chains".
For example you go on a date, if you have high expectations on the result [fruit] of your action, you might get disappointed, feel unhappy and create a spiral or misery, bad cognitions and negative emotions. Instead if you do it for the sake of meeting new people (for the action itself) then you remove yourself a bit from the ups and downs of such reactions.
A good portrayal of Karma yoga, is the movie Amelie. In it amelie starts to selfactualize and overcomes her issues, by acting for the sake of action. Without any regard for rewards, she helps blind people, etc. That is the idea of what krishna tried to convey about karma. That if you act like amelie you liberate yourself, whereas if you ponder over the results of your actions you just might despair..
I believe the "Pay Back" is Sevenfold.
I agree , but most , almost all of the cases in this life comes from crazy and complex act's that we can't even concieve :(
I mean the "just world" theory makes only 10% percent of the situations .
Hahahaha the religious questions come up. Ever wonder religious people always have an excuse to get away with anything? Fighting over the who's t chosen people... Daddy's favorite.
“Just world theory” as it was developed by Melvin Lerner is a materialistic (atheistic) concept. It doesn’t take into consideration many factors. Psychology and philosophy are linked, one actually came from the other. Philosophy comes along with religion because otherwise it would be all sentiments with no logic or reasons behind. If we use the law of Karma - the metaphysical law of universal justice, then we’ll see why a certain soul embodied in this world gets bad results even though being good. Because the fruits of action (karma) can come from the previous lives. Moreover, according to the Vedic Holy scriptures it’s said that we have both the free will and God who sanctions all the actions to happen. What happens, whatever it may be, is a result of our past deeds derived from the overall karma accumulated. There it is also said the intricacies of karma are hard to understand, that’s why we sometimes can’t know why a certain thing happened. However, there is always a reason behind it with no coincidence.
I think this is true, but not 100% of the Time.
But if someone "Get's Away with" doing something bad, the consequence in the Afterlife is much more steep.
So if you get bad karma from something you did, be glad it's here on Earth and not later.
its unscientific to question the afterlife, so it is an opinion you choose to believe in, which may or may not be true, it's your truth but not 'the truth' .
@@soniamendez-rodriguez7884 Man you Atheists are so catty and reactive. Can't let anything remotely spiritual get a pass, can you? I bet you go on tangents when someone says "Bless You" after a sneeze too. Lmao
@@BlackWingedSeraphX except you don't "believe" a scientific theory to be always true and pose a religious answer, not another scientifically studied answer as to why. religion can be a component actually, but ur not forming it in this way and just reverting to you OWN belief and opinion
@@dylgreco Get over yourself. You sound pretty narcissistic and self-righteous your damn self and quite frankly, it's embarrassing. At the end of the day this will always be subjective so someone giving their personal belief as a take is to be expected. Quit trying to look smart.
@@BlackWingedSeraphX If a hypothesis can't be falsified (like "the afterlife exists"), it is not scientific. It's as simple as that.
Ok. The world isn’t a drawing, so what is the world? 🌎 It also isn’t an emoji. This statement: The Just World Hypothesis needs to have the term World defined. Is this hypothesis stating this phenomenon is only present in us on this ball in space? Is the phenomenon present in space? I trust this phenomenon extends into the universe and would better be called The Just Universe Hypothesis. Using the term World is overconfident and presumes we even know the term fully. We still ask why we exist. Isn’t this itself a manifestation of the Hypothesis, doesn’t it explain religion and the creation of higher powers? I find this Hypothesis flawed by its usage of an invalid term. I enjoy psychological hypothesis, fallacies, and biases, but this one has its own present in its theory. What is the world?
the assumption is that 'the world' is a concept that most humans who have developed a theory of mind have. religion is unverifiable, therefore unscientific, so the hypothesis does not account for it, many people act from this bias without being religious. few humans have explored the the universe, so most people do not have a concept for it. this hypothesis does not tackle the question of existence some people have, just what processes lead someone to believe that the world/nature is fair.