The r0ach report 25: Computer science proves the existence of a variable known as "God", but not what "God" actually is

in science •  2 years ago  (edited)

I define the prime mover of the universe as gravity + the non-uniform distribution of matter. For the non-uniform distribution of matter to exist, an entropy source had to exist on the other side of the big bang. That entropy source is what I define as "god". Whether "god" is a just a math variable (random number generator), person, linux VM admin, or whatever you want to claim it is, is pretty much unknowable. Instead of "god does not play dice", god might be dice.

The ability to create real random numbers might be the ultimate power and the only real power god has. That is, unless the universe is deterministic, and then it would just be a puppeteer or something and you're not actually thinking or making choices anyway. I'm going to lean towards the idea that real randomness was enacted because it would be a pointless exercise otherwise unless everything you see is the equivalent of a video game or movie for someone else's entertainment, but the latter is also still a possibility.

Or to explain things differently, the word god is a phrase used to describe the fact that humans live in a hierarchical structure but don't know what layer of the hiearchy their plane of existence is besides the fact that it's not the top one as evidenced by the entropy problem (the fact that the entropy seed likely needs to come from outside of this layer of existence). There is a wrapper in other words.

As for the universe having deterministic or non-deterministic properties, some will try and claim, no, it's not possible for the universe to be deterministic for so and so reason. In reality, it's not actually possible to know without residing on the top plane of the hierachy itself.

If you're locked inside an internal system with an external system surrounding you, it can still be deterministic and you're doing the equivalent of being played like a VCR tape to see predetermined events. Whatever is at the top of the hierarchy takes precedent.

Once again, the entropy problem points to the fact that a wrapper does surround the plane of existence you're reading this from. The only real way out of this problem is if there's a cyclical universe where an entropy seed is preserved through each iteration, then outside hierarchical layers are not required.

I'm skeptical humans will ever be able to perform experiments to confirm or deny if an entropy seed can be preserved through things like the destruction of space and time itself. If such a thing is possible, it seems like it would be considered an outside hierarchical layer by default anyway, so that doesn't conflict with much of what's said here. A self sustaining cyclical universe that exists as the top and only hierarchical layer becomes more irrational of a prospect in that regard.

(Image Source: Wikipedia)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Updated with deterministic vs non-deterministic argument.

  ·  2 years ago (edited)

I must say I really enjoy this blog. The reading is not too heavy and it gets straight to the point without he typical ego inflation that comes with this kind of speculation.

I would like to share another perspective.
It is currently thought that there is a minimum time and a minimum distance both known as the Planck -length. I.e at this point we are denied divisibility. Now imagine a flip-book animation (or an old movie reel) where each cell represents a frame in in the slideshow. These frames can exist independently of each other, for example we can take a frame and bury it somewhere or launch it off into space. But bring the frames back into their intended order and one can marvel at the show unfolding before them.
So, what if each slice of the universe at the Planck length of time is actually an individual frame (not real though, I just mean metaphorcally as a mathematical possibility) existing independently of all other 'moments' at the plank length. Our brain needs the next frame to align perfectly with the infinite (mathematically) possible universe/realities in a future timeset, so that we simply experience continuity through time because of no mere fact other than it is mathematically possible to do so. This aligns with the 'many worlds' theory which suggests all possible alternative realities exist adjacent to each other and our current perception of free will is simply the moment we 'choose' to experience. In a sense the configuration of our brains at each point at the Planck length collapses the quantum wave function (probability of all possible futures at each time-set) in a way that favours certain outcomes. Obviously these can be influenced by interactions with external wave functions ('the world') for an outcome, which is why we are not ourselves gods. In 'reality' all possible experiences exist and are being experienced by alternative 'you', but our consciousness as we experience it is defined by the 1 dimensional timeline we travel in (experienced in the 3rd dimension through the single time dimension). That is to say, all possible realities exist in the 4th dimension outside of time, which makes free will a moot point in that hyper-dimension. But we are able to 'travel' one of these sets with the illusion of time giving us the experience of a pathway we choose to travel on.
It's weird because it is not even real, every frame at the Planck length is indepenent of one another but we are a mathematical certainty and that is the universe without a God (in the typical sense of the word) because you would have to convince yourself that god invented mathematics, but you could argue that equations exist without a creator. The number '2' for example, exists, but you would never be able to touch or show it (prove it), however it manifests itself everywhere as ubiquitous as God.

I just saw this post today. My main focus was taking somewhat of a Descartes method to deduce what we can and can't know about the plane of existence we live in and if we can derive if there are outside hierarchical structures above this one or not.

From the post, my conclusion was that the evidence overwhelmingly points towards an upper hierarchical layer or "wrapper" existing. Whether there is only one layer or infinite ones above this one is entirely unknowable due to the very nature of being an observer in an 'inferior' hierarchy.

As for attempting to prove many worlds theory and things like that, I find it interesting entirely from a science fiction perspective, but my brain (so far) is entirely unable to look at any of those ideas and say "that looks logical to me".

When people say things like "infinite realities", it seems like they're implying there would be a parallel universe where stars are created by the accretion of large amounts of orange cheetos. And if that doesn't happen, it's not exactly infinite realities, is it?

It was a dumb example, but I guess you get my point. Without infinite realities, the universe seems like a very finely tuned machine in a lot of variables and circumstances, but once you drag infinite realities into it, everything becomes pointless. There is no longer any reason to try and understand something; every possible combination exists just because it has to exist. That would turn the universe from a seemingly efficient and logical machine to completely inefficient and wasteful.

That's looking at things from an evolutionary perspective where things are constantly trying to streamline their efficiency. A process where things always run at full blast with zero regard to overhead is counterintuitive to all other known processes.

Of course, then you could imagine things like the "observer effect" in quantum mechanics to mirror efficiency gains in computer graphics like polygon culling (not rendering polygons that aren't in line of sight), so the universe would be attempting to conserve overhead in that regard.