The link and the large quoteblock in the 2nd post below are the important points.
This post is just some further loose remarks.
Post 1/3
1. Forgot to add the next statement, meant for clarification, to the brief references to Loop Quantum Gravity in my posts on the previous page. May insert the following there later. For now, pasting it here. (Reminder: LQG argues that time itself should be part of the equations of physical laws of the universe - that some or all of these laws themselves may change over time.)
Evolution of the universe means it's a system influenced by time. Evolution in bio is that process where *over time* life evolves. <- Note how time is a crucial part of the process and an important feature in dictating current state. People argue that biology gives evidence of a natural=physical (physics sense) system where time is itself an important influential/contributing variable. The proposition of Loop Quantum Gravity is that it isn't just life that evolves=changes over time, but that the universe evolves in a very literal sense, i.e. physics laws themselves changing over time. C.f. general physics cosmology has the evolution of the universe in stages (time is a component but more passive itself) but with the physical laws remaining the same over time.
2. The "gawd designed the universe" arguments are a subset of the "something did it" proposition, mostly of the form "Some Intelligence is Behind it". That is, even if there is an intelligence behind it - though it ain't the gawd of the mono-moronisms for sure (the babble/koran don't say anything about the universe) - it need not be a deity. E.g. AI/philosophy have submitted the possibility of Simulation Theory. Which encompasses possibilities like: 1. this (the universe including life in it) is a big simulation by some intelligence [entity, either individual or group], perhaps for research purposes*; 2. the intelligent entity might itself be an AI; 3. Ancestor Simulation Theory: we may be robots/AI ourselves, made to closely resemble organic entities, emulating our original ancestors ("organic"?) whose possible experiences we are retreading/exploring. [This was the inspiration behind the BSG reboot and lots of 90s sci-fi too, btw. So it could all well be the AI "cylon god" behind it, and we could all be cylons: emulating organic predecessors. Anyone else hearing "All along the watchtower" playing? Oh wait, that's youtube running in the background, never mind. But when I switch it off, the CMB=cosmic microwave background is audible to all, and has been for as long as we know... (Cue the "twilight zone" theme.) Just kidding obviously.]
* The aims of the simulation are variously suggested to be for the experimenters to work out how their species' intelligence could have evolved; or simply to construct alternate possibilities, c.f. how humans in the 90s created simple computer simulations to randomly test the evolution of mobility by feeding in some "physical laws" (limitations) into a model context (limited "universe") and getting the program to randomly generate different forms of possible movements, with each form being evolved from the previous as part of the short-sighted learning algorithm**. The program tries for stability, which would indicate some level of success in the movement, before it proceeds to further "evolve" other forms of motion.
** Since actual evolution, too, is a Brute Force stabilising algorithm: it does NOT produce the best design of all time, just a viable design for the current environment in the current time.
The whole thing about a common idea in AI's Simulation Theory (which encompasses the theory where a hidden entity/intelligence is behind it all, even an AI program - or that we are a robotic simulation modelled on our once-real ancestors etc - of which the "gawd is behind it all" theory is a proper subset)
is that from our vantage-point, being in the sim ourselves, it is hard to detect whether there is anything "behind it all". We have observer bias, but from the POV of being part of the experiment. Our position is that of microbes confined to a lab. And we can't see past the lab. And there's no certain/reliable way of detecting what is past the lab. Or even any certainty that we can exist beyond it (c.f. if a computer simulation is switched "off"). No reliable way of detecting what is real and unreal, of detecting the 'true' reality behind what's commonly perceived as 'reality', and whether that supposed 'true reality' is indeed the real Real* or just more of a red herring/layers of an onion. (* "Level Real". :Avalon FTW
Because anything we detect from our POV as labrats can *all* be conspiracied away as part of the simulation, or a larger simulation, an additional layer. [Or even that we are programmed not to be able to conceive the answer.] <- These are all notions long dealt with in science/AI and eventually science fiction. Nature Of Reality questions are in that respect like questions on the Nature Of Consciousness, and even Nature Of Memory: what is real, how can we - being subjective as subjects - even know. The possible answers turn into philosophy in the end. <- And that's what happens to unanswered/unanswerable questions in western science: since humans need answers or else they - society/generations - go mad trying to answer unfathomable questions, they produce the pacifier of modern philosophy to posit what is unknowable but at least possibly sufficiently mentally-satisfying. [Whereas the trite "mono-gawd did it all" answer had been considered a sufficient pacifier in the christoislamised world (and still is among christoislamics) - until the west started breaking free of the christoclass virus and thus increasingly started asking proper questions and searching for proper answers. Even so, Hawking said in his doco that the Pope - JP II, I think - told him and other physicists gathered by His Papal Phantom Menace that they were not allowed to ask questions about/seek answers to the origins of the cosmos, i.e. that cosmology was off-limits, as this part of physics must be answered with "gawd did it". Hawking et al naturally disagreed and sought the answers anyway.]
Therefore, the "gawd did it" excuse is only one among a great many conspiracy theories. And I'm not just talking about how an invisible monogawd is as likely to exist as the pink unicorn or the FSM/Flying Spaghetti Monster - all of which (and an infinite number of fictive creatures) are equally likely and *equally* to be credited with the creation and governing of the universe. <- Invisibility and undetectability can be conveniently appealed to by *all*, and equally, after all.
That "gawd/pink-unicorn/FSM did it" is certainly no more likely - has no more evidence going for it - than the equally admissable proposition that a highly evolved/technologically advanced but naturally-evolved non-deity intelligence did it (i.e. simulation theory) or that a technologically capable AI did it (and which is sometimes conjectured as part of the simulation itself, e.g. the program that generated the simulation could run the simulation using its own resources incl. memory. Compare with how Hindu or Taoist Gods ARE themselves the universe - the universe is of them, of their own Shakti -; similarly, the AI runs the simulation using its own powers in the form of resources. BTW, some of the philosophical views/considerations that gave rise to Simulation Hypothesis are also influenced by Hindoo religion. So Simulation Theory's suggestions can't be used as proof of Hindoo religion either, not being independent.)
In fact, it could be argued that as the universe seems to conform to some mathematical laws (physical laws) and not to magical miraculous nonsense of the babble/koran tripe (or the My Little Pony universe), that Simulation Theory - by an intelligent but not necessarily omniscient or even truly omnipotent entity (doing research, say) - is more likely than miraculous magical entities.
Again: as explained, the "gawd did it" excuse is only one among a great many conspiracy theories. And unless people have proof - which heathens have for their heathen Gods/heathenisms, BTW - "gawd did it" is nothing more than a conspiracy theory; and the gawd theory is moreover NOT necessary to explain the existence of the universe, or the possibility of life and us in particular in it. (Example arguments given by scientists are in the previous post.) Else, as stated, Simulation Theory has at least as much chance of being true as gawd, and has just as much scientific "proof" for it. I.e. like the invisible monogawd proposition, simulation theory is not detectable with certainty either (as any detections can always be dismissed as another layer to the "conspiracy").
3. Now as Hindoos know, in Hindoo religion, the 5 defining actions of the Parabrahmam/paramapuruSha/Ishwara are (and it's right there in every Nataraja vigraham, for example): Srushti, Sthiti, Samhaaram, Tirobhavam and Anugraham. Science can say the final bit is a convenient cop out, but at least Hindoo heathenism - even if the shruti were dismissed as not apauruSheya - shows a lot of reasoned arguments not to mention a vast deal of contemplation on the nature of the universe, reality and fundamental essence ("consciousness"), which is NOT seen in the lately invented religions and which is not original to the missionary plagiarisms. The last two of the 5 defining acts of Parabrahmam indicate the Hindoo answer to why Hindoo religion predicts that science will Not publicly reveal the Hindoo Gods: tirobhavam is of their own will, and only their anugraham - which is also an act of their volition - will reveal them. Anugraham is only to be obtained in certain ways and is predicated on correct (Hindoo) perception by the individual. For the rest, the universe will look free of the Gods - as it always does without divyachakShus.
[Similar arguments for certain other named heathenisms, BTW.]
The link and the large quoteblock in the next post are the important points.
This post is just some further loose remarks.
Post 1/3
1. Forgot to add the next statement, meant for clarification, to the brief references to Loop Quantum Gravity in my posts on the previous page. May insert the following there later. For now, pasting it here. (Reminder: LQG argues that time itself should be part of the equations of physical laws of the universe - that some or all of these laws themselves may change over time.)
Evolution of the universe means it's a system influenced by time. Evolution in bio is that process where *over time* life evolves. <- Note how time is a crucial part of the process and an important feature in dictating current state. People argue that biology gives evidence of a natural=physical (physics sense) system where time is itself an important influential/contributing variable. The proposition of Loop Quantum Gravity is that it isn't just life that evolves=changes over time, but that the universe evolves in a very literal sense, i.e. physics laws themselves changing over time. C.f. general physics cosmology has the evolution of the universe in stages (time is a component but more passive itself) but with the physical laws remaining the same over time.
2. The "gawd designed the universe" arguments are a subset of the "something did it" proposition, mostly of the form "Some Intelligence is Behind it". That is, even if there is an intelligence behind it - though it ain't the gawd of the mono-moronisms for sure (the babble/koran don't say anything about the universe) - it need not be a deity. E.g. AI/philosophy have submitted the possibility of Simulation Theory. Which encompasses possibilities like: 1. this (the universe including life in it) is a big simulation by some intelligence [entity, either individual or group], perhaps for research purposes*; 2. the intelligent entity might itself be an AI; 3. Ancestor Simulation Theory: we may be robots/AI ourselves, made to closely resemble organic entities, emulating our original ancestors ("organic"?) whose possible experiences we are retreading/exploring. [This was the inspiration behind the BSG reboot and lots of 90s sci-fi too, btw. So it could all well be the AI "cylon god" behind it, and we could all be cylons: emulating organic predecessors. Anyone else hearing "All along the watchtower" playing? Oh wait, that's youtube running in the background, never mind. But when I switch it off, the CMB=cosmic microwave background is audible to all, and has been for as long as we know... (Cue the "twilight zone" theme.) Just kidding obviously.]
* The aims of the simulation are variously suggested to be for the experimenters to work out how their species' intelligence could have evolved; or simply to construct alternate possibilities, c.f. how humans in the 90s created simple computer simulations to randomly test the evolution of mobility by feeding in some "physical laws" (limitations) into a model context (limited "universe") and getting the program to randomly generate different forms of possible movements, with each form being evolved from the previous as part of the short-sighted learning algorithm**. The program tries for stability, which would indicate some level of success in the movement, before it proceeds to further "evolve" other forms of motion.
** Since actual evolution, too, is a Brute Force stabilising algorithm: it does NOT produce the best design of all time, just a viable design for the current environment in the current time.
The whole thing about a common idea in AI's Simulation Theory (which encompasses the theory where a hidden entity/intelligence is behind it all, even an AI program - or that we are a robotic simulation modelled on our once-real ancestors etc - of which the "gawd is behind it all" theory is a proper subset)
is that from our vantage-point, being in the sim ourselves, it is hard to detect whether there is anything "behind it all". We have observer bias, but from the POV of being part of the experiment. Our position is that of microbes confined to a lab. And we can't see past the lab. And there's no certain/reliable way of detecting what is past the lab. Or even any certainty that we can exist beyond it (c.f. if a computer simulation is switched "off"). No reliable way of detecting what is real and unreal, of detecting the 'true' reality behind what's commonly perceived as 'reality', and whether that supposed 'true reality' is indeed the real Real* or just more of a red herring/layers of an onion. (* "Level Real". :Avalon FTW
Because anything we detect from our POV as labrats can *all* be conspiracied away as part of the simulation, or a larger simulation, an additional layer. [Or even that we are programmed not to be able to conceive the answer.] <- These are all notions long dealt with in science/AI and eventually science fiction. Nature Of Reality questions are in that respect like questions on the Nature Of Consciousness, and even Nature Of Memory: what is real, how can we - being subjective as subjects - even know. The possible answers turn into philosophy in the end. <- And that's what happens to unanswered/unanswerable questions in western science: since humans need answers or else they - society/generations - go mad trying to answer unfathomable questions, they produce the pacifier of modern philosophy to posit what is unknowable but at least possibly sufficiently mentally-satisfying. [Whereas the trite "mono-gawd did it all" answer had been considered a sufficient pacifier in the christoislamised world (and still is among christoislamics) - until the west started breaking free of the christoclass virus and thus increasingly started asking proper questions and searching for proper answers. Even so, Hawking said in his doco that the Pope - JP II, I think - told him and other physicists gathered by His Papal Phantom Menace that they were not allowed to ask questions about/seek answers to the origins of the cosmos, i.e. that cosmology was off-limits, as this part of physics must be answered with "gawd did it". Hawking et al naturally disagreed and sought the answers anyway.]Therefore, the "gawd did it" excuse is only one among a great many conspiracy theories. And I'm not just talking about how an invisible monogawd is as likely to exist as the pink unicorn or the FSM/Flying Spaghetti Monster - all of which (and an infinite number of fictive creatures) are equally likely and *equally* to be credited with the creation and governing of the universe. <- Invisibility and undetectability can be conveniently appealed to by *all*, and equally, after all.
That "gawd/pink-unicorn/FSM did it" is certainly no more likely - has no more evidence going for it - than the equally admissable proposition that a highly evolved/technologically advanced but naturally-evolved non-deity intelligence did it (i.e. simulation theory) or that a technologically capable AI did it (and which is sometimes conjectured as part of the simulation itself, e.g. the program that generated the simulation could run the simulation using its own resources incl. memory. Compare with how Hindu or Taoist Gods ARE themselves the universe - the universe is of them, of their own Shakti -; similarly, the AI runs the simulation using its own powers in the form of resources. BTW, some of the philosophical views/considerations that gave rise to Simulation Hypothesis are also influenced by Hindoo religion. So Simulation Theory's suggestions can't be used as proof of Hindoo religion either, not being independent.)
In fact, it could be argued that as the universe seems to conform to some mathematical laws (physical laws) and not to magical miraculous nonsense of the babble/koran tripe (or the My Little Pony universe), that Simulation Theory - by an intelligent but not necessarily omniscient or even truly omnipotent entity (doing research, say) - is more likely than miraculous magical entities.
Again: as explained, the "gawd did it" excuse is only one among a great many conspiracy theories. And unless people have proof - which heathens have for their heathen Gods/heathenisms, BTW - "gawd did it" is nothing more than a conspiracy theory; and the gawd theory is moreover NOT necessary to explain the existence of the universe, or the possibility of life and us in particular in it. (Example arguments given by scientists are in the previous post.) Else, as stated, Simulation Theory has at least as much chance of being true as gawd, and has just as much scientific "proof" for it. I.e. like the invisible monogawd proposition, simulation theory is not detectable with certainty either (as any detections can always be dismissed as another layer to the "conspiracy").
3. Now as Hindoos know, in Hindoo religion, the 5 defining actions of the Parabrahmam/paramapuruSha/Ishwara are (and it's right there in every Nataraja vigraham, for example): Srushti, Sthiti, Samhaaram, Tirobhavam and Anugraham. Science can say the final bit is a convenient cop out, but at least Hindoo heathenism - even if the shruti were dismissed as not apauruSheya - shows a lot of reasoned arguments not to mention a vast deal of contemplation on the nature of the universe, reality and fundamental essence ("consciousness"), which is NOT seen in the lately invented religions and which is not original to the missionary plagiarisms. The last two of the 5 defining acts of Parabrahmam indicate the Hindoo answer to why Hindoo religion predicts that science will Not publicly reveal the Hindoo Gods: tirobhavam is of their own will, and only their anugraham - which is also an act of their volition - will reveal them. Anugraham is only to be obtained in certain ways and is predicated on correct (Hindoo) perception by the individual. For the rest, the universe will look free of the Gods - as it always does without divyachakShus.
[Similar arguments for certain other named heathenisms, BTW.]
The link and the large quoteblock in the next post are the important points.