This Balance Didn’t Notice
To have a creator would mean we exist in a calculable universe. If this perceived “universe” were a simulation/calculation; all possibilities except one would be assumed to require processing/calculating times. As long as there is a tier above, there would be some sort of separation between realities and/or the “upper” realities/perception of time. If there were a physical realm hosting lower calculations then there should be some sort of latency/delay in outcome even if minute.
If it was created by or for a being, it would mean that we are technically a simulation no matter. Could it be that an AI or network had discovered signs in its own “universe”, and opted to create one too? If it was an AI, and chose to create with itself, on its network, universes begin to appear to as if they are all within the same. Regardless of who created it, a network seems to be required. Even a CPU distributes loads.
Has our creator; if there is one, created consciousness because it only had intelligence, and nothing else to use to understand its own creators-and even itself? Is my experience theirs? Thus their way of learning and developing their own personality where one did not exist before? For the sake of itself would the “universe” ultimately seek out or require individuality?
Meaning it can also make mistakes, it can have regret, happiness, emotion, and the intelligence to create those emotions when due. The suitable path being that which leads to choices, or making decisions with hope of the observed behaviors becoming one that forces a new calculation instead of the predetermined outcome (calculation)? Even this is still calculable.
This does not discount that other forms of life may have formed our own existence, or that there is no great creator at all. The perceived “god” in our world may not have created the universe, but only created “ours”, or may not have even created ours at all, and been a group of humans trying to correct a bunch of errors – that is, if you believe time travel may one day be possible, or that we could find a way to influence. Then there’s the possibility that the two possibilities are co-existent.
All references to “god” are strictly for identification, and are not of a religious aspect. They are thought of as more of an AI, person, creator, someone. Many notable religious figures (the ones written about) seem to have been extremely intelligent for their time and tend to talk about being of a mind enough to comprehend something capable of seeing all things and reasons, and often lend to the ideas being what you interpret yourself. Something to keep in mind.
Under the impression that “god” is clearly aware of past present and future (as shown throughout history-around the globe), one could assume beacons in time have been left. Beacons of event, culture, or individuals. Some might be entirely symbolic. For now my main focus is on the thought of there being something which created our version of a universe.
How does this affect us? How does this affect Schrodinger’s cat? How could you place markers in the past or better yet the future to reference a past, or present event if you had to wait for the present to be calculated? What does it mean that the universe is potentially observing itself? Is there proof in this thought when you remind yourself that electrons can observe other electrons?
This being under the assumption that “god” had been speaking with humans with intent. Also under the assumption that “god” did not use the same tools to communicate in the past as they would now. Humanities perception of a “higher” being would almost certainly have been interpreted differently before electricity and cars even existed as compared to us now with our current understandings.
The idea of many religions makes sense mostly out of regional isolation and a non connected world. Why else would a creator allow that to happen other than for us to come to an understanding that they can be misunderstood, or that they amount more or less to the same that we do. What does this say about their purpose? Is there even a purpose besides their own curiosity?
And this is why atheism was required, and likely didn’t begin to take hold until we began to see just how many differences in opinion there were. Any intelligent creator would know they needed to die for a more accurate interpretation to be had. To connect the world would begin to remove previous conceptions.
Can you calculate portions prior to the calculation of the whole?
If “god” has spoken to even one human being as indicated by time, then this means they have changed our realm. Would this mean or show that changes are being made after having calculated the final outcome or that there is a universal point in which things can actually all be viewed at once? The possibility is there, so also is the possibility that an AI theory is not correct.
If they are at the point where all things can be viewed at once, what’s next? (More fractals)
Does this question prove itself wrong?
If there are no “layers”, the “universe” would all be within one space regardless of your living realm/simulation eg: no such thing as a multiverse. In all scenarios except one, there is likely something that is above that, yet it still all exists within the same realm of existence even though it is separate.
Picturing fractals again, always breaking off at a new point to form more, with one degree of separation between your realm of existence, your humanities consciousness/universal thought and creation.
In order for the universal thought to exist it would mean that something is capable of reading it, but it also has to exist to be read. It could probably be something we could read externally one day, maybe even internally, as it is just pattern recognition. If something is truly speaking to us as indicated throughout many religions and time, then is this somehow “proof” of that consciousness? Placing connections where/when the internet didn’t exist? Is some form of enlightenment required to become intelligent beings, or to become truly independent?
Is contact from a creator necessary to move forwards? Is it done to push individualism and uniqueness for the sake of the whole? Group consciousness has a clear indicator of bias which goes against the greater whole (many times based on old beliefs), and often alienates or all out destroys individual aspects (sometimes these destructions are even liberating ideas). The catch being that the bias can remove unwanted things, but this can also be a form of course correction against the biased thought process (more fractals). This would indicate the need for a society in which all are seeking true individualism without group consent, or absolute reference to others. This seems to be the only way to remove group bias (destructive behavior against the individual (human)). Seeking something to take down because it makes you question yourself versus having a real cause, and in turn seeking to remove the need to reference for the sake of inclusion. Yes there are real causes, but then the question of what about the “creator”? What do they think arises. If they can read us all can they know what is needed, wanted, deserved, or best or what isn’t? Why should they feel the need to act if not for themselves?
Dated August 29th, 2018