3 ms·
The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that this structure we call reality is circles on circles on circles. It seems trivial to me to prove that there can be no
by nkingsy 8y ago
The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that this structure we call reality is circles on circles on circles. It seems trivial to me to prove that there can be no start or end to reality, ergo no creator.
I've had some pretty profoundly comforting spiritual experiences in my life, but never one that involved a creator. Much more a realization that there is no time, no place, just a roaring hubbub cycling round and round because it's just so fun to spin.
- resource0x 8y ago> It seems trivial to me to prove that there can be no start or end to reality, ergo no creator. Logically, there's no "ergo" here. We may still have OUR creator. As for who HIS creator is - it's for HIM to care, not for us :)
- unmole 8y ago> As for who HIS creator is - it's for HIM to care, not for us :) Why should we only care about one level of indirection? Or, taking the lazier approach, why should we even care about our hypothetical creator?
- resource0x 8y agoBecause it's interesting! Other levels of indirection will become interesting too, as soon as we manage to do even the first step. BTW, the idea that there are several levels of indirection out there is not even controversial, if you use the analogy with programming concepts consistently.