7 ms·

By the way: this wasn't meant to be offensive or a discussion on other beliefs. I'm trying to get a sense of how many people here think 'deeper.' In the god fra

By the way: this wasn't meant to be offensive or a discussion on other beliefs. I'm trying to get a sense of how many people here think 'deeper.' In the god framework, you eliminate causality, since you put attribution to a God who simply avoids all sense of creation and you avoid the sense of causality since you transfer it to being created by this ever lasting presence and he/she simply exists and creates all that is. The other side: In our current scientific framework, we say that we have the mathematical laws, and since they're really complicated, we say that we exist within a universe which embodies all probability lines leading to us - including ones which coincide with an accidental existence. I don't believe that either one of those are true, so I'm trying to write a piece which shows what I think - but prior to doing that, I'd like to get a sense from the HN crowd: what do you think?

new_guy 7y ago
Those viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. Look at this for a recent example https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614325/open-ai-algorithms-learned-tool-use-and-cooperation-after-hide-and-seek-games/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614325/open-ai-algorithms... AI showed emergent behaviour. The universe could be the same, 'God' set it all up and he/she has no idea what's going to happen either.
- photon_lines 7y ago
  Or sorry - to re-phrase my question - what created the God?
- photon_lines 7y ago
  OK - but you're still not getting the point: what created the program / AI?
tsegratis 7y ago
I like your question. No answers. Just some thoughts: For point no2: What created those mathematical laws? Why do they exist? (I realize this isn't your question. I'm just posing it for myself) And if those laws were to describe all probabilities, and so necessarily capture the point the universe came to exist. Can we also say this explanation is not meaningful because it is equally describing every other probability? For point no1: I think any argument that explains even its axioms just based on its own axioms would have to feel tautalogical (Which I think is your concern mentioned with point no1). But equally I'm not sure that it is possible to explain the fundamental WHY of the universe just from our experience of the universe. Either we push the unexplained element elsewhere, or we must sound tautalogical Is that correct? Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical I try to breifly pose some alternatives here [0] that others have had. But I am very simplistic and directly give an opinion, so apologies for that in advance!! [0] https://tse.gratis/Creative_Snails https://tse.gratis/Creative_Snails
- photon_lines 7y ago
  Nice answer and your response pretty much summarizes my theory: "Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical" The universe in my opinion is a self-causal mathematical loop. If you believe in God - he escapes causality, which to me ... doesn't really meet the truth and beauty equations I'm trying to complete. The other scientific hypothesis is in the same boat: they formulate a theory based on an accidental beginning which forms according to a wave function which 'tries out all possible laws' - and the same theory comes to a stop when trying to answer the question: what is it that created the wave function? I want to see other viewpoints to try to see if anyone else is as curious about this as I am - so I hope I'm shedding a light on what it is I'm asking for.
  - tsegratis 7y ago
    And I think the God of the bible explicitly agrees with you on both causality and that he doesn't balance those equations (Sorry for long quote on escaping understanding) “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him ... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him -- And I think its fair to say there are many quotes that would also agree with you on 'escaping causality' and God being outside of what we can judge Which I would agree is not an equation giving us space to understand/evaluate or even really act upon!! So I support your search for an alternative to things as described The ray of light providing a twist on viewpoint no1 (in my opinion) is that God is also quoted at as saying he reveals himself, explains himself, and even makes himself accountable and submits to the decisions of people who seek him I.e. Then the LORD passed in front of Moses and called out: “Yahweh, the LORD God, is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving devotion and faithfulness, maintaining loving devotion to a thousand generations This and other quotes I hope are suggestive that God gives himself causality and interacts in a way we can evaluate? Which if so, I think provides an alternative viewpoint

new_guy 7y ago

Those viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. Look at this for a recent example https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614325/open-ai-algorithms-learned-tool-use-and-cooperation-after-hide-and-seek-games/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614325/open-ai-algorithms... AI showed emergent behaviour. The universe could be the same, 'God' set it all up and he/she has no idea what's going to happen either.

photon_lines 7y ago
Or sorry - to re-phrase my question - what created the God?
photon_lines 7y ago
OK - but you're still not getting the point: what created the program / AI?

tsegratis 7y ago

I like your question. No answers. Just some thoughts: For point no2: What created those mathematical laws? Why do they exist? (I realize this isn't your question. I'm just posing it for myself) And if those laws were to describe all probabilities, and so necessarily capture the point the universe came to exist. Can we also say this explanation is not meaningful because it is equally describing every other probability? For point no1: I think any argument that explains even its axioms just based on its own axioms would have to feel tautalogical (Which I think is your concern mentioned with point no1). But equally I'm not sure that it is possible to explain the fundamental WHY of the universe just from our experience of the universe. Either we push the unexplained element elsewhere, or we must sound tautalogical Is that correct? Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical I try to breifly pose some alternatives here [0] that others have had. But I am very simplistic and directly give an opinion, so apologies for that in advance!! [0] https://tse.gratis/Creative_Snails https://tse.gratis/Creative_Snails

photon_lines 7y ago
Nice answer and your response pretty much summarizes my theory: "Eastern beliefs can escape these two points by saying the universe creates itself in a loop. Which still sounds tautalogical" The universe in my opinion is a self-causal mathematical loop. If you believe in God - he escapes causality, which to me ... doesn't really meet the truth and beauty equations I'm trying to complete. The other scientific hypothesis is in the same boat: they formulate a theory based on an accidental beginning which forms according to a wave function which 'tries out all possible laws' - and the same theory comes to a stop when trying to answer the question: what is it that created the wave function? I want to see other viewpoints to try to see if anyone else is as curious about this as I am - so I hope I'm shedding a light on what it is I'm asking for.
- tsegratis 7y ago
  And I think the God of the bible explicitly agrees with you on both causality and that he doesn't balance those equations (Sorry for long quote on escaping understanding) “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him ... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him -- And I think its fair to say there are many quotes that would also agree with you on 'escaping causality' and God being outside of what we can judge Which I would agree is not an equation giving us space to understand/evaluate or even really act upon!! So I support your search for an alternative to things as described The ray of light providing a twist on viewpoint no1 (in my opinion) is that God is also quoted at as saying he reveals himself, explains himself, and even makes himself accountable and submits to the decisions of people who seek him I.e. Then the LORD passed in front of Moses and called out: “Yahweh, the LORD God, is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving devotion and faithfulness, maintaining loving devotion to a thousand generations This and other quotes I hope are suggestive that God gives himself causality and interacts in a way we can evaluate? Which if so, I think provides an alternative viewpoint