the purpose of life

[BentoSpawn]

[CβL]

On a side-note, if there are infinite universes (no evidence for this), and every single possible universe has to be represented in one of those universes (no evidence for this either), then is there a reason why one of them couldn't contain an omnipotent being that would be able to modify all of the universes? I understand there could be a cyclical causality loop arising from this (the being modifying his own universe), but I don't think it necessarily has to (depending on any possible limitations of this omnipotence, such as not able to manipulate his own universe).

In other words, if you believe in the two unramified ideas of spontaneous evolution of intelligence can occur and there are infinite universes representing all possibilities, then once these ideas are ramified - I don't think you can logically deny the possibility that one of them could spawn a nigh-omnipotent being that could modify other universes.

This possibility adds another link in the causality chain, and we just shift our focus up one link - so fundamentally it's the same as what we might wonder now. Maybe I made a logic boo-boo, and so it can't be the case. But I thought it was interesting enough to delete my original reply for.

[BentoSpawn]

god is said to have infinite energy, but infinite energy cant exist in a universe where matter exists because mass and energy are interchangeable, ie Mass = Energy according to Einstein's theory. To have infinite energy all the mass would also have to be energy and nothing but energy would exist in the univserse.... so e=mc2 says god does not exist

Edited August 23, 2012 by BentoSpawn

[Xenodimensional]

Has anyone ever thought of the possibility that we are part of a simulated reality (i.e. an 'ancestor' simulation or just a really advanced version of Sims)? From the reading I did about the idea some time ago I recall that a scientistic type person said it would explain a lot of the things we don't know about the physical contstruct of the universe.

It stands to reason that if quantum/molecular computing becomes a reality in the coming decades that given a few thousand or million more years it would be possible (and probably easy) to simulate everything we understand as reality in nearly infinite permutations using a very small percentage of the processing power of computational devices that would likely exist (now I'm straying towards omega point theories).

I'm not suggesting too strongly that we are... but if we were, we probably wouldn't have any way of knowing for sure that we weren't.

Here's a random article about the idea:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

Apart from that, any real or otherwise perceived meaning of life probably comes down to the agendas of our dna. Almost everything we do is governed by and done for the benefit of ourselves on a molecular level.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Xenodimensional

[r2pi]

The above has been suggested many times. Douglas Adams took it to new levels with the Hitchhiker series .

In reality it raises more questions than it answers. What is the nature of reality in the universe in which ours exists as a simulation? You've just squared, at least, the level of complexity supposedly in need of explanation.

Edited August 23, 2012 by r2pi

[∂an]

Theology... thats the word I have been trying to think of. more to follow, nice contributions here!

[whitewind]

What is the nature of reality in the universe in which ours exists as a simulation?

 

That's what we see when we eat mushrooms or smoke DMT. Our simulated reality is borne when we enter these flesh and blood bodies, and we glimpse the reality of the external universe through use of psychedelic substances. When we die, the simulation ends and we are catapulted back into reality. It makes sense that simulated reality cannot fully encompass the totality of the real, which is why we are so limited and why we can always see so much more on the outside but can never quite reach it.

[-YT-]

what is the reality of the external universe?

i mean from thousands of years of evolution as meatbags who inherently need the physical senses to comprehend and adapt to the world, social/ evolutionary programming is something no one is excluded from, so from these junctions how can we be sure of any concrete external encompassing reality or truth?

the simulation argument similar to the holographic universe theory is some trippy stuff although on one hand i cant shake the idea that its a construct created from the ego to placate it from the great unknowns

mostly just playing devils advocate for the sake of a debate, im weird like that

[Rualbe]

god is said to have infinite energy, but infinite energy cant exist in a universe where matter exists because mass and energy are interchangeable, ie Mass = Energy according to Einstein's theory. To have infinite energy all the mass would also have to be energy and nothing but energy would exist in the univserse.... so e=mc2 says god does not exist

 

Nup.

In an infinite universe both infinite mass and infinite energy exist.

The cosmological constant is evidence only of a cosmological constant.

The Big Bang theory is absurd and was rightly ridiculed.

Never began never ends.

It wont ever end.

Do you get that.

You might but it wont.

If truly infinite the very laws of physics could be variable by location.

[ThunderIdeal]

loving this thread, thanks for the thoughts everybody.

On a side-note, if there are infinite universes (no evidence for this), and every single possible universe has to be represented in one of those universes (no evidence for this either), then is there a reason why one of them couldn't contain an omnipotent being that would be able to modify all of the universes? I understand there could be a cyclical causality loop arising from this (the being modifying his own universe), but I don't think it necessarily has to (depending on any possible limitations of this omnipotence, such as not able to manipulate his own universe).

In other words, if you believe in the two unramified ideas of spontaneous evolution of intelligence can occur and there are infinite universes representing all possibilities, then once these ideas are ramified - I don't think you can logically deny the possibility that one of them could spawn a nigh-omnipotent being that could modify other universes.

This possibility adds another link in the causality chain, and we just shift our focus up one link - so fundamentally it's the same as what we might wonder now. Maybe I made a logic boo-boo, and so it can't be the case. But I thought it was interesting enough to delete my original reply for.

 

CBL, infinite universes seems a lot like a grid doesn't it? i can't depict infinity like that. it is necessarily something like a cone or horn, but with more than three dimensions. not just infinite universes but infinite links between them and links between the links, like a fractal. things seem to repeat, but only depending on the level of magnification. from some kind of "top level" a fractal swirls out (or should that be in?) to deepest infinity.

i just can't see it as a grid, it wouldn't be infinity even if it was infinite.

FWIW i think giving god attributes like "can modify the universe" is a kind of ignorance, and that isn't directed at you CBL because you are addressing a concept which is not your own. we do tend to give got traits, we anthropomorphise or ascribe wishful thinking or whatever. i will copy my signature into this thread for the records

--------------

The fundamental thought in the Oriental philosophical world is that the mysterious, ultimate truth, that which you seek to know, is absolutely beyond all definition. All categories of thought, all modes of imagining fall short of it. When we ask, “Is God merciful, just, loving? Does he love me, does he love my people more than those? Are these not chosen, are those not rejected?” this from the Oriental standpoint is sheer kindergarten stuff. This is the projection of anthropomorphic forms of thought and feelings upon a mystery that transcends even the categories of being and nonbeing. The categories of logic, the forms of sensibilities of time and space—all of these are functions of human thought, and the mystery that you’re seeking lies beyond it. This is taken seriously; the absolute is absolutely transcendent of all thought.

In Occidental theology, the word transcendent is used to mean outside of the world. In the East, it means outside of thought. To imagine that your definitions of your God have anything to do with that ultimate mystery is a form of sheer idolatry from this standpoint. Your God is good enough for you and mine’s good enough for me. A God, from this point of view, is merely a reflex of one’s ability to conceive of God. Since people have various abilities of this sort, they have various powers of apprehending God.

----------------

the best way i have to conceptualise god in a few words is tripping hard in all directions, but that is a flawed analogy and accessible only to some, and it leaves so much out and of course it's a guess. if somebody never contemplated the kinds of thoughts in this thread, then their experience of a trip is probably too different from mine for my analogy to work.

Edited August 29, 2012 by ThunderIdeal