Has science found God?

[1213]

As Bible suggests, this world is like a computer simulation. And now some have found evidence this could be true, world may be like a computer simulation. What say you, have science found God, the programmer of the universe?

"Simulation theory is a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being".
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

"Do you ever experience something and think to yourself, “This can’t be real.” To some people who have bought into the notion that our reality is currently being simulated, there are examples all around us, that demonstrate glitches in the Matrix. Deja Vu? Ghosts? The Mandela Effect? These could all be direct examples of flaws in the simulation."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

"MIT Theoretical physicist James Gates has made a discovery that allegedly caused Neil deGrasse Tyson to sit down in shock. Now for the uninitiated, superstring theory is a concept that could unify all aspects of physics if proven right. While working on his superstring theory, he made an odd discovery. Gates claims to have identified what appears to be actual computer code embedded in the equations of string theory that describe the fundamental particles of our universe. In short, he found “error-correcting codes,” the same error-correcting codes that you might find on the web browser you are using right now."
https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... ion-theory

[Purple Knight]

It depends on what the word God means. I think it means the highest authority and also the creator. That leaves the possibility of amorality. However, judging by what God has caused, I don't think He is amoral.

I would agree with that. Assuming a god that created all this purposefully, his values don't align with mine or indeed most modern people's values, but he definitely has them.

But do you think that the creator of something gets to decide what is moral for that thing? Because I'm not sure that follows, especially if the creator is not interested in the best benefit of the organism. If I create a tiny society and I'm genuinely trying to help them, perhaps they should listen to me. But if I did it for sport and it simply amuses me to see them struggle and suffer, they should ignore me and seek less struggling and suffering.

[William]

It depends on what the word God means. I think it means the highest authority and also the creator. That leaves the possibility of amorality. However, judging by what God has caused, I don't think He is amoral.

I would agree with that. Assuming a god that created all this purposefully, his values don't align with mine or indeed most modern people's values, but he definitely has them.

But do you think that the creator of something gets to decide what is moral for that thing? Because I'm not sure that follows, especially if the creator is not interested in the best benefit of the organism. If I create a tiny society and I'm genuinely trying to help them, perhaps they should listen to me. But if I did it for sport and it simply amuses me to see them struggle and suffer, they should ignore me and seek less struggling and suffering.

The idea of joining the dots has much relevance to defining anything logically/rationally.

What is seldom understood is that all consciousness is Sourced in the One Consciousness (what folk often call "God") - and this reflects in their subsequent definitions (re belief) as to the nature of God being misaligned.



A question I have seen asked is.
Q: What if this planet is a prison, and our overlords encourage beliefs in oneness, unity, God, and the Golden Rule to make us more compliant? What if we’re trapped in a simulated or illusionary world without understanding why we are in such a prison-like reality?
-----------

Let's assume that interconnection can only stem from intelligence, and this intelligence must operate across multiple entities. This means it isn't confined to just one body.

Take trees, for example. We are discovering through scientific research that trees communicate with each other through their roots and the soil within a forest. There is a larger entity beyond a single tree—a social network that communicates. If trees and plants can do this, why can’t other organisms? How does one contain intelligence once it transcends a singular body? The ability to communicate across bodies is universal.

Communication exists at every scale of life. The language of survival and lineage is inherent in all species. This language cannot be contained or suppressed. It represents universal intelligence individualized, socialized, and organized into a coherent whole.

Why would such an organism create a prison planet? Why would it make a planet appear as a magnificent, complex theater of form, color, movement, and individualized intelligence, only to hide its true nature and make us believe we are free when we are not? Why would an intelligence that animates Nature be inauthentic, deceptive, or indifferent?

The facade of high dimensionality is low dimensionality. Low dimensionality creates relative ignorance of high dimensionality, making it easy to believe that low-dimensional intelligence could be corrupted due to free will and power inequities. However, science increasingly shows that we are interconnected, not just within our species but across all species and forms of life in all space and times. The intelligence of our planet is just one atom in the infinite cells of the one, many, and all consciousness.

The scale of intelligence is boundless. Why would such an intelligence create prisons or seek control? The only way this universal intelligence can individualize itself is by creating space-time within low dimensionality. In this space-time, new forms are created as part of this intelligence, exploring its created world.

The only way the All that is One can gain authentic experience is by granting its individual life forms in space-time free will. This enables each of us to use our DNA-apportioned, low-dimensional intelligence to regain access to its high-dimensional intelligence.

Some may argue that the bridge to high-dimensional intelligence is controlled by those in power, but these are simply individualized life forms experiencing their reality as free-will entities. The intelligence of love—the force that interconnects us—is not controlling. It does not create prisons or heavens. It is not oppressive. It simply experiences space-time dimensionality as an explorer seeking authentic experience to enlarge and evolve its understanding.

If you believe that our collective intelligence is so finite that it would confine humanity inside a prison cell not of its own making, then you believe this intelligence is not interconnected. It is singular, a God cut off from life and human experience, rather than an intelligence living life through all experiences. These are two very different beliefs—one validated through religious texts, and one emerging through science.

There is resistance to this scientific proof because it requires a total realignment of our belief system. We must realign to the notion that we are individualized, infinite entities of consciousness interconnected with all other forms and expressions of life. This fundamental belief requires us to see ourselves as one entity, despite our reality telling us otherwise. It requires us to understand and express kindness in our local universe, bringing higher harmony to our individual moments of infinite space-time.

The social tug-of-war in public policy, judicial judgment, political legislation, and religious morality reflects the interlocked nature of an accelerator and a brake. If you seek a destination, the vehicle you take requires both a braking and accelerating system. These two functions are necessary for travel. When we travel collectively through space-time, we divide into functions of a brake and accelerator, yet both are essential for reaching our destination.

Some might view the "brake" as a dark force conspiring to entrap us. Those of us who are part of the "accelerator" are particularly susceptible to this belief because the brake hinders our speed to our destination. However, high-dimensional intelligence cannot be contained because it is all-encompassing. Only our physical bodies, emotions, and lower mind can be trapped, and only when we believe we are single individuals living a single lifetime in a reality not of our making.

In this belief, the brake appears as a prison warden controlling us, frustrating us, even killing us. Yet, in the theater of good and evil, illusion and conspiracy, we know we are part of the infinite now because we exist now. It cannot be otherwise. The infinite has no motive; only the finite has motivation. In the infinite, we are explorers, observers, learners, integrators, adjusters, evolvers, creators, and experiencers.

The clash between our finite dimensions as individual personas and our infinite dimensions as part of a high-dimensional reality is initially antagonistic in human view. It is the highest purpose of human behavior to reconcile these differences and form a partnership. We learn to see the brake and accelerator as one function of travel—individually and collectively. We draw in high-dimensional intelligence within our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors while living as human beings. We operate as whole beings, not bound by space-time.

We learn to see ourselves as co-experiencers of our local universe—the finite parts in harmony with the infinite part. The "brake" is imagined to be many things: the other party in politics, the devil in religion, the government in society, dark money forces in conspiracy theories, celebrity influence in culture. All these definitions reflect a fear that we hold in our finite selves—a fear that we are not infinite, not interconnected, not part of an intelligence of love and kindness.

We hold these fears because we listen to the outside of our local universe, not the inside. We listen too well with our sensory-brain and not with our heart’s ear to our soul. Our local universe is our private sanctuary to learn from our higher self and the infinite intelligence that flows through it. To bring the high-dimensional perspective into our local universe and practice it behaviorally, knowing this is the only way to validate its efficacy, value, and truth.

We live in a collective reality at every moment. Collective in the largest sense of the word. We are moving from singular individuals of a species to a collective without exclusion. Consciousness of a cosmic scale is too limiting a definition. The scales of individual and collective intelligence are so different as to be inconceivable to coexist in space-time, yet they do. High-dimensional intelligence understands who it is and why it is.

That is all it requires. This knowledge of who and why we are is the key that unlocks every door between our finite selves and our infinite self. Integrating our finite and infinite knowledge is what we are doing, whether we know it or not. It is quite literally “the only game in town.” It is simply being carried out in an infinite variety of ways because we are endowed with individuality, free will, and authentic learning while retaining our collective essence within.

[1213]

...But do you think that the creator of something gets to decide what is moral for that thing?

I think creator always decides what is possible for the created. In this case I think God had given freedom to people to choose what they think is moral. And I think God is interested in best benefit, that is why this world and also the rules how to live well.

[Purple Knight]

If you believe that our collective intelligence is so finite that it would confine humanity inside a prison cell not of its own making, then you believe this intelligence is not interconnected. It is singular, a God cut off from life and human experience, rather than an intelligence living life through all experiences. These are two very different beliefs—one validated through religious texts, and one emerging through science.

Or maybe, just like we exist and hurt one another, something like the Christian God exists, was granted free will by this interconnected sum of intelligence that you believe in, and for whatever reason, the interconnected ultimate truth (I'll gall it Great God, or GG for short) doesn't seek to stop tyrants from inflicting suffering on their lessers, perhaps because it can't gain true experience if it does seek to stop that. I do find your post thoughtful, and intriguing, and I agree with your points. However, we have to look at reality and at least make sure theory matches practice.

Your essay seems to prove there cannot actually be suffering, because GG wouldn't allow it. GG is you, and me, and Bob, and the Tooth Fairy, and GG wouldn't hurt itself.

I think it culminates in something very Christian which is the idea that if you really have that connection, if you're tapped into it, you just wouldn't suffer. You'd smile happily at the guy hacking off your limbs and be overwhelmed with joy that he got pleasure out of it, because you'd be able to have your self disappear and only experience the other person's joy.

To be honest it's a level of enlightenment I'd like to reach. I wonder that it might be possible. But in practice I have to reject it, because it's used by the people who want to hack off limbs, and otherwise oppress people, then demand total submission on the grounds that it's the greatest level of enlightenment, perfection, and good. And I simply think we can achieve more happiness by stopping people from hacking limbs, than by letting the Perfect (if it even is) be the enemy of the good in doing so.

[Purple Knight]

...But do you think that the creator of something gets to decide what is moral for that thing?

I think creator always decides what is possible for the created. In this case I think God had given freedom to people to choose what they think is moral. And I think God is interested in best benefit, that is why this world and also the rules how to live well.

That's one way to, completely logically, reconcile extra rules. Slavery is wrong because we have decided it is, and we have that freedom. And imo, if we really put our minds to that cause, instead of seeing "slavery" as a very confined label for something that is technically morally wrong when we can find a signed and dated bill of sale for a person, and focus on how it hurts people and thus why it is wrong - that has absolutely nothing to do with the piece of paper - we'll end up with a better world for it.

However, it's harder to get it to rescind rules. For example, if God ruled that homosexual sex is wrong, then that's likely to be him letting us in that we weren't made that way - we were made to reproduce. And too many male-male pairs around, unburdened by offspring, might outcompete male-female pairs and stop them from occupying niches they need, to breed. But maybe if we really, really, really want it, we can forge that path. Frankly I think if we want homosexuality so badly, we have to just make everyone male, and find some way to reproduce that way. But I think it could be done. It'd just be very difficult. I think, for every right we want to add, we might have to take one away. And to take away the role of females, we have to stop having females. We'd have to develop the idea that you don't have the right to choose to be physically weaker than everyone else so you can be a burden on the system, needing things like Equal Opportunity laws and maternity leave to get and hold a job.

[William]

If you believe that our collective intelligence is so finite that it would confine humanity inside a prison cell not of its own making, then you believe this intelligence is not interconnected. It is singular, a God cut off from life and human experience, rather than an intelligence living life through all experiences. These are two very different beliefs—one validated through religious texts, and one emerging through science.

Or maybe, just like we exist and hurt one another, something like the Christian God exists, was granted free will by this interconnected sum of intelligence that you believe in, and for whatever reason, the interconnected ultimate truth (I'll gall it Great God, or GG for short) doesn't seek to stop tyrants from inflicting suffering on their lessers, perhaps because it can't gain true experience if it does seek to stop that. I do find your post thoughtful, and intriguing, and I agree with your points. However, we have to look at reality and at least make sure theory matches practice.

Your essay seems to prove there cannot actually be suffering, because GG wouldn't allow it. GG is you, and me, and Bob, and the Tooth Fairy, and GG wouldn't hurt itself.

I think it culminates in something very Christian which is the idea that if you really have that connection, if you're tapped into it, you just wouldn't suffer. You'd smile happily at the guy hacking off your limbs and be overwhelmed with joy that he got pleasure out of it, because you'd be able to have your self disappear and only experience the other person's joy.

To be honest it's a level of enlightenment I'd like to reach. I wonder that it might be possible. But in practice I have to reject it, because it's used by the people who want to hack off limbs, and otherwise oppress people, then demand total submission on the grounds that it's the greatest level of enlightenment, perfection, and good. And I simply think we can achieve more happiness by stopping people from hacking limbs, than by letting the Perfect (if it even is) be the enemy of the good in doing so.

Here I think you are conflating one's human experience with the idea that one might be expected to reach some level of "super-humanness" which in itself might be a denial of the actual human experience (wishful thinking.)

Often folk argue from a specified problem (such as the problem of the existence of those who "who want to hack off limbs, and otherwise oppress people") as if we somehow actually live in a world where this is the predominant human expression and one we are suppressed by.

In reality - we who do not want to go around hacking off limbs and oppressing others are the majority and the essay points out that we can think in terms which build a unified goodness which will be expressed into the world regardless of the existence of those who want to hack off limbs, and otherwise oppress people.

[Purple Knight]

Here I think you are conflating one's human experience with the idea that one might be expected to reach some level of "super-humanness" which in itself might be a denial of the actual human experience (wishful thinking.)

I agree, I think it would be a denial of the human experience, which is the very thing GG wants us to have, if we try to attain this super-humanness. But nevertheless, people do expect it.

Now, I don't mind entertaining dangerous ideas. I don't believe in shutting down discussion, even in the case that an idea actually is dangerous. But I do notice that all this grandiose thinking about GG and the interconnected universe, actually is connected in reality with the expectation that we should be masochistically selfless. It's also connected with the Indian religion and the idea of Nirvana. This modern morality is very, very close, and completely independent. It's people who want Nirvana, but they want it to be obtained now, in the body. They want to be just part of the universe, their self and self-interest to disappear, but they want that to happen before death. It ends up as this philosophy of demanding self-annihilating masochism, even though it would work at cross-purposes to GG's intent in creating them, unless you account for the idea that rejoining the selfless interconnected whole, voluntarily, from a small and separate being, would be the greatest gather of experience for GG.

Often folk argue from a specified problem (such as the problem of the existence of those who "who want to hack off limbs, and otherwise oppress people") as if we somehow actually live in a world where this is the predominant human expression and one we are suppressed by.

In reality - we who do not want to go around hacking off limbs and oppressing others are the majority and the essay points out that we can think in terms which build a unified goodness which will be expressed into the world regardless of the existence of those who want to hack off limbs, and otherwise oppress people.

No, many people are mean. Yes I'm being hyperbolic when I say people want to hack off limbs. Not everybody wants to do that. But there actually are those edge cases, and it would pain a great many people if the moral default is allowed to go toward letting them.

Most mean people are low-risk when attempting to harvest and destroy the wellbeing of others and cash it in for their own. But they do seem to be the majority, even if it's a slight one. This is the mean girl with her coterie of followers, constantly picking on a co-worker they have targeted, ruining a life so they can be slightly more amused and feel better about themselves. This is the modern moralist, completely unconcerned with his own behaviour and finding he gains more moral clout from his constant sniffing out of evil. This is even the angry motorist, always believing everyone else is a terrible driver, so he is justified in weaving around those idiots because he's a good driver, so if he gets in an accident, it's the idiot's fault.

No it's nothing so hyperbolic as people literally wanting to hack off limbs (that's an edge case) but it's just so easy in modern day to not only harvest someone else's wellbeing to enhance your own, but to look good doing it and make them look bad, that pretty much everybody does it.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #27]

Now, I don't mind entertaining dangerous ideas. I don't believe in shutting down discussion, even in the case that an idea actually is dangerous. But I do notice that all this grandiose thinking about GG and the interconnected universe, actually is connected in reality with the expectation that we should be masochistically selfless. It's also connected with the Indian religion and the idea of Nirvana. This modern morality is very, very close, and completely independent. It's people who want Nirvana, but they want it to be obtained now, in the body. They want to be just part of the universe, their self and self-interest to disappear, but they want that to happen before death. It ends up as this philosophy of demanding self-annihilating masochism, even though it would work at cross-purposes to GG's intent in creating them, unless you account for the idea that rejoining the selfless interconnected whole, voluntarily, from a small and separate being, would be the greatest gather of experience for GG.

It appears to be an inbuilt prompt to continual better the "Self" and this would stem from GG and be interpreted by the individual human personality as "whatever" said personality desired...

The greatest gather would consist of the "same" as some type of launching off position with the added extras gathered along the way towards some type of preference...the two would be related rather than at loggerheads.

No, many people are mean. Yes I'm being hyperbolic when I say people want to hack off limbs. Not everybody wants to do that. But there actually are those edge cases, and it would pain a great many people if the moral default is allowed to go toward letting them.

Most mean people are low-risk when attempting to harvest and destroy the wellbeing of others and cash it in for their own. But they do seem to be the majority, even if it's a slight one. This is the mean girl with her coterie of followers, constantly picking on a co-worker they have targeted, ruining a life so they can be slightly more amused and feel better about themselves. This is the modern moralist, completely unconcerned with his own behaviour and finding he gains more moral clout from his constant sniffing out of evil. This is even the angry motorist, always believing everyone else is a terrible driver, so he is justified in weaving around those idiots because he's a good driver, so if he gets in an accident, it's the idiot's fault.

No it's nothing so hyperbolic as people literally wanting to hack off limbs (that's an edge case) but it's just so easy in modern day to not only harvest someone else's wellbeing to enhance your own, but to look good doing it and make them look bad, that pretty much everybody does it.

Oh you meant "meanness". Well the essay speaks to transforming that into kindness.

We all come from a dark place and it would be sensible to think that GG (within the experience of the universe) would develop a mean-streak - at least for a while while its sorts itself out within the experience of said environment so we can learn from that, but perhaps the universe is not designed with kindness in mind but allows for the challenge of transforming it through such motivation...

Do you believe that this "meanness" we all inherited is a permanent fixture and if so, to what end do you envision it taking us? Into a new frontier? Into an extinction event? Something else?

[Purple Knight]

It appears to be an inbuilt prompt to continual better the "Self" and this would stem from GG and be interpreted by the individual human personality as "whatever" said personality desired...

I don't know if what's inbuilt is to better the self along the lines of what each self wants. I think at least part of it is that people who are considered low, wish to better themselves and become like those who are considered high. In this world, that means self-annihilating masochism for all but those at the top, who get adulated for selfishness they disguise by championing masochism.

The greatest gather would consist of the "same" as some type of launching off position with the added extras gathered along the way towards some type of preference...the two would be related rather than at loggerheads.

If you're saying that GG would create each type of person to gain a unique experience from that person, I would agree. And along those lines it would be horrible to shoehorn yourself into someone else's mould of perfection. Yet that seems to be what we're built to chase: Morality, according to those considered highest.

Oh you meant "meanness". Well the essay speaks to transforming that into kindness.

I meant any type of behaviour that destroys another's happiness to harvest happiness for the self. It is meanness but it's not limited to that. It's everything from exclusion to meanness to hacking off limbs. I would imagine people could use your essay to say that they're not only welcome to be mean, they're supposed to, because by them being hideous to people, and those people having to sit and take it, GG gains the most unique experiences. If everyone is nice to one another, that is more uniform. Thus I don't conclude just the GG has a mean streak. If he wants every experience, every uniqueness of experience, then he wants to experience every way he can possibly torture somebody and even though he also wants to experience every way to be kind to somebody, he only wants to be kind to those who torture, because if he inflicted punishment, causing them to know what it was they were doing, they'd stop. So essentially he's a sadistic, mean, cliquey high school girl with phenomenal cosmic power.

Do you believe that this "meanness" we all inherited is a permanent fixture and if so, to what end do you envision it taking us? Into a new frontier? Into an extinction event? Something else?

I think that in a system that assumes niceness, the more mean someone is, the more they'll succeed, until everyone is always robbing benefit from others until no benefit is left for anyone and people are forced to become nice again. We could break out of the cycle if we just stop where we're not adulating any form of parasitism. But this doesn't happen. To the society of nice idiots who won't hurt others for their own benefit, the ambitious exploiter looks cool, chic, clever, savvy, and successful. He has only to pop up and he's the star of their entire society just for ruining it.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #29]

I don't know if what's inbuilt is to better the self along the lines of what each self wants. I think at least part of it is that people who are considered low, wish to better themselves and become like those who are considered high. In this world, that means self-annihilating masochism for all but those at the top, who get adulated for selfishness they disguise by championing masochism.

But is this the fundamental motivation and how do we go about verifying that as true?

Perhaps at the overseeing level, it remained unobserved but at our level it "rose its ugly head"?

If you're saying that GG would create each type of person to gain a unique experience from that person, I would agree. And along those lines it would be horrible to shoehorn yourself into someone else's mould of perfection. Yet that seems to be what we're built to chase: Morality, according to those considered highest.

Perhaps there is a delicate work in progress whereby the overseeing understand the dynamics and the requirement for change and the overseeing remain unrecognized by those who think of the overseeing as those pointing to incorrect morality and proclaiming it "correct"?

Are we being shown a truthful image and how do we go about verifying that as true?

I meant any type of behaviour that destroys another's happiness to harvest happiness for the self. It is meanness but it's not limited to that. It's everything from exclusion to meanness to hacking off limbs. I would imagine people could use your essay to say that they're not only welcome to be mean, they're supposed to, because by them being hideous to people, and those people having to sit and take it, GG gains the most unique experiences.

How are we to decide which experiences are "the most unique"? Isn't that part of the problem?
It seems Bible-Jesus thought so.

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

If everyone is nice to one another, that is more uniform. Thus I don't conclude just the GG has a mean streak. If he wants every experience, every uniqueness of experience, then he wants to experience every way he can possibly torture somebody and even though he also wants to experience every way to be kind to somebody, he only wants to be kind to those who torture, because if he inflicted punishment, causing them to know what it was they were doing, they'd stop. So essentially he's a sadistic, mean, cliquey high school girl with phenomenal cosmic power.

Again. How do we know that this particular rendered image of GG is the true one?

Do you believe that this "meanness" we all inherited is a permanent fixture and if so, to what end do you envision it taking us? Into a new frontier? Into an extinction event? Something else?

I think that in a system that assumes niceness, the more mean someone is, the more they'll succeed, until everyone is always robbing benefit from others until no benefit is left for anyone and people are forced to become nice again. We could break out of the cycle if we just stop where we're not adulating any form of parasitism. But this doesn't happen. To the society of nice idiots who won't hurt others for their own benefit, the ambitious exploiter looks cool, chic, clever, savvy, and successful. He has only to pop up and he's the star of their entire society just for ruining it.

Your answer appears to favor a possible extinction event. (Correct me if you have to).