Simulation Hypothesis and Evolution Theory and The First Creation Story

[William]

Simulation Hypothesis and Evolution Theory and The First Creation Story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/


Q: Can these separate theories be reconciled?

reconcile
/ˈrɛk(ə)nsʌɪl/
verb
past tense: reconciled; past participle: reconciled
1.
restore friendly relations between.
"the king and the archbishop were publicly reconciled"
2.
make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #10]

It's a different dynamic, you see? And they can't both be true... e.g., If both CT and ST are true, then God's design would be dependent upon simulated beings to execute it, which themselves would depend on the design in order to be in the first place... (which means the whole thing would be at an impasse.)

We can examine whether ST fits with your understanding of the dynamic of CT.

I think that it does, when unpacked.

If I understand your argument re The Creator, it doesn't fit with ST because The Creator Mind emerged from the process, and there is no Creator outside of this reality experience, therefore this reality experience cannot be a simulated thing.

Can you explain then why we should consider that Creator-Mind to being the Creator of an environment which created said Mind?

How did that Being first create re Genesis One, if the creation had to exist first, in order for the Mind to then emerge from said creation, and then do other creative things?

Imagine being a Gameplayer of this simulation, who's Character/Avatar believed this life didn't matter, and having to find out ways and means of transmitting information which would change that Avatars outlook to something more aligned with the overall Game-Play...Games on at least those two related levels...

I think that life whether in a simulated or real world is still life, and can have meaning as such (which is what I take to be your drift here).

Correct. The personality inside the avatar has choices re how the personality views being/existing.

But how do we know how to level up in ST?

Look for the clues within the Game-Play.

What's the objective of the game?

To Play.

I know it's clear in a video game, but this simulation is anything but, right?

We get our clues primarily from ET - and the human sciences in general and these are ongoing...and are subject to change as and when it is found necessary to do so.

Other clues which can be found, depend upon whether the avatar enables the personality to experience different/alternate experiences, and these experiences [even told to others] become part of the collection of clues which can be gathered, even that they are not of practical use to physical science.

It has an inscrutable objective and as such may as well have none.

At least so far as I can see...

The clues allow for scrutinizing and the individual personality can engage with ways and means which allows for those things one cannot see directly, to be seen anyway...through the reports of others...
ET [etc] provides us with some ideas as to how things will likely unfold in the continued emerging of the creativity going on.

We would have to examine these re The Creator...for example, if the objects within universe will one day no longer exist, what becomes of the Creator Mind that emerged from it?

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #10]

It's a different dynamic, you see? And they can't both be true... e.g., If both CT and ST are true, then God's design would be dependent upon simulated beings to execute it, which themselves would depend on the design in order to be in the first place... (which means the whole thing would be at an impasse.)

We can examine whether ST fits with your understanding of the dynamic of CT.

I think that it does, when unpacked.

If I understand your argument re The Creator, it doesn't fit with ST because The Creator Mind emerged from the process, and there is no Creator outside of this reality experience, therefore this reality experience cannot be a simulated thing.

Can you explain then why we should consider that Creator-Mind to being the Creator of an environment which created said Mind?

How did that Being first create re Genesis One, if the creation had to exist first, in order for the Mind to then emerge from said creation, and then do other creative things?

You're right in your portrayal of my view. Spirit emerges as a new class of existence from the chaotic mass, and God is spirit being. God doesn't create the material / physical world in the first place, but emerges from it, and then shapes the world as spirit...

So as to how God creates in Genesis 1, it's by providing the end - a final cause - that moves the chaotic mass through influence alone to do what's necessary to achieve it. It's the end that matters most... (A very Aristotelian theology in fact, if you're familiar with his metaphysics and concept of the unmoved mover.)

But just to be clear, I don't think God, at least not in God's original spirit form, is mind. Mind (including consciousness) may have emerged from the chaotic mass just like spirit, but it isn't quite spirit - it's much more physical in nature still. More like a bridge, from physical to non-physical / spiritual, but as such still having materiality as part of its essence. Unlike spirit, which transcends the physical world perhaps completely.

Imagine being a Gameplayer of this simulation, who's Character/Avatar believed this life didn't matter, and having to find out ways and means of transmitting information which would change that Avatars outlook to something more aligned with the overall Game-Play...Games on at least those two related levels...

I think that life whether in a simulated or real world is still life, and can have meaning as such (which is what I take to be your drift here).

Correct. The personality inside the avatar has choices re how the personality views being/existing.

But how do we know how to level up in ST?

Look for the clues within the Game-Play.

What's the objective of the game?

To Play.

I know it's clear in a video game, but this simulation is anything but, right?

We get our clues primarily from ET - and the human sciences in general and these are ongoing...and are subject to change as and when it is found necessary to do so.

Other clues which can be found, depend upon whether the avatar enables the personality to experience different/alternate experiences, and these experiences [even told to others] become part of the collection of clues which can be gathered, even that they are not of practical use to physical science.

It has an inscrutable objective and as such may as well have none.

At least so far as I can see...

The clues allow for scrutinizing and the individual personality can engage with ways and means which allows for those things one cannot see directly, to be seen anyway...through the reports of others...
ET [etc] provides us with some ideas as to how things will likely unfold in the continued emerging of the creativity going on.

I mean no offense, but it still sounds a bit directionless

Makes me think that something like suicide (or choosing not to play the game) is the only wrong path. All else is the same. But maybe I just put too high a value on having a clear vision and end that moves us all.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #12]

You're right in your portrayal of my view. Spirit emerges as a new class of existence from the chaotic mass, and God is spirit being. God doesn't create the material / physical world in the first place, but emerges from it, and then shapes the world as spirit...

This fits with CT.
The question to answer is "What is Spirit, that it can shape the world/things in the universe?"

So as to how God creates in Genesis 1, it's by providing the end - a final cause - that moves the chaotic mass through influence alone to do what's necessary to achieve it

According to both CT and ET, there is no "end" to the process underway. There are various epochs which can be identified within that process, which could be seen as beginnings and ends, within the continuum.

But just to be clear, I don't think God, at least not in God's original spirit form, is mind. Mind (including consciousness) may have emerged from the chaotic mass just like spirit, but it isn't quite spirit - it's much more physical in nature still. More like a bridge, from physical to non-physical / spiritual, but as such still having materiality as part of its essence. Unlike spirit, which transcends the physical world perhaps completely.

We cannot have it both ways. Either Spirit is involved in the continuum and is mindful about it, re creative influence resulting in achievement, or not.

In order to reconcile CT with ET and your particular take on things, with Genesis One, The Creator Sprit has to bee mindful [intelligent, conscious, purposeful, inventive et al] and so one has to explain what it is that Mind is working through re what you refer to as "God's original spirit form".
Are you saying that two types of things are both original - the "Spirit" and the "Mind" and these emerged as separate entities which then integrated?

And thus, the Spirit was enabled to figure out how to manipulate the Mass in order to get creative with it?

The clues allow for scrutinizing and the individual personality can engage with ways and means which allows for those things one cannot see directly, to be seen anyway...through the reports of others...
ET [etc] provides us with some ideas as to how things will likely unfold in the continued emerging of the creativity going on.

I mean no offense, but it still sounds a bit directionless

Things are not always as they sound. Certainly your comment cause me no offense. I [the human personality] did not make those things which exist. I simply find a use for them.
The size of the Game-Field is such that even the beginnings and endings within the continuum show complete stories re direction, and CT allows for Humans to chose their own direction within the Game-Play even that the direction is always "out there".

Makes me think that something like suicide (or choosing not to play the game) is the only wrong path. All else is the same. But maybe I just put too high a value on having a clear vision and end that moves us all.

Possibly.

It may depend upon connections one has, and how integrated they are with The Creator Mind.

Does the Spirit wish to sleep forever while the Mind wants to create, explore, play around with the mass et al?
Are these Entities not 'on the same page' because that appears to be what you are pointing at.
End Points, are simply Beginning Points, as we have clearly identified through ET.
The Universe is a steady progression toward an unknown destination which is so far into the future that the scope of the Game-Play has to become the primary focus, - that which 'moves us all' rather than some desired-for outcome that - once achieved - means 'no more vision'?

It cannot be that way, for the construct of the Universe we are experiencing isn't built in that manner, but rather - in the manner which unfolds continuously in every direction, always "out"...

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #12]

You're right in your portrayal of my view. Spirit emerges as a new class of existence from the chaotic mass, and God is spirit being. God doesn't create the material / physical world in the first place, but emerges from it, and then shapes the world as spirit...

This fits with CT.
The question to answer is "What is Spirit, that it can shape the world/things in the universe?"

If I freely analyze Genesis 1 a bit, I would say that spirit is like a wind, which is how God is first described there, i.e., the ruach elohim hovering over the physical world (and all minds therein). As such, it's something that can move and have real momentum behind it, even as it lacks material substance and physical power (being non-physical). That said, we see that it has the power to carry words, notably in a jussive form, i.e., 'Let there be...', which suggests that it can move things through influence or persuasion, i.e., if things voluntarily move themselves in accord. Further, the words that it carries convey a clear direction and end (along with the associated means). In the case of Genesis 1 and the spirit of God, that end is a world filled with life of every kind, wherein God (and all things) can finally rest. It is precisely this direction and end that 'moves' the world by providing a compelling vision of what could be.

So all that said, if I relate this to more familiar concepts, I would look at what we call movements (like 'me too'), or worldviews (like capitalism), or even what we colloquially refer to as spirits (like 'nationalism' or even 'school spirit') as having very similar attributes as spirit. All of these are non-physical in form, but have an ability to move and build momentum around them. All of them convey a direction and end. All of them as such are capable of 'speaking' to us, like a conscience, and ebbing and flowing across time in their influence...

That's how I would suggest we understand spirit. It's something that emerges from the uncreated chaotic mass no different from a movement like 'me too', and that, once formed, have the power to move and shape the rest of the world to their end through influence alone. They are distinct things even if we can't see them or touch them. They have attributes that we can identify beyond even what I've said here.

So as to how God creates in Genesis 1, it's by providing the end - a final cause - that moves the chaotic mass through influence alone to do what's necessary to achieve it

According to both CT and ET, there is no "end" to the process underway. There are various epochs which can be identified within that process, which could be seen as beginnings and ends, within the continuum.

I think that spirits can be small and local in nature (e.g., nationalism; school spirit), but they can also be world-historic and cosmic in scope, and give vision and meaning to such epochs by cutting across the continuum.

To fill the world with life of every kind, for example, is a world-historic project that is cosmic in scope. A spirit with such an end operates at a level that can provide meaning to it all - to everything in the universe and the whole of history. It ends on day 7, when God can at last be at rest, and all life can similarly be. (Perhaps achieving a state that comes pretty close to your own suggestion that we 'just play' in the simulation, but one that finds context in and is enabled by this world-historic project and end... The difference being, in CT this playful / recreational state only transpires at the end, versus being the case from the beginning as ST would suggest...)

But just to be clear, I don't think God, at least not in God's original spirit form, is mind. Mind (including consciousness) may have emerged from the chaotic mass just like spirit, but it isn't quite spirit - it's much more physical in nature still. More like a bridge, from physical to non-physical / spiritual, but as such still having materiality as part of its essence. Unlike spirit, which transcends the physical world perhaps completely.

We cannot have it both ways. Either Spirit is involved in the continuum and is mindful about it, re creative influence resulting in achievement, or not.

I keep suggesting that spirit is the original form of God, which may be helpful to further unpack here. i.e., God's spirit form likely emerges from mind or something like mind in the first place, which itself emerges from the physical world. But I would agree that without mind, or without something like mind to apprehend it once formed, spirit is powerless / useless. So there absolutely is and needs to be a dynamic between the two...

God as spirit both presupposes mind (as the only physically-based thing we know of capable of giving rise to spirit) and raises the possibility of minds (or physical beings) that are in the Spirit... Ones like Jesus Christ and the body of Christ that forms around him. So I would wager that God more fully (i.e., on top of God's base spiritual form) is the sum-total of such physical beings (and minds) that are in the Spirit at any point in time. They are the ones (i.e., Elohim, the body of Christ, both of which represent a unified plurality) that give real power to the Spirit, such that it can shape the world to the desired end.

In order to reconcile CT with ET and your particular take on things, with Genesis One, The Creator Sprit has to be mindful [intelligent, conscious, purposeful, inventive et al] and so one has to explain what it is that Mind is working through re what you refer to as "God's original spirit form".
Are you saying that two types of things are both original - the "Spirit" and the "Mind" and these emerged as separate entities which then integrated?

I don't think that spirit in itself is mindful or intelligent. It's just words. Spirits are the floating and flowing placeholders for the values, meanings, directions and ends that we physical, mindful beings bring to our lives and shape the world by. More like a conscience, which is distinct from even if similar to and dependent on consciousness...

The combination, however, of spirit and mind (/physical being), is more fully what God is (or could be). And per above, I would say the 'integration' of these is absolutely necessary to achieve the end since spirit alone can't do a thing. Such a God would not be a single mind / consciousness, though, as many assume, but the unification of minds (/physical beings) in achieving that end. Less a single voice or emergent consciousness behind it all than a unity of different voices all speaking for the same thing.

[William]

In reading what you have to say Theophile, I am still unconvinced that your thinking that ST is not reconcilable with CT is correct.

Twice you have been asked to explain the End Game [of the Universe] in relationship with your understanding of "GOD" in the terms you are using.

From my position, what you have explained do far does not exclude ST theory as it can be seen to be the result of a consciousness involving itself within a Simulation which is designed to respond to The Mind of the GOD you are explaining, and it that, The Mind is The Spirit and the simulation is designed to respond to the will of said Mind.

To allow for said Mind to expand into the simulation and create whatever it wills, all from a Tabula Rasa state of being.
In essence this allows for said Mind to "start from scratch" and "become" whatever it wills to become.

I understand that you are trying to cut out any previous stage, focusing upon this Universe as being the only reality, in order that we do not superimpose any "outside" reality atop of it...
However, scientific evidence re Quantum Mechanics is showing that this Universe is not fundamental to itself - Spacetime is not fundamental - the math is showing 'something else' is fundamental, so it is important to include that information with any of our reasonable theories...

Which is why I am asking about what happens to this Mind of GOD once what happens to the Universe comes to its final conclusion - say - re the theory that "things" will eventually dissipate into "non-things".

What does such a Mind do, when things reach that stage...?

See also;
Re: Generating Messages - Be Taught 2

[theophile]

In reading what you have to say Theophile, I am still unconvinced that your thinking that ST is not reconcilable with CT is correct.

Twice you have been asked to explain the End Game [of the Universe] in relationship with your understanding of "GOD" in the terms you are using.

Have I not explained that relationship? In short: God provides the vision / end that moves the rest of the world to take part in its creation. I've also said what that end is, how God originates in the first place (as spirit), what spirit is, and how God takes on attributes of mind and physical power to shape the world. What further explanation do you require?

If it's whether I've failed to show that CT is irreconcilable with ST, it's what I've been saying all along and you re-iterated here:

I understand that you are trying to cut out any previous stage, focusing upon this Universe as being the only reality, in order that we do not superimpose any "outside" reality atop of it...

That's the irreconcilable part: CT / Genesis 1 does not necessarily show God creating from outside, and definitely doesn't show God leveraging massive computing power to do so (making the world we know a simulation). Rather it shows God creating with pre-existing (un-simulated) matter that becomes a heaven and earth filled with life. i.e., One continuous world that God operates within...

From my position, what you have explained do far does not exclude ST theory as it can be seen to be the result of a consciousness involving itself within a Simulation which is designed to respond to The Mind of the GOD you are explaining, and it that, The Mind is The Spirit and the simulation is designed to respond to the will of said Mind.

I get what you're saying. And look, I know I can't disprove ST is a possibility. I've always tried to be upfront and clear about that. To be more clear, I know you could bolt ST onto CT, as you do here. But if you do so, like I said from the beginning, you will close down viable interpretations of CT (such as mine), and force an interpretation on it that I don't think is necessary. ST imposes more than is needed to make sense of the narrative, versus making use of the terms and framework that CT itself provides in order to make sense of it...

The interpretation that can make sense with what is provided, versus needing to add on, should be preferred, right? And any reconciliation done properly should be without violence? Otherwise you're not reconciling; you're force-fitting...

So in sum, I think we can make perfect sense of CT without needing to bolt on ST. And if we bolt on ST, we go down a path that eliminates other options while adding unnecessary baggage. (If I relate this to more traditional views of CT, that baggage would be something like an omnipotent God that creates ex nihilo - which definitely has striking similarity with ST and a God with unbelievable computing power, but like ST is wholly unnecessary and raises implications like I mentioned before, e.g., theodicy.)

However, scientific evidence re Quantum Mechanics is showing that this Universe is not fundamental to itself - Spacetime is not fundamental - the math is showing 'something else' is fundamental, so it is important to include that information with any of our reasonable theories...

Which is why I am asking about what happens to this Mind of GOD once what happens to the Universe comes to its final conclusion - say - re the theory that "things" will eventually dissipate into "non-things".

What does such a Mind do, when things reach that stage...?

Why so stuck on the path the universe is currently on, and what science says will happen? Everything I'm talking about here means we need to do the work necessary to change such a fate, and shape the future according to our will. Preferably in line with God's vision and end of course.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #16]

Why so stuck on the path the universe is currently on, and what science says will happen?

Because science provides us with one of the three theories which the OP question is asking about, so it is important to be able to reconcile that with what you have proposed, rather than remove it from the table of discussion simply because it might not/does not support your own, or any other particular CT theory.

Everything I'm talking about here means we need to do the work necessary to change such a fate, and shape the future according to our will. Preferably in line with God's vision and end of course.

Do you have any idea how Humans might change the fate of the Universe? Does "God's vision" even have an eternal use for the current Universe?
There does not appear to be anything stated about such a plan, in Genesis One.

That is why I wrote;

Which is why I am asking about what happens to this Mind of GOD once what happens to the Universe comes to its final conclusion - say - re the theory that "things" will eventually dissipate into "non-things".

Q: What does such a Mind do, when things reach that stage...?

One answer might be that such a mind creates another Universe - likely designed based upon information drawn from everything which occurred throughout the evolution of the beginning of the previous one created, to its end.

So in sum, I think we can make perfect sense of CT without needing to bolt on ST. And if we bolt on ST, we go down a path that eliminates other options while adding unnecessary baggage.

ST is viable, so it is not a case of forcing the theory onto CT. Any "unnecessary baggage" may be eliminated as it is identified in 'other options'...

To be more clear, I know you could bolt ST onto CT, as you do here. But if you do so, like I said from the beginning, you will close down viable interpretations of CT (such as mine), and force an interpretation on it that I don't think is necessary.

...even if that means dropping your own particular interpretation of CT as being the viable thing you currently believe that it is.

(If I relate this to more traditional views of CT, that baggage would be something like an omnipotent God that creates ex nihilo - which definitely has striking similarity with ST and a God with unbelievable computing power, but like ST is wholly unnecessary and raises implications like I mentioned before, e.g., theodicy.)

A theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of evil by answering the following problem, which in its most basic form involves these assumptions: God is all good and all powerful (and, therefore, all knowing). The universe/creation was made by God and/or exists in a contingent relationship to God. {SOURCE}

Why would ST raise these implications? What is "the face of evil" that ST reconciled with CT and ET cannot be understood in terms most natural rather than artificially conjured through ignorance?

What are the "striking similarities" you mention, between "ST and a God with unbelievable computing power" and an "omnipotent God that creates ex nihilo"?

ST imposes more than is needed to make sense of the narrative, versus making use of the terms and framework that CT itself provides in order to make sense of it...

Let us agree that CT is simply an outline - bullet points - which we agree are consistent with ET. ET is more elaborate and comprehensive undertaking than Genesis One, yet speaks to the same production.

ET does not concern itself with any Creator-Mind involved in said production, so why "bolt" CT onto ET, and yet complain that ST should not be "bolted" onto CT?

What is the difference between a "Created thing" and ST?

You made mention of something you referred to as "a God with unbelievable computing power" and in doing so, deny said Mind of said Creator to be able to have such, apparently because it interferes with your own CT beliefs by "adding unnecessary baggage" - a term you may be using simple in order to justify your particular interpretation of CT.

As such, it may not be a case of "bolting" anything onto, but rather, a case of wanting to detach something which is and always will be part of the correct explanation as to why the universe exists and unfolds as it does.

Your argument re your beliefs re CT may be a symptom of an attempt to decouple ST as a viable explanation and refer to ST as "unnecessary baggage" because it challenges said beliefs you have developed - and developed without due consideration for ST in the first place, and why you appear to feel that the argument for reconciling ST with CT requires resistance from you.

If ST challenges those CT beliefs you have, then it is important to clearly understand why reconciliation cannot be achieved re those beliefs you have. The beliefs you have, are questionable and are possibly incorrect. It is our task to expose beliefs and cut away anything which can be shown to be missing the mark, no matter how precious said beliefs might be to us.

If, in doing so, this will close down any "viable interpretations of CT" (such as yours), this will because such is not as viable as first believed.

I understand that you are trying to cut out any previous stage, focusing upon this Universe as being the only reality, in order that we do not superimpose any "outside" reality atop of it...

That's the irreconcilable part: CT / Genesis 1 does not necessarily show God creating from outside, and definitely doesn't show God leveraging massive computing power to do so (making the world we know a simulation). Rather it shows God creating with pre-existing matter that becomes a heaven and earth filled with life. i.e., One continuous world that God operates within...

To be clear - "the irreconcilable part" is not able to be reconciled with your particular interpretation of CT.
As you admit, Genesis One "does not necessarily show God creating from outside," and thus we can agree that it also does not necessarily show God creating from inside, and this should have us being able to agree that there is no reason why The Creator cannot do both.

Your particular interpretation of CT has it that the creativity only happens from the inside and, as I explained, this in itself does not remove ST from the discussion table, as what you have explained so far does not exclude ST theory as the creativeness can be seen to be the result of a consciousness involving itself within a Simulation which is designed to respond to The Mind of the GOD you are explaining, and it that, The Mind is The Spirit and the simulation is designed to respond to the will of said Mind.

Further to that, it could be said that the simulation is designed to make a GOD - for that is what you are saying the universe created, are you not?

So far, our discussion shows that we are not too far apart in our understanding - and I think I have shown that - even given your apprehension for ST - your overall view of "How GOD evolved within the created thing", fits nicely enough with ST, in that ST explains the process you think occurred, better than it simply being an accident of nature.

In that, ST allows for a purposefully mindfully designed thing.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #16]

Why so stuck on the path the universe is currently on, and what science says will happen?

Because science provides us with one of the three theories which the OP question is asking about, so it is important to be able to reconcile that with what you have proposed, rather than remove it from the table of discussion simply because it might not/does not support your own, or any other particular CT theory.

ET needs to be reconciled per the OP, not the fate of the universe or the whole of science.

But anyways, I'm not trying to take anything off the table. I just don't think the fate of the universe is necessarily the unfolding of natural processes as science would have it. Nature can be co-opted and our natural fate, whatever it is, can be altered. (This is the very promise of science and engineering, and what ST is based on, right? To take charge of natural forces and shape the cosmos as we see fit?)

Everything I'm talking about here means we need to do the work necessary to change such a fate, and shape the future according to our will. Preferably in line with God's vision and end of course.

Do you have any idea how Humans might change the fate of the Universe? Does "God's vision" even have an eternal use for the current Universe?
There does not appear to be anything stated about such a plan, in Genesis One.


That is why I wrote;

Which is why I am asking about what happens to this Mind of GOD once what happens to the Universe comes to its final conclusion - say - re the theory that "things" will eventually dissipate into "non-things".

Q: What does such a Mind do, when things reach that stage...?

I have no idea how humans might change the fate of the universe. But if the current fate is a frozen emptiness, I'm sure at some point we could harness God-knows what forces (you know, dark matter and whatnot) to pull it back together and keep the lights on. Or sure, develop metaverses / simulations that may somehow be sustainable in such a state...

As for God's vision, it's a world filled with life, where all life is flourishing and God can rest. Such a vision is pretty clear in Genesis 1, isn't it, given what we see written there? And it requires a sustained universe (multiverse, metaverse, or whatever 'verse' is most suited to supporting it...).

So as to what God would do in such a stage, again, God would be at rest, take joy in it all, and make sure that life keeps expanding. An eternal affair methinks.

One answer might be that such a mind creates another Universe - likely designed based upon information drawn from everything which occurred throughout the evolution of the beginning of the previous one created, to its end.

Yah, I know. The expansion of the universe through metaverses and simulations could very well be an important means to God's end, and this is what has drawn me to ST all along, and wanting to reconcile it with CT. But that would be ST more as means and end, not beginning. It's ST as beginning that I keep pushing back on... CT is the beginning. ST follows as a possibility...

And that's the main problem I have, if I restate it as such. i.e., your statement here implies previous cycles, so if we go back there must at some point be a cycle where God formed in the first place, where the world wasn't a simulation but just raw, chaotic matter randomly churning things out (i.e., ET), and ST was nothing more than a possibility on a distant horizon...

It's precisely here that I see CT as I've described it coming in and providing the necessary first cycle (and direction) for ST to become a possibility, where God becomes God, acquires the power needed, and then yes, can create worlds or simulations as needed.

It's an order of operations thing, i.e., ET -> CT -> ST, the difference between you and I being that I assume we are still in that first cycle, or in the CT stage of this process flow. I do not (and nor does CT) take for granted the powerful God that ST requires, nor that the world we live in is a simulation (yet).

This means we can bolt ST onto the end of CT, but not onto the beginning. If we bolt it on to the beginning, we assume a God with the computing power that may not have emerged yet and may never emerge because, well, we're already assuming such a God exists, so why pursue it? (To look at it another way, ST means we can already be at rest - or as you put it before, we can 'just play' - whereas I see real work that needs doing to get us there...)

Is that an agreeable reconciliation? I think there is one there if we're careful on how we handle CT in the mix.

(If I relate this to more traditional views of CT, that baggage would be something like an omnipotent God that creates ex nihilo - which definitely has striking similarity with ST and a God with unbelievable computing power, but like ST is wholly unnecessary and raises implications like I mentioned before, e.g., theodicy.)

A theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of evil by answering the following problem, which in its most basic form involves these assumptions: God is all good and all powerful (and, therefore, all knowing). The universe/creation was made by God and/or exists in a contingent relationship to God. {SOURCE}

Why would ST raise these implications? What is "the face of evil" that ST reconciled with CT and ET cannot be understood in terms most natural rather than artificially conjured through ignorance?

What are the "striking similarities" you mention, between "ST and a God with unbelievable computing power" and an "omnipotent God that creates ex nihilo"?

There is evil and suffering inside the simulation right? A simulation designed and executed by a Creator who could have built it otherwise? That's theodicy. God needs to explain Godself and account for evil... And that's true whether the world is simulated or made from nothing by God (as traditional CT would have it).

So as for the striking similarities, both ST and traditional CT assume a God with the power to create a world from scratch from the get-go, and that the world we're in is already a simulation. This is where I say that at some point in the regress of past cycles there must be a first cycle of CT as I've been describing it where such a God emerges in the first place. It's not an infinite regress of simulations and God refining God's works, as I feel you would have it, but CT as a necessary first and perhaps even eternal cycle that makes the leap from ET to whatever makes sense to achieve God's end (be it ST or whatever else).

You made mention of something you referred to as "a God with unbelievable computing power" and in doing so, deny said Mind of said Creator to be able to have such, apparently because it interferes with your own CT beliefs by "adding unnecessary baggage" - a term you may be using simple in order to justify your particular interpretation of CT.

It's not that it interferes with my CT beliefs, but that such power needs to be explained in the first place. It's a matter of logic and needing to make sense, i.e., such power can't just come out of nowhere... So whether it's traditional CT's positing of a God with the power to create ex nihilo, or ST's positing of a God with the computing power to build a simulated world, yes, I deny any such God-power as existing out of the gate. That's the additional, unnecessary baggage I see you trying to bring to CT (no different from CT traditionalists), and that makes me wary of ST.

So far, our discussion shows that we are not too far apart in our understanding - and I think I have shown that - even given your apprehension for ST - your overall view of "How GOD evolved within the created thing", fits nicely enough with ST, in that ST explains the process you think occurred, better than it simply being an accident of nature.

In that, ST allows for a purposefully mindfully designed thing.

I don't think we're far apart. The issue as I see it is that you would subsume CT into ST whereas I feel that CT provides a distinct and necessary stage for ST to become a possibility in the first place, and that this is the stage we should assume we are in and focus our attention on. i.e., that such a God as ST proposes does not yet exist and that this world is not yet a simulation... We should think and act as if such a state has yet to be achieved, even if it already has.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

ET needs to be reconciled per the OP, not the fate of the universe or the whole of science.

Agreed.

Since you and I agree that ET can be reconciled with CT, that part is done.

But anyways, I'm not trying to take anything off the table. I just don't think the fate of the universe is necessarily the unfolding of natural processes as science would have it.

Q: Are you saying then, that scientists are reading the Data of Nature incorrectly?
Q: Are you also saying that scientists are reading the Data of Nature re ET correctly?

Nature can be co-opted and our natural fate, whatever it is, can be altered.

Q: Are you referring to the mind of nature re "Nature can be co-opted"

(This is the very promise of science and engineering, and what ST is based on, right? To take charge of natural forces and shape the cosmos as we see fit?)

Exactly my point.

Another clue as to why we might exist within a simulated thing...because of this pattern we see within the structure of that thing we are experiencing.

We appear to agree that a Mind is necessary, and that is why a Mind was created/evolved from out of this process.

Our difference is that I think the essence of the Mind of Creation wasn't really 'created', but is sourced/connected with the mind which created the Simulation being experienced.

So we have two minds involved, The one which you refer to as "God" which you understand was generated by the unfolding of the Universe Itself.

The other, which I refer to as The Creator of the Simulation.

I understand the two Minds are really One Mind - and the Mind evolving within the simulation is a type of reflection of the Mind which created the simulation.

The journey of the Mind inside the simulation experience refines Its understanding of Self and the closer to the End-Game the Mind becomes, the sharper the image of that reflection becomes.

Even that science or ET see no use in such information, does not mean that such information is without relevance.

There is nothing in CT [Genesis One] which shows us that ST need be removed from the table of discussion, because it is not shown that what you call "extra baggage" is not actually, essential equipment.

Re that, the science of Quantum Mechanics shows us that what scientists thought of as real, fundamentally isn't.

CT does not say the Universe is real either.

People have just always assumed that it is.

ST cannot be removed from the table of discussion and if one were to argue that it does not belong, on the grounds that it "adds an unnecessary layer", would have to disagree with the Scientists re Quantum - re fundamental reality.

In that case, any claim re CT which does not accept ST, would be questionable and the extra layer might have to be accommodated in order to make sense of any discrepancy.

I have no idea how humans might change the fate of the universe. But if the current fate is a frozen emptiness, I'm sure at some point we could harness God-knows what forces (you know, dark matter and whatnot) to pull it back together and keep the lights on. Or sure, develop metaverses / simulations that may somehow be sustainable in such a state...

Exactly. Keep the Lights on. [And there was light]

Besides which, "Humans" then, will have to be way different than what they have been or are now.

Given how this can unfold, there is also no reason why we shouldn't suspect that this process has been going on forever. Dark. Light. On Off. 01.

As for God's vision, it's a world filled with life, where all life is flourishing and God can rest. Such a vision is pretty clear in Genesis 1, isn't it, given what we see written there? And it requires a sustained universe (multiverse, metaverse, or whatever 'verse' is most suited to supporting it...).

So as to what God would do in such a stage, again, God would be at rest, take joy in it all, and make sure that life keeps expanding. An eternal affair methinks.

The thing about that is. even that CT and ET says there was a beginning to this Universe, does not mean it was the only beginning which has ever occurred. Essentially other simulations are created and each one ending, begins the next.

In that sense, while ST cannot be discarded, it still would have to adjust accordingly to be seen as the process which occurs re each unfolding, and each process is the product of the Mind which all this must be happening within, which produces the realities experienced.

It would make sense that such a Mind would create said "things" if the only alternative to that was to put up with the Dark for eternity.
It may even be that a Mind can only ever create Light, just because - whatever it thinks - becomes something it experiences as real.

Thus, we could remove the idea that there is any Mind outside of the simulation which created the simulation, because the simulation itself is the same thing as Mind creating it.

One answer might be that such a mind creates another Universe - likely designed based upon information drawn from everything which occurred throughout the evolution of the beginning of the previous one created, to its end.

Yah, I know. The expansion of the universe through metaverses and simulations could very well be an important means to God's end, and this is what has drawn me to ST all along, and wanting to reconcile it with CT. But that would be ST more as means and end, not beginning. It's ST as beginning that I keep pushing back on... CT is the beginning. ST follows as a possibility...

Indeed. We appear to be on the same page...

And that's the main problem I have, if I restate it as such. i.e., your statement here implies previous cycles, so if we go back there must at some point be a cycle where God formed in the first place, where the world wasn't a simulation but just raw, chaotic matter randomly churning things out (i.e., ET), and ST was nothing more than a possibility on a distant horizon...

I think that problem fades away if one accepts that the whole "beginning/End" cycles simply have been and will continue to be, eternal in nature. The Mind has "never not been" the matter that is used to created these Beginning/End simulations.

In that, no matter if one wishes to create a simulation which enables the Mind to forget that it is The Creator of things, eventually that Mind meets itself again as being The Creator.

Both CT and ET focus on the idea of there having to have been a real beginning, and in that, there is baggage which might not even be necessary.

It's precisely here that I see CT as I've described it coming in and providing the necessary first cycle (and direction) for ST to become a possibility, where God becomes God, acquires the power needed, and then yes, can create worlds or simulations as needed.

As pointed out, there does not appear to be the need to include this layer of belief. The Creator Mind may have 'recreated' Itself for eternity already, and never once repeated any prior Creation.

If we are to include a moment when there was absolutely nothing and there is therefore the necessity to have an absolute Begin-Point, it would have to be the existence of The Mind able to perceive absolutely nothing existed, and then that Mind going about making something, rather than something spontaneously "becoming" and then somehow accidently creating said Mind.

It's an order of operations thing, i.e., ET -> CT -> ST, the difference between you and I being that I assume we are still in that first cycle, or in the CT stage of this process flow. I do not (and nor does CT) take for granted the powerful God that ST requires, nor that the world we live in is a simulation (yet).

This means we can bolt ST onto the end of CT, but not onto the beginning. If we bolt it on to the beginning, we assume a God with the computing power that may not have emerged yet and may never emerge because, well, we're already assuming such a God exists, so why pursue it? (To look at it another way, ST means we can already be at rest - or as you put it before, we can 'just play' - whereas I see real work that needs doing to get us there...)

Is that an agreeable reconciliation? I think there is one there if we're careful on how we handle CT in the mix.

I think I have adequately explained succinctly enough to gain a coherent alternative to the idea that this Universe has to be the first incarnation of - what will now - forevermore - be - an eternity of Beginnings and Ends.
There is no logical reason as to why one need believe that this particular Universe, is the very first.

This because, we can agree that eventually it will turn out that way anyhow, and future humans would evolve to recognize that even as we create simulations and understand the nature of mind re matter, the relationship will inextricably draw us to such a conclusion - naturally.

There is evil and suffering inside the simulation right? A simulation designed and executed by a Creator who could have built it otherwise? That's theodicy. God needs to explain Godself and account for evil... And that's true whether the world is simulated or made from nothing by God (as traditional CT would have it).

Indeed.

So as for the striking similarities, both ST and traditional CT assume a God with the power to create a world from scratch from the get-go, and that the world we're in is already a simulation. This is where I say that at some point in the regress of past cycles there must be a first cycle of CT as I've been describing it where such a God emerges in the first place. It's not an infinite regress of simulations and God refining God's works, as I feel you would have it, but CT as a necessary first and perhaps even eternal cycle that makes the leap from ET to whatever makes sense to achieve God's end (be it ST or whatever else).

As explained, there is a problem with that particular CT theory in that one is still left to wonder what caused the stuff of our Universe to unfold in that first place, which is as unresolved as "from or out of nothing" creation theory.
ST places the Mind before the Matter, as the horse before the cart.

The computing power is easy enough to understand if one accepts that said Mind is that power, and everything else always follows...matter is shaped according to the sound of the thoughts of The Creator Mind and everything is experienced within said Mind.

This particular incarnation of stuff, allows for experience of something which can be understood by the minds within it, as being 'Good" or "Evil" even that the Nature of the environment may be neither.

In that, I refer to the human-mind tendency to enjoy scary things - but not to the point where these can damage oneself/others...such as a Ghost-Train in a Fair [fear] is designed to achieve.
This particular Universe is that train ride, upon another level, designed to scare would-be gods in the making but also involving ways and means in which those gods in the making can work things out through said process.

There is nothing fundamentally evil about this experience. What evil is seen is simply superimposed by ignorance, even to the point where one might blame some invisible entity for stubbing ones minimus, by purposefully placing the table in one's path.

Essentially, 'evil' is a human invention designed to blame any potential creator for existing.

To find the question to answer, requires one removes the idea that we exist and experience pain and suffering, [alongside joy and happiness] because the one who created it, is a nasty entity.

That is part of The Game re working it out.

It's not that it interferes with my CT beliefs, but that such power needs to be explained in the first place. It's a matter of logic and needing to make sense, i.e., such power can't just come out of nowhere...

Exactly. The power had to have always existed. The Mind of GOD creates the minds of Gods.
The simulation is inside that Mind. There may be no Mind outside of it, but we cannot logically place the created before The Creator, without explaining how that came about. Logically, even what we call "Matter" must be made of the stuff of said Mind and can be formed any which way the thinking of said Mind, determines.

So whether it's traditional CT's positing of a God with the power to create ex nihilo, or ST's positing of a God with the computing power to build a simulated world, yes, I deny any such God-power as existing out of the gate.

Unless, as explained, there really never has been any beginning point re said mind. Those beginning points only have to do with whatever current simulation is being produced by said Mind.

Re that, "things" are simulated. Re that, the 'stuff' which allows things to "become", is essentially the stuff of the Creator-Mind, and thus, has always existed - but are made/shaped into said 'things' and have beginnings and ends, eternally, and can be experienced as real, by minds within it.

So far, our discussion shows that we are not too far apart in our understanding - and I think I have shown that - even given your apprehension for ST - your overall view of "How GOD evolved within the created thing", fits nicely enough with ST, in that ST explains the process you think occurred, better than it simply being an accident of nature.

In that, ST allows for a purposefully mindfully designed thing.

I don't think we're far apart. The issue as I see it is that you would subsume CT into ST whereas I feel that CT provides a distinct and necessary stage for ST to become a possibility in the first place, and that this is the stage we should assume we are in and focus our attention on. i.e., that such a God as ST proposes does not yet exist and that this world is not yet a simulation... We should think and act as if such a state has yet to be achieved, even if it already has.

While I understand your reservations, I think that to have a CT theory based upon the idea that The Mind grew out of the Creation and thus - is not directly responsible for the suffering one experiences by those inside said Creation, one is agreeing with the idea of The Problem of Evil, which your particular CT deals with, and which ET also deals with - neither of which, may be the best way to deal with said 'problem'.

The thing I ask is whether this "problem" has actually been established as real or imagined and if not real, then it is an unnecessary layer to be adding - unnecessary baggage - and thus not appropriate to being attached to any theory, including CT and therefore doesn't belong on the table of this discussion.

[theophile]

duplicate