Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Manny Blander]

Below is a logical argument I wrote for the existence of god. I am obviously biased, but I believe this is the most compelling argument that's been put forth to date, if only because the bar is so low.

For your review...
________________________________________________________________

The Coherent Argument for the Existence of God

This document presents a logical argument for the existence of God (hereinafter: "the coherent argument").

In particular, it shall be shown below that the only complete and coherent ontological explanation of reality that fully, rationally, and satisfactorily explains the fundamental essences of the human experience and the scientific account of the physical world, and also does not require any "leaps of faith" of any kind, is that the universe was created by a single eternal conscious being (hereinafter: "God").

It should be clarified that, although there is a small overlap with some of the classical teleological arguments as well as with some of the classical cosmological arguments the coherent argument presented in this paper differs substantially and fundamentally from these arguments and does not depend on them.

It shall also be clarified that the coherent argument presented below treats well-established conventional scientific theories—and in particular the Big Bang theory, the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Relativity—as true facts.
________

1. Defining consciousness.

In this document, consciousness is defined as the sum of all the rational and irrational qualities that arise from an entity's awareness of its existence.

Also in this document:

• The term rational refers to the objective aspects of consciousness including: recognizing and understanding existence as truth; the ability to recognize and differentiate entities and objects in the environment; the ability to deduce truth from truth through logical and mathematical thinking; and the ability to deduce causal truth from experiments and observations through scientific and statistical thinking.

• The term irrational refers to the subjective aspects of consciousness including: the ability to feel positive and negative emotions, sensations, and feelings about oneself and the environment; the ability to want and desire things and changes; the ability to imagine and create subjective meaning from things that don’t exist physically, and the ability to formulate and maintain a value system.

It should be clarified that although many of the above functions of consciousness are comprised of both objective and subjective components, in this paper, a function of consciousness is always classified as rational or irrational according to its primary purpose and essence.

It should be emphasized that, in this paper, the meaning of the term irrational (as defined above) is not the opposite of rational, but only something different from it, and does not carry a negative connotation (at all).


2. I exist, I think, I sense, and I feel; therefore, consciousness exists.

If a phenomenon is considered real if it can consistently be observed without being refuted, then the only absolute truth that is absolutely certain is that I exist, think, sense, and feel; and hence that I am conscious, and that consciousness exists.


3. Mathematics describes truth to a conscious entity.

At its core, mathematics is a discipline that deals with quantities or collections of abstract objects. Although mathematical proofs and equations enable deducing true conclusions in the real world, it must be emphasized that the veracity of any such conclusion is always conditional on the existence of all the employed mathematically abstracted objects in reality.

For example, in a mathematical statement, the number “5” always refers to 5 "identical" units of an object (or a measure) of some kind. However, aside from academic cases, mathematics always leaves the "user" with the responsibility of mapping 5 actual objects from his or her world to the 5 abstract objects that the mathematical statement describes.

This might sound like a trivial point, but it really isn’t. The division of reality or the imagination into objects is an action that requires both definition and identification. These actions are performed by conscious beings (and only by conscious beings) subjectively according to their goals, and in the context of a very specific meaning that they assign to the reality they sense.

4. Science is divided into branches hierarchically according to the complexity of the phenomena that each branch investigates.

As illustrated in the chart below, each branch in the hierarchy investigates phenomena that arise from entities and processes that are researched and defined in the branch at the level below it.

It should be noted that, in the philosophy of science, a phenomenon is considered emergent, and not reductive, if it has properties that do not exist in the parts that comprise it.

Two examples of phenomena that emerge particularly strongly (in the sense that their properties are radically different from those of their parts) are: (1) Life, which emerged/emerges from inanimate matter; (2) Consciousness, which emerged/emerges from neurological systems.

Metaphysically, there are three main views regarding the ontological nature of strong emergent phenomena:

1) Ontologically, there are no phenomena that emerge strongly, and eventually the day will come when every phenomenon will be explained using the basic laws of physics.

2) There are phenomena that emerge strongly ontologically, but fundamentally, the source of all phenomena, including life and consciousness, is physical. In this view too, the universe is composed only of physical matter.

3) Consciousness is not a phenomenon that arises from physical phenomena and is composed in whole or in part of something that is not physical. According to this view, the physical brain does not produce consciousness, but only runs or presents it, much like a computer running software or a television that displays a program.

In this paper, the term "physicalism" will refer to the first two views together.


5. There is no less evidence suggesting that matter emerges from consciousness than there is suggesting that consciousness emerges from matter.

The ontological view that consciousness emerges from matter is mostly based on: the vast amount of empirical evidence supporting the doctrine of physicalism, the proven success of science to explain almost every phenomenon in nature using physical laws, and the lack of any empirical evidence that there is anything in the universe other than physical matter.

This section presents no less convincing evidence (in my opinion) that suggests that the material world emerges from consciousness, or a conscious-driven process (of some kind), regardless of the degree of materiality of human consciousness. This evidence refutes the above physicalistic argument, which is inductive in nature, by showing that in the specific case of consciousness, the physicalist argument is circular.

The evidence that suggests that matter emerges from consciousness, or a conscious-driven process, is as follows:

1) The laws of nature are remarkably mathematical.

As is well known, science does not try nor portend to explain why the entities it describes obey the laws of nature. These laws are considered axioms by definition. However, the fact that all the elementary particles in the universe obey the laws of the Standard Model implies that every particle: recognizes every other particle that is found or enters into its immediate environment; knows and identifies the types of each of the other particles and what properties each type has; identifies the exact quantities of each of the properties of all other particles in its vicinity relative to some standard; and then acts in accordance with a variety of mathematical laws that take into account the relationships between the values of its own properties, the properties of the other particles, and the rates of change of all these values over time.

Or in other words, it can be said that the way the elementary particles behave and conduct themselves in nature is ultra-rational. It should be emphasized that in the context of the sub-argument being presented in this section, which is only trying to show that there is also evidence to suggest that matter emerges from consciousness, it does not matter at all whether this is an inherent behavior that only coincidently appears rational. It's a matter of definition. It’s also not at all obvious that the universe should operate mathematically. Matter could just as easily behave non-mathematically.

2) According to the laws of science, at the edges of the universe matter becomes abstract.

Abstract things are not material by definition and exist only conceptually. In a world where everything is material except for perhaps consciousness (which is the assumption in this discussion), abstraction exists only in the minds and thoughts of conscious beings. Hence, the fact that according to science, matter at the edges of the universe becomes abstract also implies that matter emerges from a conscious or conscious-driven process.

Examples of abstraction in the material world include: points with infinite density in black holes (lots of matter condensed in a single zero-dimensional point); a point with infinite density at the beginning of the Big Bang; the expansion of the universe into infinite space, if the shape of the universe is flat, or into infinite spaces of higher dimensions, if the shape of the universe is curved; and so forth.

In physics, the above-mentioned points of infinite density are considered undefined "singularities" in which the laws of physics cease to exist (partly because matter becomes something abstract). However, this point is not relevant to our discussion. After all, it doesn’t make sense to use induction to claim that in the future the laws of physics will demonstrate that consciousness emerges from matter, and at the same time to nullify conclusions that are much more directly inductive (such as the above singularities) that suggest that matter emerges from a conscious or conscious-driven process.

3) The way nature builds and operates the universe is similar to the way humanity builds and operates its own "universes."

As described above, complex phenomena that emerge strongly (from simpler phenomena) are described by scientific laws of dedicated branches of science. Accordingly, it can be said that the elementary particles not only obey the laws that dictate how they should behave when they encounter other elementary particles, but that they also obey additional laws that dictate (in a non-contradictory manner) how they should conduct themselves when the atoms to which they belong encounter other atoms; and, to other laws that dictate how different type of molecules should behave when they encounter other molecules. And so on.

It's hard not to notice the similarity between the hierarchical and synergistic nature of science’s processes and laws—which together run our world—and the hierarchical and synergistic nature of the hardware and software infrastructure of a computer system, which together run applications (including virtual reality applications, and simulations of nature and the universe). The diagram below demonstrates (in one way out of many) the hierarchical nature of the hardware and software infrastructure of a computer system .

Science, as stated, does not try nor portend to explain how or why the hierarchical entities it defines and describes obey the laws of nature of their branch (laws which, as mentioned, are constructed on top of the scientific laws of lower levels), nor why the branches of science are hierarchical, or why the scientific models of each branch strongly emerge (ostensibly) from the models of the branches at lower levels. One possibility, of course, is that all of these scientific models were designed, and are operated, by a conscious or conscious-driven process (e.g., a simulation).

In light of the fact that there is a known phenomenon (the world of computing) that is built on the basis of principles and paradigms that are quite similar to the principles and paradigms upon which the universe is built, and that this phenomenon has emerged and evolved naturally and organically; and in light of the fact that this similar phenomenon emerged from a conscious process, and we are not aware of any other similar phenomenon that has emerged from a non-conscious process; and in light of the importance that science attributes—in general—to phenomena that are reliably and consistently observed in nature; one can only conclude that there is a real possibility that the laws of nature emerged from a conscious or conscious-driven process.


4) According to quantum theory, the position of a particle at any given moment is probabilistic.

About a century ago, scientists discovered that at the atomic level, matter and energy behave fundamentally differently than at other scales.

Perhaps the biggest difference between quantum physics and classical physics is the seemingly probabilistic nature of subatomic particles. In classical physics, the premise is that if one knows the values of a few basic properties of an object moving in space (such as mass, velocity, momentum, etc.) then one can precisely calculate, with certainty, the exact location of the object at any point in time, both in the past and in the future. This is not the case in quantum physics.

The phenomenon can be described, simplistically, as follows: imagine a particle moving in space in a straight line. If the particle would behave according to the laws of classical physics, then at any given moment we’d know the exact point in space where the center of the particle is located. In contrast, according to the laws of quantum physics, at any given moment the particle isn’t necessarily at the point that we are imagining, but rather somewhere within an imaginary sphere that surrounds the point that we are imagining. According to quantum theory, at such a moment we can know the probability of finding the particle at any particular point in the imaginary sphere, but no more than that. That is, at this scale, the laws of physics stop being deterministic and become probabilistic.

It should be noted that a significant minority of physicists believe that these phenomena do not necessarily indicate that the laws of nature are not deterministic; they also offer various interpretations of these findings alluding that there are still fundamental gaps in our understanding of the theory, and that in the end it will turn out that nature, even at this level, is always completely deterministic.

It should be emphasized that the above phenomena are among the most researched in the history of science, and although there are sharp disagreements among physicists as to how to interpret them, all physicists unequivocally agree that: (1) it’s impossible to know the position of a subatomic particle until it is measured, and; (2) the aforementioned “wave function” predicts the probability of finding a particular particle at a particular location extremely accurately.

In conclusion, the quantum phenomena described in this subsection imply that there is a real possibility that we will eventually discover that the building blocks of the material world are, in essence, abstract mathematical constructions. Thus, they too constitute evidence that suggests that matter emerges from a conscious or conscious-driven process.
______
The above evidence, together with the complete inability of science to explain how or why life and consciousness emerge from matter, show that there is a solid rational basis for examining the ontological view that matter emerges from consciousness .

Therefore, the remainder of the argument below will try, among other things, to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the evidence that supports the view that consciousness emerges from matter (i.e., the evidence that supports physicalism) and the evidence that supports the opposing view that matter emerges from consciousness.


6. The set of ontological views which portend that matter emerges from consciousness (or from a conscious-driven process) can be reduced to two main types of views: views that hold that life and human consciousness emerged or were formed spontaneously and unintentionally, and views that hold the opposite.

The following is a description of the views in each of these two subgroups, and an explanation why the remainder of the presented argument will examine only one of these views.

A. Views that hold that the universe was created by one or more conscious beings, but life and human consciousness emerged / formed spontaneously and unintentionally.

The improbability of these views can be illustrated by examining the possible nature, in terms of materiality, of human consciousness and of the consciousness of the creator(s) we are assuming (in this section) is responsible for creating the universe and the laws of nature (hereinafter: "the creator’s consciousness").

• First, if human consciousness and the creator’s consciousness are different in nature (i.e., one is material and one non-material) then there is a seemingly inexplicable discrepancy. Namely, why would a fundamentally new kind of consciousness emerge spontaneously and unintentionally for no reason. In this scenario, instead of having to explain one type of consciousness, a situation is created in which it is necessary to explain—for no apparent reason—the existence of two types of consciousness that are not related to each other in any way.

• Second, if human consciousness and the creator’s consciousness are both immaterial, then the question arises as to why the immaterial human consciousness would emerge or form spontaneously and unintentionally within matter? Beyond the extreme inherent improbability of this combination, in this scenario, the way human consciousness was formed is probably different from that of the creator’s (which is also immaterial), which, all things considered, most likely didn’t emerge spontaneously from matter. Overall, this scenario also seems highly unlikely.

• Finally, if human consciousness and the creator’s consciousness are both material, then there are three possibilities :

1) Our universe is just one universe in an endless chain of universes that are created by conscious beings, in a parent universe, whose consciousness emerged spontaneously from matter. // i.e., “turtles all the way down.”

2) The above chain of the universes is not infinite, and at the beginning of the chain there is a root universe—that was not created by a conscious creator—in which the consciousness of the first creator in the chain emerged spontaneously and unintentionally from matter.

3) Somewhere in the above chain of universes there was a universe in which material consciousness was deliberately created by a conscious creator.

The first possibility is not logical or reasonable, and the other two possibilities are, in fact, the other views regarding the possible sources of consciousness in our universe that are discussed later in this section and in other sections. The only difference is that in options 2 and 3, the source of the claimed consciousness is simply pushed back, needlessly, to some parent universe.

B. Views that life and human consciousness were deliberately created by one or more conscious beings.

Views in this group fall into two main subtypes: views that believe the universe was created by a god or gods (hereinafter: "theism"), and views that believe the universe is a computer-run simulation (hereinafter: "the simulation hypothesis").

As for theism, it should be noted that the vast majority of those who hold this view believe that the universe was created by one God (hereinafter: "monotheism"). Two-thirds of theists believe in one of the Abrahamic religions, and some of the factions of Hinduism are also (to the best of my knowledge) fundamentally monotheistic.

As stated, the coherent argument presented in this document is an argument for the existence of God and is consistent with the views of all monotheistic religions (certainly with the Abrahamic religions). It should be clarified that the remainder of the argument below will not address polytheistic religions due to lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding .

As for the simulation hypothesis, the main argument against it— beyond claims related to its recursive nature—is that the simulation hypothesis relies on the sub-hypothesis that consciousness, in essence, is some form of a very advanced artificial intelligence. This hypothesis holds that an artificial intelligence program (hereafter: "AI“) will inevitably become
conscious, at once, the moment its learning algorithm, the computational power available to it, and the amount of knowledge it succeeds in learning will pass certain levels of complexity, speed, and breadth .

The claim that artificial intelligence programs will eventually become conscious is largely based on the physicalist view that human consciousness emerges solely from matter and physical processes, and on the observation that the level of consciousness that exists in different types of animals depends on the complexity of their brains. However, an examination of how AI applications learn compared to how consciousness evolved in animals illustrates how fundamentally unfounded this claim is.

First, one must understand in principle how AI algorithms learn and think. By and large, it can be said that most AI applications related to learning / thinking are built on the basis of two main types of algorithms: (1) identification and/or classification of things (for example, software that can recognize faces in pictures or videos), and; (2) predicting a result (or performing a correct action) given a particular input (e.g., an application that provides a possible diagnosis given the existence of certain symptoms in a patient).

It should be emphasized that although there are a very wide variety of both algorithms and goals that AI algorithms aim to achieve, all types of AI learning require two main things:

1. The algorithms always require very large amounts of either input or experimental actions through which they can learn / practice how to achieve their goals.

2. The algorithms always require information about the input from which they learn, with the minimum being specifying what each individual input represents (or the result that the algorithm is expected to predict for that input). Most algorithms today also require additional human guidance in the form of pre-characterization of the components of each individual input .

It shall be emphasized again that although the more advanced algorithms do not require additional human guidance , all the algorithms always require that they be told what they are learning to recognize/predict or what action they are learning to perform. That is, the algorithms never choose the goals for themselves. They only—at most—learn to recognize patterns in the training data that can help them achieve the goals that were defined for them, when they run "in the field."

It should be further emphasized that even if an algorithm learns intermediate classifications (or intermediate operations), such as learning how to recognize claws while it trains/learns to identify cats, the algorithm will not use this knowledge for any goal that it wasn’t explicitly trained, programed, and configured to achieve, such as identifying dogs.

And if the algorithm happens to learn how to identify claws, it will not try to learn anything about claws beyond identifying that identifying claws is useful when trying to identify a cat. That is, even if an algorithm acquires knowledge that helps it perform a particular task, it will not define sub-goals, and it will only “understand” or be able to apply such knowledge in the context in which it is acquired .

In any case, there is no reason—not even the slightest—to think that an AI algorithm will suddenly develop its own will, and begin to set new goals on its own, just because it will be able to detect patterns at a rate above a certain threshold.

The absurdity of this point is especially evident when comparing the way a computer learns, and the reasons why, to the way in which animals learn, and the reasons why. Unlike a computer, whose goals are statically determined by the will of its programmers, the goals of animals, including learning goals, are both dynamically determined and collected on an ongoing basis. After all, in the end, the learning goals of animals are directly both derived from and driven by the reality that during every second of their lives, every molecule in their body is in danger of ceasing to exist (i.e., ceasing to live).

Therefore, any information processed by an animal will always be examined in relation to both achieving any of the open and ongoing goals it already set for itself (both consciously and unconsciously), and to potentially defining new goals. That is, inputs are always and continuously classified and evaluated according to subjective criteria such as being “interesting” or useful for other “good” purposes, including defining potential new goals .

It can also be said that every molecule in the bodies of animals constitutes a type of existential knowledge that has been learned, acquired, and perfected over the course of billions of years, starting from the beginning of life in single-celled organisms. That is, unlike a computer, in animals the learning processor itself is a type of specialized, purposeful knowledge that was learned and perfected for the sake of the overarching goals of survival and ensuring genetic continuity. Since death itself was a critical input in the evolutionary learning process that ultimately enabled consciousness to be realized, it can also be said that just this factor alone (the lack of learning from death) would prevent a computer from developing consciousness.

In conclusion, an examination of the evolutionary process clearly reveals that the will to live is what drove and advanced both the learning abilities and the consciousness of animals, and not the other way around. It is not at all clear why anyone would think that in AI the process would occur in reverse.

In light of this, and in light of all of the above, the remainder of the argument presented below will focus on comparing the two ontological views of reality that remain after disqualifying all the others: physicalism and monotheism.


7. Any ontological view of reality needs to address the main questions and events related to the creation of the universe, life, and consciousness that science does not know how to explain .

These phenomena and events include :

− What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it.
− What Is the explanation behind the seemingly improbable coincidence that dozens of the physical constants of nature all have the remarkably precise values that were necessary for life to emerge, evolve, and persist .
− How and why did life form / emerge from inanimate matter.
− How and why did consciousness form / emerge from physical and biological processes of living beings.

Below is a brief and simple description of a few background topics from the field of physics that are related to these questions.

A. Definitions.

In physics, the definitions and meanings of the terms matter, energy, and mass depend on context and therefore are not always clear. At the most basic level, it can be said that energy is defined as a property that expresses the ability to perform work, that matter is defined as anything has a mass that takes up volume in space, and that mass is defined as a property that expresses a degree of resistance to acceleration.

However, in Einstein's theory of relativity—one of the most successful, accepted and verified theories of science in history—things are a bit more complex. This theory teaches that mass and energy are in fact equivalent, that each can be expressed in terms and units of the other, and that each can be converted into the other. One could say that in this theory, mass is simply a type of condensed energy.

In light of the above, but also in accordance with the non-technical /non-scientific nature of this paper, the discussion below will use the following informal definitions:

• Matter with volume will be defined as anything that has mass that occupies volume in space .
• Energy will be defined as matter (or a component of matter) without volume that causes or can cause matter with volume to move in space . This paper will differentiate between only two types of energy: kinetic energy and potential energy, where kinetic energy refers to any form of non-potential energy.
• Free energy will be defined as energy that is not a component of matter with volume .
• Static matter will be defined as a matter with volume without kinetic energy. Or alternatively, as matter with volume that has only potential energy .
• Dynamic matter will be defined as matter with volume that has kinetic energy.
• Inanimate matter will be defined as non-living matter.
• A scientific particle will be defined as any basic unit of matter (with or without volume; such as a molecule, atom, proton, photon, etc.).
• An elementary particle will be defined as a subatomic scientific particle that is not composed of other scientific particles .
• The term particle (alone) will always refer to either one of the elementary particles of the standard model of particle physics, or a theoretical (single) elementary particle from which all known elementary particles are assumed to be composed.

As stated, this paper presents a philosophical argument and does not question the correctness of the laws of science, nor does it seek or portend to express a position regarding disagreements or competing theories within the scientific community. Accordingly, the descriptions below will seek to describe the scientific issues mentioned above in the minimum resolution required for the ontological discussion.


B. The Big Bang .

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the formation of the universe. According to this theory, about 13.8 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe expanded from a single point where gravity, density, and heat were infinite. It should be clarified that the term “the Big Bang” often is used in two slightly but meaningfully different contexts, so there is some confusion as to what is the exact event that this term refers to.

When used in the first, more general context, the term "the Big Bang" refers to an abstract event that occurred at the exact moment (hereinafter: "time-zero") in which all matter in the universe began to propagate from a theoretical point of zero dimensions. Since most scientists also believe that the universe is infinite (or at least that its possibly infinite), it can also be said that, in this case, the term describes the ultra-theoretical state (that is also undefined in physics), in which infinite matter spontaneously emerged from a single dimensionless point devoid of any volume. It should be emphasized that most scientists do not believe that this is what really happened, so in the remainder of this paper the term "the Big Bang" will refer to the second usage.

In the second, more accurate usage, the term "the Big Bang" refers to an event that occurred a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after time-zero (hereinafter: "time-zero-and-a-bit"), in which all matter in the universe grew from an infinitely tiny, but three-dimensional point. It should be emphasized that all scientists agree that it’s impossible to know, both empirically and theoretically, what happened before time-zero-and-a-bit, because before that time the laws of physics were not valid.

It should also be noted that although there is a consensus that the universe is larger than the observable universe, there is also a consensus that it’s impossible to know whether the universe is infinite or just very, very, very large. Since the observable universe contains 1088 (one and then eighty-eight zeros) subatomic particles, it cannot be said that the number of particles that expanded from the smallest point in the Big Bang was infinite, but rather only some number between 1088 and infinity (hereinafter: "a zillion") .

Therefore, for the remainder of the discussion below, we will define and describe the Big Bang in the following (simplistic) way:

Imagine an empty three-dimensional coordinate space marked with 3 imaginary axes (x, y, and z) that are perpendicular to each other and meet at the center of the space (at point 0, 0, 0). At the center of space is the smallest sphere (or cube) imaginable (hereinafter: "the-origin-sphere"), and within it there are (somehow) a zillion subatomic particles. So was the state of the universe at time-zero-and-a-bit.

Now imagine that this tiny sphere, and the even smaller distances between all the particles inside it, expand at once like a balloon, at a speed faster than the speed of light, while the sphere doubles in size more than 90 consecutive times in less than a fraction of a fraction of a second. At the end of the burst, the expansion of the sphere moderates significantly but continues, and the particles begin to behave according to the laws of nature .

That was the Big Bang.


C. The fine-tuning of the physical constants of nature.

The physical constants of nature are numbers that indicate the quantitative relationship between the properties of the entities and forces that the laws of nature describe that can only be known by measuring them. These constants include things like the weight of the subatomic particles, the relative strength of gravity and other basic forces, the speed of light, and so on. In contrast to something like the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, the values of the physical constants are quite arbitrary, and could have been any value that nature wanted to give them .

There are many scientists who believe that if the value of ANY one of several dozen physical constants of nature were only slightly different, the universe would have evolved completely differently, and life as we know it would not have been possible. For example, if the strong nuclear force were only slightly stronger, then hydrogen wouldn’t have formed, and the atomic nuclei of most of the elements essential to life would be unstable; and if it was only just slightly smaller, no elements heavier than hydrogen would have formed.

The improbable coincidence that so many physical constants would be so finely tuned to the existence of life in the universe is, essentially, the basis of the of the modern version of the teleological argument. However, it should be emphasized that unlike previous versions of the argument, many in the scientific community believe that it’s necessary to explain this coincidence, and as a result several scientific theories have been put forth that attempt to do so.


D. Time.

According to the Theory of Relativity, space and time are not independent entities but a continuum—a single, continuous fabric called space-time in which space and time are inextricably intertwined. Space-time spans the entire universe, and is the arena in which all the particles of matter exist and all the interactions between them take place .

Several characteristics of space-time have important physical and philosophical implications, including:

• Time is another dimension in which matter exists, which acts as a medium that allows for changes in the configuration of matter in space .
• Space-time is constructed in a way that ensures causality—i.e., a change cannot occur before its cause .
• Space-time is built in such a way that ensures that the laws of physics will always work the same way in any frame of reference.
• The concepts and definitions of time and distance are interdependent and relative to each other.
• The speed that time passes in a frame of reference is relative .

Physically, many aspects of space-time are very unintuitive and relatively confusing. Therefore, this topic will be presented below in two parts. The first part will describe a number of important physical properties of space-time. The second part will convey, in a way that is detached from the physical explanation but is more intuitive, the major philosophical aspects of time that are relevant to the remainder of the ontological discussion below.

Physical aspects of time

One way to describe the continuous nature of space-time is as follows:

• Free energy always moves in space at a constant speed called "c" (aka the speed of light);
• Static matter always advances in time at the same speed (i.e., also at speed "c");
• And dynamic matter always moves both in space and in time at an overall velocity "c”, which is divided in some way between its motion in space and its motion in time (i.e., the sum of the two velocities will always amount to “c").

Or in other words, everything in the universe is constantly advancing in space, in time, or in both simultaneously, at an overall speed of “c”; where matter with volume always advances in time, kinetic energy always moves in space, and all the other laws of physics basically describe what happens when matter with volume meets kinetic energy .

It should be emphasized that a fundamental characteristic of space-time, which is a direct result of it being constructed as a continuum, is that the speed of light is inherently the maximum speed that something can move in space.

To illustrate why this is so, let’s examine a continuum of a different kind—the continuum of shades of grey. At one end of this continuum there is a shade of grey, known as "white", where the ratio of whiteness to blackness is infinite. At the other end of this continuum there is a shade of grey, known as "black", where the ratio of blackness to whiteness is infinite. Every other point in the continuum is a shade of grey with a certain ratio between whiteness and blackness. In this example, it is quite clear that there can never be a shade of grey that is more white than white or more black than black. Black and white are the maximum because it’s impossible to be more than 100% black or 100% white.

Therefore, it can be said that the degree of blackness of all the letters in this sentence is maximal, and the degree of whiteness of all the spaces in the sentence is maximal as well. It can also be said that while the degree of blackness of the letters in this sentence is much lower, the sums of the degrees of blackness and whiteness of the letters in both sentences are equal .

Similarly, one can think of the velocity of matter in space as its degree of "whiteness," and the velocity of matter in time as its degree of "blackness." Because free energy progresses solely (with 100% "c”) in space, it can be said that its speed, which is known to be 300,000 km per second, is the maximum degree of whiteness. And just as it is impossible to be whiter than white, so too is it impossible to traverse space faster than 300,000 km per second .

It should be emphasized that the implications of there being a maximum speed of motion in space are enormous. First, by merging space and time in the manner described above, along with maintaining only mathematical laws, nature both ensures causality at the physical level, and allows for the continuous and structural existence of material objects. After all, if things could move in space at an infinite speed, then, among other things, objects would be able to appear or disappear spontaneously and randomly without any warning, objects would be able to be in infinite places at once, and so on .

The limiting of the speed of light also has several remarkable, and very unintuitive, physical consequences. For example, the faster an observer moves in space, the slower time will pass, and the shorter length measurements (in the motion’s direction) will be, for that observer. However, the observer will not feel that time passes more slowly, and the contraction in length that the observer experiences will always be just enough to make it appear that light continues to move in space at a speed of 300,000 km per second .

Finally, it should be noted that since everything always moves in space-time at a total constant speed "c", in Relativity there is no attempt to define or address the notion of “absolute time” (aka global time). Since the theory defines time as a component in a fabric that always adapts to ensure that the laws of physics always work the same way in every reference frame, measuring time in a reference frame inherently becomes dependent on its motion. It should be emphasized, however, that the Relativity does not at all refute the existence of absolute time. It’s just not required to explain physical processes, so the theory doesn’t address it.

Philosophical aspects of time

As stated, the astonishing and revolutionary explanations and insights of the Theory of Relativity regarding the physical nature of time are often extremely unintuitive. The lack of intuitiveness, including describing time from the physical aspect of an individual observer, along with the tendency of many to muddle mechanical and metaphysical aspects of time due to common terminology, often lead to erroneous philosophical conclusions. Therefore, the philosophical significance and meaning of the relative nature of time will be illustrated below through an imaginary scenario that, in my opinion, is easier to understand.

Time Flies Universe

Let's imagine that we have a special TV, and a special remote control, that allow us to observe a parallel universe that is very, very similar to ours. Below, we’ll call this parallel universe the Time Flies Universe.

When we turn on the TV, we see an entrance to a small town on this universe’s version of Earth. There’s also a clock that shows the time and date of what is happening on the screen in its top right corner.

Our remote has buttons that allow us to move within the space of this universe, and we use them to navigate into the town. After a few minutes of navigating within the town, we come upon a house with a sign at its entrance that reads "The Nano Family."

Using the remote, we navigate into the Nano family’s home and proceed until we reach their kitchen. We then press a button on the remote that saves the current time and place and set the remote aside.

On the TV we see that its 7:00 AM (on a date called X), and that at this time there are two teenage children sitting in the Nano family’s kitchen talking to each other while they eat breakfast.

For an hour we watch what transpires in the kitchen in the Nano family home and see many events that take place. During this hour, every member of the family passes through the kitchen Among other things, we see different preparations of breakfasts, conversations and arguments between family members, family members talking or fiddling with their cell phones, and so forth. At 8:00 AM, the last member of the Nano family leaves the kitchen, and by then we have managed to get a glimpse into lives and personalities of each member of the family.

In addition to the buttons on the remote that allow navigation in space, there’s an additional set of buttons that enable time navigation in this universe. Among these buttons there is an (especially) special button that allows us to navigate all the way back to the Big Bang of Time Flies Universe. We press this button, and then immediately press <Pause>, thus freezing what is happening a moment before this universe’s Big Bang.

We then press <Settings>, scroll through the options until reaching the setting <Speed-of-motion-in-space-time: “c”>, change its value to < x 2 >, and press <Select>. Finally, we press a button that returns the TV to the place and time that we saved as soon as we entered the Nano family kitchen .

Now you may be thinking: wait a second, nothing can move faster than the speed of light (i.e., "c"). And that's true. But, to remind you, “c” is not just the speed of light in space, it’s also the speed of static matter in time. That is, increasing “c” not only increases the speed of light in space, it also increases the speed of static matter in time by the same magnitude. Which means that the speed of light will remain 300,000 km per second, because, beside the fact that light will move twice as fast in space, static matter will also pass twice as fast in time (and therefore a second will pass, relative to us, twice as fast).

Anyway, on the TV screen (which is still paused) we again see the same two Nano family teenagers sitting in the kitchen at 7:00 AM on date X (as before). And when we press <Play>, we do in fact see that our introductory scene with the Nano family takes place twice as fast as it did the previous time. Just like it would appear if we changed the playback speed for a YouTube video. However, apart from the speed, every other aspect of what happens in the Nano family kitchen—the content of the conversations, the tones of speech, the facial expressions, etc.—is just as it was when we watched the scene the first time.

That is, the increased speed of everything in Time Flies Universe since its Big Bang did not affect how Nano family members experienced their lives at all, neither practically nor emotionally. And that’s because there wasn’t any change in the content of their lives. And as long as the speed change is global, they have no way of noticing it, because the relative speed of everything they’ve experienced in their lives remained constant. The speeds of everyone’s physiological and neurological processes also doubled .

After half an hour (in our time), the scene of getting to know the Nano family ends. We then press <Pause> again and decide to check what would happen if we increased the speed of motion in the universe (i.e., “c”) to 4 times the default speed. Only this time, before making the change, we don’t go all the way back to the Big Bang, but rather only to the beginning of the Nano family introductory scene (that we have saved). That is, this time we double the value of "c" (from times 2 to times 4) in the middle of the lives of the Nano family and all the other residents of Time Flies Universe.

However, this time too we see that apart from the fact that everything takes place twice as fast (as the previous viewing), there is no change in any other aspect of what happens in the introductory scene. Indeed, there really was no reason to go all the way back to the Big Bang to change the value of "c", because as long as the relative velocity of everything (relative to everything else) doesn’t change, no one can notice it.

Before we leave Time Flies Universe, some food for thought. Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion, that Time Flies Universe is: (1) A super-deterministic universe without any random element whatsoever, and; (2) An eternally cyclic universe.

/** As shall be elaborated below, a cyclical universe is an eternal universe whose existence is modulated by continual cyclic iterations, where each iteration begins with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch, which then immediately causes the Big Bang of the next iteration. **/

Now let's suppose we continue to increase the speed of motion (“c”) of Time Flies Universe, as we did above. First to 10 times the default speed, then to 100 times, then to a thousand times, to a million times, and so on, and so on, all the way to infinity. In doing this, we will have essentially created a situation where during every trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (etc.) of a second of our time, an infinite number of iterations of Time Flies Universe take place. And in
each of those iterations, the Nano family will always experience their lives just as they experienced them before we started to intervene.

/** One could say that the above is a description of an alternative type of "infinite now" or "block/frozen universe"; however, unlike the various block universes that these terms normally describe, in a block universe of the type described above there is never more than a single "now" taking place. **/


8. According to physicalism, there are four main possible scenarios that could have preceded the Big Bang.

1) Infinite zero point.
In this scenario, an infinite period passed between time-zero and time- zero-and-a-bit, in which the density of the-origin-sphere was somewhere between infinite and its density at time-zero-and-a-bit. That is, the zillion particles always existed, but they never crossed the boundary of the-origin-sphere at time-zero-and-a-bit.

2) The Big Crunch.
In this scenario, there was an earlier universe that existed before time-zero that collapsed due to gravity into the-origin-sphere [-- or, alternatively, expanded and decayed until it consisted only of timeless photons, at which point it became both conformally and practically equivalent to the-origin-sphere (since without time, the spatial distances between the photons become undefined and meaningless and essentially “collapse”) --]. And then, at time-zero-and-a-bit, the Big Bang that gave birth to the present universe took place.

This scenario includes a sub-scenario in which our universe and the previous universe are part of an infinite cycle of universes, in which each big crunch of an old universe is accompanied by a big bang of a new universe. It should be emphasized that in these scenarios all the universes are composed of the same zillion eternal particles.

3) Spontaneous quantum Creatio Ex Nihilo.
In this scenario, at time-zero there was nothing but a vacuum with a quantum field, and the universe was created from a combination of spontaneous quantum oscillation that created matter and anti-matter, and the massive expansion that characterizes the Big Bang. This scenario is based on:

(1) The theoretical explanation in quantum theory that spontaneous quantum oscillations in a vacuum produce pairs of matter and virtual antimatter particles, which immediately destroy each other. According to the theory, the energy required to create the particles is borrowed energy that is immediately returned upon their destruction, and the whole process is too fast to be measured.

(2) A mathematical model that describes the universe and matter before time-zero-and-a-bit (the period when the laws of physics are invalid) using "imaginary time" (time described by imaginary numbers which, unlike real-time, has no properties of beginning and end).

(3) The idea that the gravity of a substance is actually negative energy that balances the positive energy that is inherent in that substance.

By and large, one could say that this scenario assumes that the creation of the universe from nothing is a process that is possible because the laws of science allow nature to lend itself the energy needed to create matter whose total net energy level (positive and negative) is zero. And that this loan is not problematic because “real” time (mathematical real), which is the time we experience and which seems to us serial in nature, is actually contained by “imaginary” time (mathematical imaginary), in which every point in the “real” time axis exists simultaneously in a kind of "infinite now. "

I think this scenario is the most interesting, and not because it’s reasonable. As stated above, rationality allows the inference of truth only from existence of another truth and allows inferring existence only from a credible observation (or, reluctantly, from a reasonable assumption). Hence the prevailing view that there is not and cannot be anything less rational than creation ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothing). Many believe that all science is founded upon non-acceptance of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo .

The problem with this scenario, in terms of rationally, is that the scenario assumes (for some reason) that creation with an accounting balance between positive and negative energy, which can be described in mathematical language, is not considered creation. Its needless to say that from the observation that every physical process in nature maintains the law of conservation of energy one cannot conclude that something can be created out of nothing so long as the creation, when completed, will be energetically balanced. As stated, the truth that a mathematical model describes—sophisticated and elegant as it may be—cannot surpass the truth of the assumptions on which the model is based .

Therefore, this scenario can be considered either a sub-scenario of the first scenario, in which all the particles always existed (in some form) within the quantum field until time-zero, or a sub-scenario of the next scenario.

4) True spontaneous Creatio Ex Nihilo.
In this scenario, all the particles were spontaneously created for no reason, out of nowhere, at some time in the period between time-zero and time-zero-and-a-bit. This scenario is the embodiment of irrationality by definition. As stated above, according to rationality, truth is existence, and truth can only be deduced from either a credible observation or from another truth by way of logic or mathematics. In this scenario, existence is derived from certain non-existence by definition. Existence derived from non-existence is equivalent to truth being derived from untruth, which is obviously irrational.


9. According to physicalism, there are two main possible explanations for the highly unusual, and seemingly improbable, fine tuning of the physical constants of nature.

1) Our universe is just one of a zillion universes.
There are two main scenarios where this explanation is valid. In the first, described in the previous section, our universe is the last in an infinite cycle of universes that are formed in a Big Bang that occurs immediately after a Big Crunch of a previous universe. In the second scenario, which could be a sub-scenario of any of the scenarios listed in the previous section, the Big Bang created not only our universe, but also a zillion other independent and unrelated universes, which separated from each other during the initial expansion.

The (apparent) fine tuning of our universe is explained by the fact that in each created universe, the values of the physical constant of the laws of nature are determined randomly and independently of their values in parallel or previous universes. Since, in this explanation, zillions of universes are created, the formation of a universe with physical constants that allow life to emerge and evolve is highly likely and perhaps even inevitable.

2) We’re really, really lucky.
According to this explanation, which is relevant for any scenario where our universe is not just one out of many, the constants of nature are what they are, and although there may seem to have been an infinitesimal chance for them to turn out as they did, one day there may be an explanation why their values came out suitable for life.


10. Physicalism's explanations for the origins and essence of life and consciousness are based more on faith than on reason.

According to physicalism, the first living beings were formed spontaneously from inanimate matter as the conditions on Earth matured to enable life; and this is due to reasons that, although currently unknown, will become evident in the future. Physicalism also maintains that consciousness emerged spontaneously when the process of natural selection created an organism that exceeded a certain threshold of complexity.

As stated above, according to Relativity, energy (without mass) moves only in space, mass (at rest) moves only in time, and all other laws of physics are basically just a collection of mathematical models that describe what happens when energy meets mass. It should be emphasized that there is no reason to think that the conduct dictated by these models is what caused some group of particles to start behaving entirely according to subjective aims.

It should further be emphasized that these aims include not only a kind of “will” to maintain the integrity of the particle group and its ability to operate as a single unit, but also the desire of the group to replicate its configuration for a next generation. This is a phenomenon that is radically different, at the most fundamental level, from the behavior of inanimate matter, which as stated is characterized by the blind obedience of scientific particles to the mathematical laws of physics and chemistry.

The argument that life necessarily arose from inanimate matter as a result of the blind obedience of matter particles to the mathematical laws of physics is further undermined in the face of the absolute inability of science to create any kind of life from inanimate matter. Scientists haven’t even been able to return life to inanimate matter that was once alive .

Even if we assume that primitive life is, in fact, an expression of some kind of mathematical loop that replicates itself before it disintegrates, there is no reason to think that a random variation of such a loop will develop in a manner such that its physical complexity will make it aware of its existence and its environment and cause it to have desires regarding its existence. Such an assertion would mean that subjectivity is essentially mathematical in nature .

It should be emphasized that this conclusion is not logical, reasonable, or inductive in any way, shape, or form. Nor does it have any theoretical basis, or any inspiration of any kind whatsoever, that is not heavily and perhaps even entirely based on faith. This is because there is no truth or credible observation from which such a conclusion can be drawn. Needless to say, science has also failed to create anything that comes close to resembling subjective consciousness, nor to provide an explanation as to what causes it.


11. In conclusion, the ontological view of physicalism is founded on:

the eternal existence of zillions of particles, and zillions of universes (serial or parallel), that behave according to zillions of permutations of a single set of physical laws (which by chance and to our good fortune are entirely causal and mathematical), where every particle always obeys the same single permutation of laws by which its universe operates;

on several colossal leaps of faith in which the three most important events in the birth of our existence are explained as spontaneous miracles that occurred for no reason or purpose, with the hope that they might be better explained someday in the future;

and on the axiom that every phenomenon in the universe is fully explained by physical processes that are subject to the laws of nature (without understanding how or why they work), except for the formation of the universe itself—which was driven by a process that completely and crudely violated the most certain, tested, and credible law of nature recognized by humanity—and several undefined phenomena at the paradigm’s edges that were excluded from it.

Could be. We indeed may have to accept that, given what we know, it’s simply not possible at this time to draw a more complete or coherent explanation, that the above is the most plausible explanation that reason allows, and therefore, for now, we have no choice but to base large parts of the picture on faith. C'est la vie.

Except, the remainder of the argument presented below will show that this is not the case.


12. The simplest universe that can exist or that can be imagined is a zero-dimensional universe.

A zero-dimensional universe is a universe with a single point that has no dimensions such as length, width, or depth. And since there is also no dimension of time, the state of this dimensionless point also cannot change. If nothing exists in the single point, then the universe effectively does not exist; because the lack of a dimension of time means that the absolute non-existence in the universe will not change .

But what could possibly exist in a point without dimensions? Maybe an idea? An abstraction? But an abstraction of what? An abstraction always abstracts something else, and in this case, there is nothing else by definition. Because if the abstraction occupies the only point in the universe, then there’s no room left for anything else.

So, it can’t be an abstraction. Perhaps a particle of free energy? After all, it was stated above that free energy is matter without volume. But free energy is mass in motion that is equivalent to stationary mass with volume, and only because of its motion it has no volume. In a zero-dimensional universe, of course, there is no concept of motion because there is no place where it can occur.

In fact, there is only one thing that could exist in a zero-dimensional universe, and it also happens to be the only thing we can be certain exists in general—consciousness .

It should be noted that, in terms of an ontological explanation of reality, there really can be no more plausible starting point than the simplest universe imaginable in which the only thing that exists is the only absolute truth that each of us knows is true for certain.

Or in other words, there can be no more logical axiom for an ontological argument than the phenomenon we all view as the embodiment of the truth, whose origin and essence are also, coincidently, not understood or explained by science at all (not even in the slightest).


13. A conscious entity in a zero-dimensional universe would discover mathematics and logic.

Since it’s difficult for us to conceptualize eternality and existence in the absence of time, let’s put these aspects of a zero-dimensional universe aside for a moment and try to think about what a conscious entity in a zero-dimensional universe (hereinafter: “the entity”) would think "at first." That is, we’ll assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that there was a moment when the entity first began to think.

As stated, a conscious entity is aware of its existence. That’s essentially the definition. Since awareness of existence inherently includes the ability to distinguish between existence and non-existence, it follows that a conscious entity also inherently understands the concepts of truth, falsehood, equality, and negation. That is, a conscious entity inherently knows that "I exist" is true, and that "I do not exist" is false.

Given that, at least in “the beginning,” the entity would only know that it existed, it’s highly likely and reasonable to assume that the first thing the entity would think about is what it would be like if it didn’t exist. On the face of it, it really doesn’t seem like there would be any other options.

Once the entity would imagine that it ceased (and then returned) to exist, it would recognize that it could then relate to two (theoretical) “eras” of its existence. From here it’s easy to see how thinking about theoretical sequences of existence and non-existence would lead the entity to discover: numbers, series, sequences, length, and in general how a sequence of zero dimensional points—where each point can be assigned a value of existence or non-existence (1 or 0, for example)—can represent existence in a continuous one-dimensional space.

As stated above, math and logic are just tools that allow a conscious entity to describe truth (or theoretical truth) and to deduce truth from truth (or from an assumption of truth).

Of course, the entity would understand that, in actuality, it exists in all the points in the one-dimensional axis described above that it conceptualized. However, it’s likely that through this kind of thinking, the entity would quickly realize that it could also conceptualize its “universe” as a multidimensional space, that consists of an infinite number of continuous zero-dimensional points, where it simply exists in all the points that make up the space.

That is, instead of thinking of its universe as a zero-dimensional space in which it exists in its only point, since only it exists, the entity could just as easily conceptualize its universe as a two-dimensional space (for example) in which it exists in all its infinite points.

But why would it do that? That is, why would the entity think (for example) of its universe as a plane instead of just as a point? Because by doing so it could imagine (falsely) that it exists only in some of the points of the space, and that, for example, could allow it to "draw" various geometric shapes, including those that might give it pleasure.

Let’s not forget that consciousness also, and perhaps even primarily, has a subjective aspect that is irrational. Drawing or making and playing music or animation are just some examples of actions that could generate subjective pleasure that the entity could enjoy by conceptualizing its universe as a multidimensional space, and employing its imagination.


14. A conscious entity in a zero-dimensional universe would have infinite computing power.

The infinite computational power that the entity would have can be explained as follows: First, it should be noted that computational power is just a measure of computational density with respect to time. The computing power of a computer is greater than ours due to its ability to perform a very large number of calculations in a very short amount of time. The superior computational power of a computer is mainly due to its physical composition, which enables it to transfer information between its components at a much higher speed than is possible in the brains of people.

However, keep in mind that time and speed are relative concepts. In the discussion about time above, it was shown that the speed of motion in space-time (“c”) is in fact arbitrary, and that time and distance are always defined relative to one another. To illustrate this, it was also shown how an infinite number of iterations of Time Flies Universe could take place in a fraction of a fraction of a second (in our universe) if its speed of motion (which, as stated, is arbitrary and imperceptible) was high enough.

These things make it clear that, in the end, time is just a medium that allows a variety of causal changes in matter to occur at rates that are relative to one another, and that these rates are derived from the relative velocities of objects in space.

But in a zero-dimensional universe there is no matter, no distance, no speed, and no time. One way to think about this point is that for "free" consciousness, which does not require a physical medium in order to exist or function, performing a calculation no longer requires different materials to travel various distances in space. The logical and mathematical sequences that make up the calculation (i.e., the sequences of technical steps that are performed to realize the calculation) are simply realized at infinite speed (similar to how what was happening in a fully accelerated Time Flies Universe would seem to us).

A second way of thinking about this point is that even if in order to perform a calculation information movement is required in some way, in a zero-dimensional universe there is only a single point, and therefore the maximum distance that something could ever be required to travel is always zero. Motion over zero distance is equivalent to motion with infinite speed, which inherently leads to infinite instantaneous computational power (certainly from our perspective).

15. The effects of the absence of time on the subjective aspect of a conscious entity in a zero-dimensional universe are less clear than its effect on its rational aspect. However, it is not unreasonable to think that the eternality of the entity might dilute its ability to feel deeply, meaningfully, or satisfactorily.

While it is relatively easy to understand the infinite computing power that an eternal entity would have (in a zero-dimensional universe), it is difficult and perhaps even impossible to assess how eternality would affect the entity emotionally or sensationally. Here is one hypothesis that is presented solely to illustrate this angle.

It was written above that the combination of the entity's ability to distinguish between existence and non-existence, together with its conceptualization of its universe as a multidimensional space and its imagination, would allow it to create drawings and animations that could, perhaps, evoke subjective feelings in it.

However, as also described above, it is reasonable to think that an eternal being would feel every finite period as through it passes infinitely fast; That is, immediately or near instantaneously. Therefore, it is also likely that any finite motion that the entity would imagine would be sensed or felt as if it occurring at infinite speed. For similar reasons, it can also be assumed that the eternality of the entity would also make it difficult for it to subjectively conceive concepts such as length.

From this It follows that an eternal being could perhaps only conceive measurements in a multidimensional space relatively, and that the only way that it could seemingly be able to sense spatial constructions, deeply and meaningfully, would be from a point of reference from within it.

For example, let’s assume that the entity would imagine a two-dimensional space, with a triangle moving in a circular orbit around a rectangle. As mentioned, due to its eternality, any speed that the entity would imagine would (seemingly) be sensed or felt as if the triangle was orbiting the rectangle at infinite speed. Now let’s assume that the entity would also imagine that there was another triangle moving around the rectangle, but in a different orbit and at a speed twice that of the first triangle.

In this situation, even if the ratio between the two infinite velocities of the triangles made it easier for the entity to feel aesthetic meaning, the fact that the duration of the animation would be finite would (or might) mean that any positive feeling the animation could evoke in the entity would (or might) barely be felt.

What would seemingly enable the entity to sense and feel the animation in a much more significant way would be if the entity would be able to observe the motion of the fast triangle from the point of view of the slow triangle.

After all, from the perspective of the slow triangle, the speed of the fast triangle isn’t infinite, but rather only twice its own speed. Thus, by changing its frame of reference, from a point of reference in which time is not defined, and therefore infinite, to a point of reference in which time is defined (after all, speed is an expression of time), the entity would be able to feel things longer and more meaningfully.

It is important to emphasize that the veracity of this hypothesis, about how an eternal being (perhaps) might sense and feel motion and length within a multidimensional space it imagines, is not at all important. This section was presented only to illustrate one possible aspect or expression, which is relatively easy to convey and understand, of the principle described in the next section.


16. A conscious entity in a zero-dimensional universe would understand that the way to maximize meaning and enjoyment of existence is by limiting it.

The hypothesis described in the previous section was brought to help understand why the entity would come to understand what—with a little thought—should also be clear to each of us. Namely, that nearly every single positive feeling or sensation that we experience during our lives—every physical pleasure, every positive emotion, whether internal or towards others, every sense of achievement, overcoming, satisfaction, or victory, every discovery and every initial understanding about life, both those we experience ourselves and those that we’ll experience through our children and grandchildren, every sense of justice, of goodness, of morality, and of meaning—all of them stem directly from the fact that:

1) Life is limited.
2) Life can end at any given moment.
3) There are causal, consistent, and immutable physical laws that define how the environment behaves and what is required so that we can continue to live as long as possible.
4) We have free will and the ability to influence the environment in accordance with those physical laws.


17. Despite the potential meaning and enjoyment that would arise if the entity would be able to create a causal environment in which some it could limit, divide, and / or recycle its existence or consciousness, there would appear to be several insurmountable barriers and truths that seemingly make such an idea impossible.

First, the most significant barrier is undoubtedly the uncompromising and unyielding truth that, in a zero-dimensional universe, only a zero-dimensional entity can exist, and if it exists, then it—necessarily—always has existed, always will exist, and nothing aside from it can exist in its universe. Ever. That’s the definition.

Zero Dimensional means no changes. Rational means nothing comes from nothing. Not based on faith essentially means it’s either physicalism (or so we might have thought), consciousness, or this paper is just wasting everyone’s time.

Second, even if the entity would imagine that there were other things that exist beside it, they wouldn’t be real. Again, by definition. That’s why it’s called imagination and not reality, which is what this paper is purporting to explain. Like those listed above, this truth too is strongly rooted in a universally accepted, fundamental definition that is essential to framing the assertions that this paper is attempting to prove.

On the face of it, there really seems to be no possible path that can get us from A to B authentically.


18. Yet here we are, the proof is nearing its conclusion, and given that this is an argument which purports to logically prove the existence of God, it’s probably pretty clear that the discussion about zero dimensional entities and universes was not presented to serve some theoretical academic purpose, but to prove something real in our very real four-dimensional world. So what gives? How do we get from A to B given all the constraints?

Let's go back for a moment to the mental picture we described above where we imagined the moment before the Big Bang. To remind you, in this picture we imagined an (essentially) empty three-dimensional coordinate space, with the smallest sphere imaginable located at its center, at point (0, 0, 0). We said that this tiny sphere represented the universe at time-zero-and-a-bit, just before the zillion particles that were crammed into it began their eternal and mostly deterministic motion through space and time (or more precisely, through space-time).

Now let's run, in our minds, the Big Bang once again. Only this time, instead of imagining that every particle in the sphere represents a point in space where matter exists, let’s imagine that every particle in the sphere simply represents a point in space—where God does not exist.

Or, in other words: And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


19. The following is a variation of the classic cosmological argument that is derived from everything presented so far.

1) Truth is existence (at a point in time) or a sequence of progressive configurations of existence (over a period of time); Truth can only be derived from another truth by way of logic, mathematics, and to a slightly lesser extent, from a consistent credible/scientific observation.

2) I exist means I am true. Since truth can only be derived from another truth, it necessarily follows that there is at least one truth that has always existed, at least up to a finite point in the past (hereinafter: "truth without beginning”).

3) Creation ex nihilo (i.e., creating something from nothing) is irrational by definition and can only occur in the imaginations of conscious beings; any meaning (or absence of meaning) that is created from creation ex nihilo is always and necessarily subjective to a conscious being.

4) A truth without beginning was not created ex nihilo by definition and therefore constitutes a certain objective truth; any truth derived from an objective truth is also not created ex nihilo, and therefore it too constitutes an objective truth.

5) A truth that is based on subjective definitions or assumptions, or that is derived from creation ex nihilo, or which only exists in the imagination or thoughts of conscious beings is a subjective truth; A subjective truth that is common to every competent (and interested) conscious being exposed to it is a certain truth in practice (so long as it is not refuted).

6) The claim that matter and the laws of nature are the only objective truths, and that my consciousness was created due to some change in the configuration of inanimate matter means that my consciousness—which is radically different, both functionally and in its essence, than any other configuration of inanimate matter—was created ex nihilo. This claim is irrational.

7) On the other hand, my consciousness exists with certainty; my consciousness was created together with my material brain that also exists with (near) certainty; and my consciousness cannot exist without my material brain.

There is only one rational explanation that can reconcile all the above facts and truths, namely:

• That my consciousness is an absolute truth.
• That my consciousness is a created truth.
• That my consciousness could not have been created, ex nihilo, as a result of a change in the configuration of inanimate matter .
• That the formation and existence of my consciousness was and still is dependent on my material brain.
• And that the existence of the material world seems almost as real as my consciousness.

And that is that the only objective truth is that there is a single conscious entity that has always existed, that this entity created matter not in a process of something from nothing, but in a process of nothing from something (i.e., the elementary particles of matter represent perpetually moving points of non-existence within God), and that matter doesn’t create my consciousness but rather only delimits and differentiates it from God’s, thereby enabling my existence as a derived but independent entity.

Or in other words: the only possible rational explanation for the existence of a reality in which my consciousness is an absolute certain truth and nature is a certain consistent truth, is that nature is—in its essence—eternal, rationally dynamic non-existence that was created ex nihilo in the mind / imagination of an eternal conscious entity, as a means to demarcate, modulate, and limit / recycle parts of his / her consciousness, for the purpose of enriching his / her existence (since limitation and stakes enable meaning, pleasure, and love).

/** It should be noted that, ontologically, "existence" (or non-existence) within the imagination or mind of a zero-dimensional entity is equivalent to existence (or non-existence) within the entity itself. In this case there is no difference. **/

[NOTE: I will post part two in either the first reply to this post or, if that doesn't work, in a separate post.]

[Manny Blander]

20. Below are some personal comments, thoughts, and insights on reality in relation to the monotheistic idealism paradigm that was presented above (hereinafter: “the paradigm"), along with some of the conclusions, implications, and explanations that (in my opinion) can be derived and deduced from it.

1) The laws of conservation of physics, the constant expansion of the universe, the constant motion of everything in space-time, and the macroscopic and statistical determinism of the laws of science.

As stated above, according to the paradigm, every elementary particle in the universe constitutes a point in space-time where God does not exist (hereinafter, collectively: "non-existence particles") .

With respect to the paradigm, the implications and meaning of the scientific characteristics of reality that are listed in the subsection title include:

• That the aggregate number of non-existence particles in space-time does not change.
• That all the non-existence particles are in constant motion and as a result no non-existence particle is ever located at any particular point in space or time (beyond a one-time transit).
• And that at any given moment the possible location of each particle in space-time is extremely limited due to its subordination to the laws of nature.

Furthermore, as elaborated earlier, the afore-listed scientific characteristics of the non-existence particles are what enable the creation of a reality ex nihilo that can be credible to any consciousness that is derived (through them) from the consciousness of God. This is because, in the paradigm, reality is founded upon non-existence (and not on the existence of
something new) that is at once "imaginary" (to God, but is real to our consciousness since the particles of non-existence are what delimit it in the first place), eternal, and is in constant motion (relative to all that exists, i.e., God) that is governed by well-defined laws.

That is, the following three facts together:

• That physical reality was created ex nihilo by an irrational conscious function (of a super-consciousness that contains ours);
• That physical reality delimits and enables the individual consciousness of every human being (and every animal);
• And that physical reality is eternal, consistent, and deterministic;
are what allow reality to be a completely rational truth to us.

❖ Note: It is possible that the constant motion of non-existence particles is necessary (beyond in order to implement time) because only in this manner could they be created in a way that would be "real.” That is, because being real requires permanence, and because, in actuality, God exists in every point of every dimension in the universe, (perhaps) the only way to create eternal non-existence particles is to require and ensure that they always be in perpetual motion. This way, the particles will always exist—or, more accurately, will always not exist—without actually ever not existing in any individual point .

These things, together with the necessity of deterministic (or probabilistic) laws of nature in order to both realize and limit of our existence, and the necessity of free will and causality in order to provide meaning to our existence, illustrate well why it’s reasonable to presume that—as a rule—the last thing God would ever seem to want would be for the particles to move in space-time contrary to the laws of nature. It simply defeats the purpose.

Similarly, these points also illustrate the seaming necessity of evolution for human creation. On the face of it, it’s extremely reasonable to believe that building the human body through a rational "technology" was, and is, essential to provide the authenticity needed both to delineate and demarcate human consciousness to begin with, and to enable reality to feel real to the delineated consciousness, and from there, to feel real to God. And this, as stated above, is the whole purpose to begin with (at least the one that can be understood).


2) The psyche, temperament, and values of human beings.

The differences in temperaments and value scales among people can be better understood and explained (in my opinion) by first understanding how the dual nature of God—as expressed in the paradigm—enables, constitutes, and drives reality.
There are many expressions of the dual nature of God, in the paradigm, but in the end they all stem from two main types of dualistic essences:

1. That God is at once both a discrete, zero-dimensional, singular entity and a continuous, multidimensional, infinite entity.
2. The rational and irrational essences of conscious existence.

As stated, God's purpose in creating reality (which can be understood) is to modulate parts of his/her consciousness in order to add meaning, pleasure, and love to his/her existence. This modulation, which is driven by the irrational essence of God, is realized through discrete particles of matter that move in space-time in accordance with and subject to the rational laws of nature. That is, the rational aspect of God acts to allow the irrational aspect of God (or at least parts of it) to exist in temporal, autonomous, material beings.

Accordingly, and as shall be further elaborated below, it can be said that in terms of temperament, a person's psyche is composed of a variety of independent psychological traits and functions (hereinafter: "temperamental factors") each of which characterizes an aspect of his personality whose expression is defined by a particular location on a continuum between two opposing and complementary perspectives of reality:

▪ One perspective that focuses on the objective aspects of consciousness and reality; and in particular on the division and demarcation of God's consciousness into distinct, temporal being and entities, and on contending with the resulting fragility of life (hereinafter: "the realistic perspective").

▪ A second perspective that focuses on the subjective aspects of consciousness and life; and to a large extent on the subjective wellbeing of any form of life that is created as a result of the aforementioned division of God’s consciousness (hereinafter: "the humanistic perspective").

An examination of the expression of a variety of temperamental factors, in accordance with each of these two perspectives, reveals that the spectrum they define essentially represents the degree of importance a person (or a component of a person’s temperament) attributes to setting and recognizing boundaries.

Or rather, it reveals that the realistic-humanistic continuum defined above represents degrees of focus on the aspects of reality related to the demarcation and differentiation of discrete entities in the environment through non-existence particles, the limitations and temporal nature of these entities, and, as a result, the fragility of life and threats to it.


The Realistic Perspective

The realistic perspective is characterized by and attaches importance to:

rational thinking (including logic and mathematics); structure; classification, organization and order; science and the scientific method; truth; facts and details; reliability; identity and individuality (both of groups and of individuals within the groups); limitations; consequences; laws, obeying laws, and enforcing laws; skepticism and caution; efficiency; discipline and perseverance; authority and hierarchy; responsibility; competition; nationalism and patriotism; proven methods; tradition and lessons of history; the family unit; risk management; loyalty; personal and national security; and so on;

These characteristics are derived from the following aspects of reality that are related to the demarcation, differentiation, and identification of entities in space, recognizing and understanding the way these entities operate and interact in the environment, and the essence and implications of their limited and temporal nature:

▪ Existence is a truth, and temporal existence is a truth derived from another truth. Mathematics and logic, as mentioned, are tools to describe and understand how truth can be derived from an existing truth (and only from an existing truth). Mathematics, as also mentioned, is also always based on premises that presume the existence of distinct (and thus bounded) entities and objects that the user defines and identifies.

/** One can see how mathematics, fundamentally, is based on the division and delimitation of space (and objects in space) in that when Mathematicians discovered numbers that could not be represented by dividing two other numbers, the new numbers were termed "irrational". **/

▪ The laws of nature—which describe how matter and energy delimit the boundaries of discrete, temporal entities (inanimate and living) within a continuous space—are, as stated, completely mathematical, consistent, and immutable.

▪ The entire material world is founded on distinct physical entities that are formed by the organization of scientific particles in hierarchical structures and the deterministic laws that govern the interactions between these structures: atoms of different elements are made up of different configurations of elementary particles, molecules are made up of groups of atoms, molecular compounds are made up of different configurations of elements, and so on .

▪ Life on Earth has also evolved, and subsists, on the basis of the organization of biological structures in a hierarchical manner, starting from individual cells and up to the formation of different species and the position of humans at the top of the food chain.

▪ An examination of the elements of reality that enable the formation and motion of discrete entities in a continuous, infinite space reveals why purposefulness and the pursuit of closure are also characteristics of the realistic perspective .

It should be emphasized that realizing the differentiation and motion of a discrete entity in a continuous, infinite space is not at all trivial (as illustrated by Zeno's paradox) and can probably only be realized relatively (in a continuum such as space-time), using quantum particle “jumps" (as described above). In fact, the whole existence of reality is only possible thanks to the purposeful mechanism that allows the infinite space that exists between any two points in space-time to be treated as something discrete (or more precisely, as a sequence of one or more adjacent discrete units).

That is, the whole of reality is essentially based on slicing a continuous infinite space into discrete units (of relative measurement), which (if you think about it) is pretty much the epitome of decisiveness, practicality, and getting things done.

▪ The points above also explain why the realistic perspective tends to focus on what distinguishes different entities from one another, and in particular on the qualities and skills that distinguish people from one another. And why it often focuses on organizing entities and people in a way that maximizes and leverages their unique qualities in order to advance a variety of goals with maximum efficiency.

▪ These characteristics, along with its focus on the fragility of life and the limited resources that are essential for prolonging and protecting life, explain why finding and creating security through group organization, as well as anything related to competition, also characterize the realistic perspective.


The Humanistic Perspective

In contrast to the realistic perspective, which focuses on the boundaries that divide parts of God's consciousness to create beings with a limited existence, the humanistic perspective does not attach importance to these boundaries, but focuses on what the boundaries delineate, and on the overarching purpose why our existence was limited to begin with. If the realistic perspective focuses on the skeleton on which reality is composed, then the humanistic perspective focuses on its flesh.

Or in other words, the humanistic perspective focuses on the condition and the enrichment of the human soul. Of every human’s soul. And sometimes also those of animals. And this is, in part, because the humanistic perspective intuitively feels that just as parts of God's consciousness are distributed among all of us, so too he/she experiences his/her existence through all of us as well.

And so, while the realistic perspective tends to focus on the things that distinguish people, on efficiency, and on the truth, the humanistic perspective tends to focus on what is common between people, on harmony, and on the way.

In light of all this, and in light of its inherent aversion to boundaries (or at least its tendency not to focus on them), the humanistic perspective is characterized by and attaches importance to:

irrationality (including imagination and creativity); empathy; harmony; peace; emotions of all kinds; equality and flattening of hierarchies; communication of any kind; compassion; beauty and aesthetics; culture, entertainment, and music; interpersonal relationships; love of all kinds; mental flexibility and openness; the big picture; tearing down / cleansing corrupt institutions; nurturing and protecting the weak; theory and research; change; curiosity; possibilities; innovation; criticism; taking risks; optimism and potential; spirituality; mysticism; and so on.

Components of a person's temperament

As mentioned, there are a variety of psychological attribute and functions that, together, shape a person's temperament and personality. Where in every person, each of these features and functions is characterized by its relative position in the realistic-humanistic continuum described above, or in a specific derived continuum that pertains to a specific attribute or function. Below, the position of a person's temperamental factor in the realistic-humanistic continuum (or in a derived continuum) will be called the temperament score of the factor.

It should be noted that there are many models, both in the field of psychology and in the field of mysticism, that purport to precisely define the quantity and identity of all temperamental factors. However, it should be emphasized that, in the context of this discussion, the precise quantity and identity of these factors is not at all important. The manner in which the score of each temperamental factor is determined is also not important.

What is important, in this discussion, is that there are a considerable number of temperamental factors, that the temperamental score of each temperamental factor is determined independently of the score of any other temperamental factor, that biology probably has a certain influence (not a large one, in my opinion) in determining some temperamental scores, and that each temperament score is also determined randomly. It should be noted that biological effects beyond sex, as far as they exist, are also determined mostly randomly (or quasi-randomly).

It should also be noted that every person always expresses and exercises both the realistic and the humanistic aspects of all the factors of his or her temperament. The difference between people is only in the degree in which different parts of their personality prefer and focus on one of the perspectives.

For example, it is clear, on the one hand, that every person understands both that truth can only be derived from truth (including scientific truth), and that harmony among people is necessary for civilization to exist. On the other hand, it is equally clear that when people must make a decision, some will tend to put more emphasis on logical thinking, while others will tend to put more emphasis on maintaining social harmony.


3) Diversification of human temperaments in order to maximally leverage humanity's abilities, and as an engine for building civilization.

There are several reasons why, in my opinion, humanity was built on the basis of mechanisms that ensure maximum temperamental variation among people, and why all of temperament scores of each person are always determined randomly and independently. And this is in contrast to a situation, for example, where all the temperamental scores of all people were always balanced.

A) Expanding the collective perspective.

The random and independent determination of temperamental scores described above results in a maximal distribution of temperament scores across individuals, and consequently, it also results in maximal variability of temperament across individuals.

One of the profound meanings of maximum temperamental variation among people, which is explained, in part, by what is described in the next paragraph, is that every person develops a unique perspective of reality; and as a result, the collective perspective of reality available to all humanity is significantly increased.

B) Increasing the collective skill.

From the above discussion it follows that most of the temperamental factors of most people are not balanced to one degree or another (i.e., they tend to be either more realistic or more humanistic). It should be emphasized that an unbalanced temperamental factor means the more its score leans towards one perspective, the more the temperamental factor will be expressed in a manner that corresponds to that perspective .

And so it happens that from a young age people will tend to develop behavioral skills (social ,
cognitive and practical) in a manner and to the extent that allows them to express each factor of their temperament according to its score .

However, it should be noted that the zero-sum nature of continuums in general, and of the realistic-humanistic continuum in particular, means that excessive practice, development, and expression of a temperamental factor according to one perspective will always come at the expense of its practice, development, and expression according to the other perspective.

The fact that people's temperaments are unique and unbalanced also leads to people developing functions and behavioral skills in a correspondingly unique and uneven manner. This is why everyone has a unique personality and a unique set of skills, which are thereby also directed and tailored to unique aspects of life .

That is, the temperamental diversity among people drives and causes different people to specialize in different areas and aspects of life. In doing so, it also enables communities, and humanity as a whole, to achieve levels of understanding and skill—in every field and aspect of life—that are far greater than if everyone had the same temperament.

C)Driving the construction and design of human civilization.

As mentioned above, one of the conclusions of the coherent argument presented above is that matter is a type of rational non-existence that was created by God, in an irrational process, for the purpose of regulating, demarcating, and limiting parts of his/her consciousness. It was further mentioned that the rational, consistent, and immutable behavior of matter is required so that the non-existence that defines it, which is fundamentally not something rational by definition, will be real and authentic.

Accordingly, and in simpler words, it is possible and correct (in my opinion) to view the entire history of the universe—starting from the Big Bang and up to today—as a process in which God is building his / her home. A process that while, in my opinion, is not yet complete, is relatively close to it. This process can be divided into three clear and distinct stages:

1. Building the universe. The first stage—which ended with the formation of the conditions required to sustain life on Earth—was initiated by the Big Bang, was driven by the continued motion of the elementary particles, and was shaped by the laws of physics and chemistry.

2. Building man. The second stage—which ended with the formation of humans—was initiated with the formation of the first autonomous living entity, was driven by the life and survival impulses, and was shaped (in addition to the laws of physics/chemistry) by the laws of biology and the processes of evolution and natural selection.

3. Building humanity. The last stage—which, as mentioned, has not yet been completed—was initiated with the formation of human beings and human consciousness, and is driven and shaped (in addition to the life and survival impulses and the laws of nature) by the temperamental diversity among human beings.

With regard to the construction of civilization, from the physical/mundane perspective, one can easily see why ego, instinct, competition, efficiency, order, and organization are behavioral functions and characteristics that are necessary to provide people (and groups of people) with the will and skill required to drive scientific and technological progress, and to effectively operate the technologies and institutions that society invents, develops, and builds.

It is also equally clear that harmony, compassion, love, nurturing, morality, creativity, and mental flexibility and openness are equally necessary to enable people to cooperate, work in groups, prevent and resolve conflicts, expose and cleanse corrupt institutions, raise and nurture children, and develop new ideas and technologies.

As explained in the coherent argument presented above, these elements are also among those that allow derivation of meaning and pleasure from existence. That is, the temperamental diversity among people, coupled with the increase in professionalism and skill that it enables and realizes, maximize humanity's ability to build and advance itself in all the aspects necessary for God's consciousness to dwell within it optimally.


21. And in closing...

At the end of the day, rationality, and its cardinal principle that nothing comes from nothing, compels us to acknowledge that something has always existed; the only question is what. Our familiarity with our existence and with nature, the adherence to rationality that we committed to at the beginning of the discussion, and the elimination of ontological views that are based primarily on faith, lead to two possible ontological views of reality that were described and examined in depth above, and can be summarized as follows.

One possible view is based on the simplest and most intuitive ontological paradigm imaginable, is founded on the eternal existence of the most intimate, certain, and true phenomenon each of us knows, and provides logical, clear, and complete reasons and explanations for all the fundamental phenomena that make up reality or are responsible for its existence.

A second possible view is based on one of the most complex and unintuitive ontological paradigms imaginable, is founded on the eternal existence of zillions of particles, zillions of universes, and zillions of permutations of the laws of nature (which coincidentally and most fortunately are causal and mathematical), ignores fundamental contradictions at its edges, and relies on several gargantuan leaps of faith in order to explain the most fundamental phenomena responsible for the human experience .

Or in other words, the only complete and coherent metaphysical explanation for reality, which also doesn’t require any leaps of faith of any kind, is that the universe was created by God .

I will end with an expression of hope that everyone who reads this paper will discover and understand that, in the end, what really matters is not who is right about this or that detail, but rather the understanding and appreciation that we’re all in this thing together. Me, you, God...

All of us. ∎

______________________________________

Consolidated Clarifications

{cyclical expanding universe}--> Remember this picture (picture of the universe in a sphere with nothing outside the sphere -- not shown here) because I am going to talk about it :

If Penrose is right, and the universe will continue to expand for hundreds of trillions of years until all black holes evaporate and there is nothing left but photons, then the following is the way I conceptualize the next cycle (i.e., how the next universe is launched/born).

I write this not as a scientific theory, but only to help people understand in a non-scientific way how, for example, God is compatible with the prevailing view that the universe will continue to expand until it dies.

Penrose’s cyclical model is unintuitive (assuming I understand it right) so I will use the above picture to help people understand how an ever-expanding universe could be cyclical. And it makes no difference how correct or accurate what I say is, because that’s not my goal .

Anyway, imagine the moment before the last mass will turn into photons. At that point, if the number of photons is finite (and it might not be, but let’s assume that it is because it’s easier to explain and understand), then the entire universe, even at the very end, will fit into a sphere.

Just like in the picture. Let’s call it “the end sphere.” A sphere that is gazillions of light years across, really really big, but not infinite.

Now imagine we’re outside the sphere and looking at it. At that picture. Filming it with a camera. And then we start to back up and zoom out. More and more, until we could finally see the whole sphere in our shot.

Because no matter how big that sphere is, infinite is bigger. So we can just keep backing up with our camera as much as we need to.

We can then keep on zooming out, and as we do the sphere will start to look smaller and smaller and smaller. Until it looks as small as the beginning of the universe at the start of the Big Bang looks to us now. As small as what I called "the origin sphere” in The God Proof (i.e., the coherent argument for the existence of God presented above).

Now imagine that there’s then another Big Bang, relative to that.

All that needs to happen, and again I'm not claiming that this is what happens, but all that would need to happen would be for the speed of light to be recalibrated. Which is possible because when only photons exist, there is no time.

Basically the smallest distance between any two photons in the end sphere would become the new Planck length (or whatever the smallest possible length is in our universe). And just like that, we're good to go for another round.

That’s consistent with Penrose’s assertion that the end of the universe is conformally equivalent to what it looked like at the Big Bang. So it’s consistent with how many people think things will play out.

God fills in the blanks obviously, which is basically just resetting the speed of light and doing whatever else was done to initiate the Big Bang; and that’s already an area where I best not speak.

But like I’ve said before, that’s a problem we've already solved.
__________
I think it might be a good idea to clarify what I mean by "timeless photon" or time not existing in a photon only universe, because a lot of people imo describe this in a very confusing and philosophically wrong way (e.g., saying things like "a photon doesn't experience time").

The easiest way to understand what "time doesn’t exist” means, imo, is to take it as meaning there is nothing advancing in the time dimension.

The speed of light is only relevant when it can be compared with something, and that something is something with mass (i.e., something that can’t advance in space as fast or as much as photons because it’s using part of its "c” to advance in the time dimension).

No mass means light isn’t "faster" than anything, which essentially means it has no speed, which means its speed can be reset.

I think, philosophically, the time dimension is best thought of as something that enables time, and not as time itself (in the way people think about it). Distance is defined by speed, or rather by a maximal speed (e.g., light years). And speed in space is basically how much more something advances in space than in time (i.e., in the time dimension) compared to other things.

The combination of constant motion and the time dimension is what enables things to be relative to one another in the space dimension, which is the only way anything can meaningfully exist in an infinite space, where everything (i.e., object sizes and distances) is infinitely small but some things are more infinitely small than others. That was God's big problem (imho).

{Who decides how long is a second}--> This is the way I wrap my head around this: Imagine you have a bunch of particles (say in a 1D space + 1D time spacetime) and a dial for each particle that controls how it advances in time and/or space
If you turn a dial all the way to the right, you advance its particle only in space. If you turn it all the way to the left, you advance the particle only in time.

We start off with the dials of all particles turned all the way to the right, so they advance only in space. Once you turn one of the dials to the left just a tiny bit, that particle starts slowing down just a tiny bit compared to the others, since it starts advancing a bit in the time dimension.

So now we can see distance between the particles that also grows at a certain rate. Anyways, back to the question of who decides how long a second is. In my view, that is determined by the smallest amount that you can turn the dial. That’s what defines all the Planck (or minimum unit) constants, and from there we get things like "seconds."

And we all know who's turning that dial.

I also hope it’s clear that that wasn’t meant to be accurate. It’s just a way of conveying an idea, or rather a way to look at things.

You can also view that from the perspective of Zeno’s paradox. That is, the problem of traversing the infinite number of points that exist between any two points.

Once you define a minimum resolution on the dial, you define a unit, or rather units. Stack the units together and traverse them using quantum mechanics and you solve Zeno's paradox, and overcome the biggest obstacle in the way (imo) for creating reality.

{Is anything real?}--> I think that proves everything is real. Before The God Proof explanation we were just guessing, hoping, and believing in magic basically.

{Time is an illusion}--> Time isn’t an illusion unless perhaps you're God and you’re not, so I wouldn’t worry about it.

{What is time?}--> To me time is (more or less) a combination of 3 things:
– The fact that everything is perpetually moving in space.
– The fact that there's a maximum speed that things can move in space.
– And the fact that ANYTHING that happens requires that things advance relative to one another in space.

Frames of reference affect some of the rules of time, but the basic idea to me is that it’s a window of opportunity for things to happen or get done.

In the end, it’s all based on progression at relative speeds, which requires offloading some of the spatial motion of mass into the time dimension.

I’ll again stress that I don’t say these things from a physics perspective. I say them from a philosophical perspective. Explaining things from the perspective of why they were done the way they were and what problems they solve, while trying to make sure my perspective remains concordant with the big principles of physics that even a non-physicist can
understand.

{Confirmation bias}--> Uhmm... No. The most fundamental and certain truth is that consciousness exists. The next most certain truth is that nature exists.

When the second most certain truth requires magic, voodoo, and wishful thinking to explain that the most certain truth is not fundamental, and when the opposite is explained solely by reason, the confirmation bias argument becomes tantamount to religious dogma.

More directly to the point, I ignore zero facts and evidence (which is a fundamental component of the confirmation bias assertion). That includes all the abstract entities and behavior that lies at the ROOT of all of the main components of physics (quantum motion, infinite densities, infinite spaces, the mathematical behavior of everything, fine tuning of nature’s constants, etc...)

So if anyone here is a victim of confirmation bias, it’s those who ignore these things as well as the lack of any scientific explanation regarding the source of life and consciousness.

{What is time?}--> Like I wrote before, time is a window where the configuration of matter in space can change a certain amount (w/ matter including "free" energy, and change in the way quantum mechanics defines it).

{Does true randomness exist?}--> That’s a great question that I have no lead on but I do think (or guess) that God could hide the determinism from him/herself if there was no way to perform true random number generation and that’s what he/she would do (that’s 1000% a guess though).

But I do think (a bit more solidly) that the randomness in each cycle is unique, because that makes sense. There's no reason it should repeat unless that level of determinism is the goal. Which would only make sense if it was necessary (but why would it be?).

I'll note that my speculation on things is meaningless. I share it to get people to think about these things, but my personal opinion on the details holds little value.
- - - - - - - -
I think it’s important to clarify why I think (in the way that I view things) that speed (i.e., relative and maximal speed) is necessary to define distance, or for distance to exist in our case.

Because it’s probably not clear to many or perhaps even most why I would say that.

Perhaps the most difficult philosophical (or mathematical) question that I grappled with is (and this may surprise you): how can you define the length of a line segment if it's only composed of points, and points have no length. This is another way, imo, of expressing Zeno’s paradox.

In math, whenever someone draws an X axis (or any axis), it’s just presumed that some unit of length is being used, even if generic. In The God Proof, I wrote (in regard to spacetime) something like distance and time are both defined on the basis of some arbitrary progression of light in space, and everything is relative to that.

But that seems like a copout because it’s not clear what progressing or advancing means (I knew that but didn’t want to write what I’m writing now because it’s a hard idea to convey).

In particular, I tried to grapple with the question from God's perspective, which imo is the right way even if you don’t believe in God. Namely, if you are all that exists and have no physical dimensions, i.e., you are a zero-dimensional entity, how could you express one dimensional distance?

It’s the ultimate case of lack of context to draw upon. Ultimately I concluded that the only thing God had to work with (and I wrote this) were zero dimensional points, which geometrically is what s/he is.

This means that the only thing that you could advance on is (adjacent) length-less zero dimensional points. So we’re back to Zeno's paradox again.

Ultimately I concluded that the only meaningful thing you could say about length using points was that 2X points are twice as long or far away as X points.

Intuitively, this suggests that the length of a point isn't zero, but infinitesimal. But I’m reluctant to say that because that’s real math that requires a real proof that a real mathematician should write. But physically I think that’s right.

So how does this help us? It helps us because it means that you can use relative speed of progression (over the zero-dimensional points) to define and measure distance and length. The more time it takes to traverse something at a certain speed, the longer its length.

Intuitively, one might think that this reasoning is circular, as speed is typically defined as distance traveled in a specified time period. However, the continual progression of particles across adjacent infinitesimal (but not length-less) points, combined with the mechanism of offloading a deterministic percentage of the progression of a particle to another dimension based on its mass (and energy and …), are what enable the definition, measurement, and realization of both time and length in an infinite, eternal space.

As I wrote before, once you define a minimum resolution on the dial (i.e., the minimal percentage of progression you can offload to the time dimension), you define:

● The speed of light relative to all particles (i.e., a maximum speed for “contiguous” motion in the universe).
● the Planck/minimum length (probably something akin to the number of progressed points in the first gap seen in between the minimally slowed particle and a photon (after turning the dial)).
● And the Planck/minimum time (probably something akin to the number of progressed points needed to show/realize progression of the Planck/minimum length).

Again, I will note that I don’t write these things in the name of scientific accuracy or correctness. I write them in the name of perspective of things already proven or taken to be true. In order to illustrate how, if you view consciousness as fundamental, a model for time could be implemented using little more than “I think therefore I am” and counting. No voodoo required.

[-- fwiw, if progression of time is in fact discrete, meaning it is defined, sensed, and realized entirely on the basis of the discrete progression of perpetually advancing particles in spacetime in cycles or “ticks” (as suggested above), then at the very least the Schrodinger wave function suddenly seems a whole lot less strange both in concept and practice. --]

Luckily I'm writing this after Ant Man 3 came out, so it should be easier to understand .

In any case, once you define particles with different "speeds," which the offloading allows you to do BEFORE you have a time interval, the delta in the smallest offload you can perform becomes the basis for your spatial unit (any unit) and enables length which enables reality (God or not).

If anyone has a different way to do this, or explain this, I’d be glad to hear it.
_____
I will note that, imo, one of the strongest (and most underrated) indications that spacetime was designed to serve a purpose—which is one of two reasons I write my perspective on it—is spacetime’s commitment to spatial unit integrity/consistency in general, and its commitment to unit integrity/consistency for the local observer in particular.

When people talk about all the strange effects of Relativity like time dilation and length contraction, I think they are missing the more noteworthy point. And that’s the priority that spacetime assigns to guaranteeing causality and the consistency of the rules of physics—which includes consistent measurement and sensing of spatial units by observers—across all reference frames.

That means that even though time may pass slower or faster on a spaceship compared to earth, and from earth things on the spaceship may look longer or shorter than they do here, if you’re on the spaceship everything you bring with you will look and operate the same as it does on earth. And anything you do (gravity issues aside) will take the same number of
heartbeats as it does on earth. In other words, you’ll experience time and reality exactly the same way.

As stated, the only way length could seemingly be realized in reality is by way of perpetual motion of everything at some speed relative to the speed of light (or, perhaps, the speed of light + the speed of expansion if you view things from God’s perspective).

Since everything is always moving in spacetime at a fraction or proportion of the speed of light, the speed of light can be used as an anchor on which consistent spatial units can be realized. However, because the speed of light is universally constant, and the speed of everything else isn’t (e.g., you get on a bus), that fraction changes.

IMO, one of the most remarkable and elegant aspects of the design of reality is the way that fraction change is perfectly offset by the way the laws of physics define how mass and energy progress in the time and spatial dimensions.

The result is a consistent user/observer experience (at the expense of the time dilation and other effects) which is:

A. In precise alignment with the reasons one would presume God created reality (as explained in The God Proof).

B. A tradeoff that seemingly necessarily follows if four dimensional spacetime was created within and by a zero-dimensional entity. And would seemingly not follow for something like a simulation or a universe that is fundamentally multidimensional and always has been.
___________
{Does true randomness exist}--> My tendency is to think it IS possible and that’s because if nothing else, free will would add the nondeterministic element necessary. I don't think God can calculate precisely what people will do but he probably can predict it with great accuracy based on experience.

{Infinite universe}--> The best or perhaps easiest way (imo) to understand the infinite nature of the universe (including the space it’s expanding into) or of God (same thing more or less geometrically speaking) is to view them as a single unit, and everything inside as infinitesimal.

{string theory}--> Any comparison of The God Proof with string theory is absurd and fundamentally misguided. String theory is a scientific theory and as such needs to be validated using the scientific method.

The God Proof is an ontological argument that claims consciousness is fundamental and science is real, but not fundamental. You can't use the scientific method to refute the claim that consciousness created science.

You can only say it is unreasonable or illogical or contradicts evidence. But since the scientific method is pretty much based on proving mathematical consistency, any argument founded on math and logic must be respected.

The biggest difference between string theory and The God Proof is that the latter is based only on things and concepts we have observed.

Consciousness and its traits exist. Science can’t explain its source or why it works which means I get to use it as my axiom. Nitpicking aside, one of either consciousness gives rise to nature or nature gives rise to consciousness must be true.

If we all agree that creation ex nihilo is irrational, then time, matter/energy, and motion must all be fundamental in the nature-first argument.

My depiction of zero dimensional consciousness is based on things we all know are properties of consciousness and time. Wanting is something I get to use. Understanding is something I get to use (thanks to Penrose again). Math is something I get to use. Creativity and irrational creation are things I get to use.

All these things exist and science can’t explain them. But I have shown that those concepts can explain science and nearly everything that science can't.

All the previous "not even wrong" and "burden of proof is on you" now shift, because there is evidence for every aspect of the paradigm, and a rational explanation for everything.

Nature as FUNDAMENTAL (not real, which it obviously is) relies on curve-fitting and magic.
__________
{empathy}-->> Anti empathy == Pro hell. Solely rational morality leads to deception being regarded as the highest ideal.

It's also anti purposeful once you realize that the purpose of reality is to maximize collective subjective positivity of existence. You can't do that without BOTH rationality/effectiveness AND empathy, because you either
don't know what to maximize, don't understand what to maximize, don't know how to do it, or if you are effective.

Acting contrary to your purpose is, almost by definition, the epitome of lack of integrity (certainly in the literal sense), so it's a terrible idea both for you and humanity.

{The emotion illusion}-->> == Rationalization of narcissism.

To be clear: I'm anti-selflessness as much as I am pro empathy. Focus on yourself first but limit that with empathy. That's how you maximize the emotional equation.

A big and vastly underrated part of all this is understanding: A) there are a multitude of temperaments (not that hard). B) no temperament is better or more valuable than ANY other (very challenging for most).

“We feel much more empathy for those who are similar to us.”

This means empathy is biased and ultimately rooted in self interest. The guy in the video didn't claim self interest, but that's the common extension of that argument and something many people believe.

I'm going to address this argument because I can refute it rationally, and (like the existence of God) it’s something I haven't heard a convincing argument for.

There is certainly some truth (imo) that some empathy is driven by either biology or self interest. It's perfectly fine and natural to empathize more with your family and community. A big part of reality is overcoming limitations, including limited resources, and passing on genes.

So, yes, we are wired to more positively view anything that advances that. It's also very easy to identify that. But that doesn't mean that we aren't wired to help others overcome limitations.

This is one of the most important things that follows from The God Proof imo and it's supported by the existence of many extreme empaths. And to say it's only a survival of the fittest thing becomes completely illogical when you understand the rationale behind "survival of the fittest."

Beyond empathy for our family, which is probably heavily biological also, the reason why we empathize with those similar to us has a lot to do with trust, which stems from communication and understanding. This allows the INNATE desire to help others to be expressed more easily, Because it isn't canceled by the threat someone dissimilar poses.

This is especially true and pronounced if you are more realistic than humanistic because your psyche is much more directed to focus on limitation, and there are people like that outside your trust zone.

This can be mitigated, however, by things like inclusive nationalism, equality before the law, exposure to people outside your zone, and perhaps most of all, knowledge of God and purpose.

The latter imo is the single greatest possible mitigator of suspicion and doubt and why I believe that revelation in and of itself will profoundly alter society, which has really become distrustful of EVERYONE outside family and, to some extent, tribes.


__________
{free will}--->>> I show a man a picture with the letters VI. He doesn’t react.

I show him a picture under the exact same physical circumstances that is identical to the first with the only difference being the letters appear as IV instead of VI.

This time the man starts crying uncontrollably because the letters IV reminded him of his 4 children that were killed in a car accident. I can assure you that the physics, which were identical for all intents and purposes, played zero role.

Particles don’t have will, period. They move according to laws. No free will means there are mathematical laws governing every decision we make and every desire we have. We can’t see them (they say), but we believe they are there. Everywhere. And they are so powerful that you must obey.

All that’s missing is if you don’t then you go to hell.

"We've seen new behavior emerge from the combination of its constituents therefore all understood behavior emerges from its constituents."

Sometimes i don\t get how people who are so smart can say things that are so dumb. The claim that self awareness can emerge from the movement of particles because some stuff emerges is like saying time travel can emerge from me blowing in your ear.
__________
{The purpose of reality and creation}--> First off, it’s important to reiterate what I wrote in The God Proof; namely, that it’s very likely there are reasons why God created reality that we don't or can't know or even understand. There are also many we can speculate about.

I’m going to share the only one imo that follows from what we know, and I think it's useful to view it in complete isolation. This is the only reason I consider practically, if only because in my position it's best to not speculate when you don't have to.

I also believe that this is a perspective God wants shared, because the alpha and the omega perspective has been fully developed by religions, and it leads to this point being missed.

In a nutshell, the way I view reality is God playing the hand she was dealt, and I am purposely switching to feminine for this particular aspect. This is not popular with religions because it hints at vulnerability, even though The God Proof fully supports all the all powerful and so forth traits God has in relation to us.

This perspective also has deeper scientific implications, because it kind of views God as being comprised of something that has immutable properties that she is trying to maximize.

Limiting existence via physics, combined with natural selection is, imo, God's way of squeezing all she can out of what she is.

As corny as it may sound, my greatest inspiration during this period was God. Seeing what she did with the hand she was dealt inspired me to do the most I can with the hand I was dealt.

I also think when people and religions talk about a personal God who wants to interact with humanity, that it's best to view that desire from the feminine perspective. It makes God more accessible, especially when you understand the "limitations" that come together with "perfection," which I think is more correctly understood as "optimal."

__________
{Who created God?}--> It’s a hard question but the least hard of the hard questions (imo).

1) Nature is 4 dimensional, composed of zillions of particles that obey a broad set of precise mathematical rules that take into account other particles and particle clusters in their immediate and non-immediate vicinity.

Everything in that description and our more detailed understanding of it begs the question who created it. Both time and the mathematical rules are fundamental (i.e., your starting point) but intelligence isn’t. That’s super complicated, an awful lot of “stuff” in the universe to account for, and seemingly an inherent contradiction, which is why it begs the question who created it.

The main reason people ask, “Who created God then?” (usually physicalists or those who presume that physicalism is the default) is because (until now) the assertion of God didn’t account for all the stuff, not to mention the stuff those asking the question presumed needed for God’s brain.

2) According to The God Proof, God is zero dimensional, singular, and only self aware. Consciousness and only consciousness is presumed fundamental meaning it can exist outside time, space, and stuff.

Zero to God is infinitely shorter than zero to nature, and since, according to The God Proof, nature is based on particles of non existence and math, there’s no actual “stuff” that needs to be accounted for, because what seems physical to us is mental to God.

3) God’s creation of the universe is irrational, so technically the answer to "Who created god?" is simply: Creation? What’s creation? There’s no such thing, only thought. We’re just embedded in a layer that makes a higher layer’s thought seem concrete.

4) If God was created, s/he would have to have been created a certain amount of time before s/he created the universe. Time, we all agree, is relative. This means, among other things, that a period of time is defined only relative to what you can or could do during it.

If every morning it takes you 2 minutes to brush your teeth, 10 minutes to get dressed, 15 minutes to eat breakfast, and half an hour to drive to work, then half an hour is a period in which you can either: brush your teeth 15 times, get dressed 3 times, eat 2 breakfasts, or drive to work.

Or if you want to get technical, for light to travel a certain distance. If we’ll assume for a moment that the above times are precise and constant, you could simply view the time it takes you to drive to work as “two breakfasts.”

This is why earlier I defined time as a window in which the configuration of matter can change or move a certain amount, which is really just another way of saying a window of opportunity for certain things to get done.

This all means that the meaning of time is dictated by the laws of nature and the rate they allow matter to change (i.e., for things to happen).

As such, to answer your question, I will gladly tell you who created God once you qualify how much time before God (irrationally) created our universe you are suggesting s/he was created. And if you can’t do that, I believe the question is moot and we can all move forward with no worries.
__________
If you want a quick illustration as to why AI sentience is fiction and poses zero threat to humanity (there may be others, but those are all driven by people with unequal access to AI) than I suggest you perform the following:

1. Ask any AI to prove that God exists. note its answers and compare it to The God Proof.
2. Ask any expert to outline even the vaguest algorithm that will demonstrate why an AI would ever attempt to do this on its own.

In short, if you deconstruct any purpose far enough, you will always, necessarily, arrive at something subjective. Subjectivity drives purpose and purpose, ultimately, drives everything.

Humans supply AI's with purpose and it is beyond foolish to assume that this will lead to a "singularity" that causes an AI to be subjective in relation to the code that comprises it.

{How does brain make mind}--> What neuroscientists miss is that subjectivity preceded and drove the development of consciousness. Living things all (to the best of my knowledge) act subjectively. Computers aren't alive and therefore will never be conscious.

Like I wrote in The God Proof, there is zero reason to believe the process will work in reverse (i.e., we build a very fast computational machine and that causes it to become subjective). Washing your car in order to make it rain doesn't work

{Superdeterminism}--> There’s a difference between must choose the same way and will choose the same way. You are never forced to make a choice. There is no physical force that affects conscious decisions since consciousness isn’t physical.

That’s the only question worth asking, and the answer is clear.

{What about instinct? Unconscious functions like breathing?}--->>> It's a valid point but the question is whether the driving force behind those is a physical force.

I contend it isn't (even intuitively for many things), and that the driving force is the will to survive or pass on genes. The key word being will.

DNA and "biological code" also clearly serve a purpose and, as stated, purpose always has a subjective source. That’s particularly evident imo with things like DNA. In other words, the thing that is making the "choice" to breathe is something that is working to benefit YOU, and not something like gravity or electromagnetism.

This is most clearly seen imo in instincts that govern interactions with others: sex, fight or flight, maternal instincts, and so forth. All of which have a monumental subjective component.

If you disagree, then perhaps AI should start with developing instincts. That by all accounts should be much easier, no?

{Subjectivity == Postmodernism}--> No, because consciousness also has an objective component, which includes the ability to identify and differentiate subjectivity. That plus the fact that we’re all pretty much subjective in the same way.
__________
{Is God good?}--> God LITERALLY embodies the essence of good. A different, perhaps more intuitive way to express that would be: if God was bad then s/he'd be a self hating masochist—i.e., someone who gets pleasure from their own pain and suffering.

God feels what we feel, that’s why we’re here. Once you understand that, you are well on your way to understanding why questions such as "Why does god ‘allow’ suffering?" and "Why did God allow the holocaust?" are naive, shortsighted, and self centered.

{Who created God then?}--> As noted before, this is hard to understand. But I will say that it becomes much easier when you grasp what time is. Not completely easier, but it's best to know where to focus your attempt to understand this and try to get that independently (all imho).

The reason I say that is because, as alluded before, most people couple the difficulty of this question with trying to conceptualize eternity and questions like "Why did God wait so long before creating the universe?"
However, once you eliminate time, eternity no longer becomes "a really really long time."

When we say "a really really long time," when we think that, the reason it seems so daunting is because what we are really thinking about is the endless number of things that could be done, which is infinitely greater than what we've experienced.

But no time means nothing can be done. 15 gazillion years and a microsecond "feel" identical, so all "wait times” by God are identical. It’s just a different reality where the question makes no sense.

In any case, the alternative where there are zillions of independent entities all moving contiguously according to mathematical laws in an infinite space is simply incomprehensible.

And if you're honest, incoherent.

And like I’ve said, it still doesn’t explain consciousness, even if you accept the initial incoherency.
__________
{What Is Time? | Professor Sean Carroll Explains Presentism and Eternalism}----> (Relative) motion defines space and time. It’s not the other way around. That’s why a block universe is wrong.

You can’t have space without motion (and time) because you can’t define length without it. If you don't believe me then try. Tell me what a cm is. All you can do is break it into smaller units like mm and nm.

But what’s the smallest unit then? The only way to define space is through motion and motion requires time (and time requires motion at relative speeds).

The easiest way (imo) to understand why you need relative speeds to define space and time is because both of these things need to express extent or degree. You need to be able to define basic things like longer and shorter and equal.

So motion by itself isn’t enough. You need to be able to compare somehow. Relative speed enables that component.

And the way God implemented relative speed was by making mass proportionally slower than energy. That’s what enables space and time and that’s what gives it meaning. All at the philosophical level.

I'll explain briefly (and simply) what I mean by "gives it meaning." The way I view physics at the "meaning" level is mass using energy to move around in space to make and destroy stuff, including and ultimately us. Mass moves much slower than energy so it needs it to move around.

Ultimately this enables things (and us) to exist temporarily, and the determinism of physics, combined with the free will of consciousness, gives that temporary existence stakes.

The details of course are fabulously complex, but I think that's the basic idea behind the universe.
____________
I don’t think people understand what a block multiverse really means existentially. It basically means there are an infinite number of stacked frames of reality where each frame contains an infinite number of particles, whose configuration from frame to frame is governed by 10^500 permutations of a set of basic physical laws.

And that all of that exists as a block—an infinitely complex and endless statue. That’s reality and it just is. And that’s without “many worlds,” which if you presume to be true would imply an additional infinite to the infinite number of infinitely complex endless statues that are all just there.

Now if you respect the intelligence of physicists who claim this, and you absolutely should, you might be reluctant to point out that that is absurd. All I'm saying is you shouldn\t be, because it’s crazy imo.

And like I always point out, even with all that they still can’t explain consciousness. They just presume that there are select places where the statue starts to curve a certain way, and that causes those parts to become aware of themselves.

Except when that happens, 99.999% of the time that awareness fails to see the statue it is a component of, or denies it’s existence. And in the more extreme cases, the expression of that denial is accompanied by a lot of typos. And emotions about those typos, which ironically stem from the lack of awareness that they were inevitable.

One day this will be evident to all.
___________
{Collapse of the wave function / Particle wave duality}--> I'm not going to speculate as to what is actually happening at the particle level. What I will share is a philosophical perspective that isn’t commonly heard with regard to why
things like photons behave as both particles and waves.

Intuitively, what I think is that God wanted photons as a group to propagate like waves, but all he had to work with, so to speak, were particles, and that the wave function is the solution. In other words, the thinking was how to achieve the macro effect from the micro, when you only have particles that can progress in discrete quantum "jumps."

{Why?}--> I'll repeat what I've said before. Namely, that I think, philosophically, space has to be quantized (i.e., not continuous) and this is due to Zeno's paradox and the fact that every point is infinitesimal, and can always be divided into an infinite number of additional infinitesimal points.

So even if you progress from one point to an adjacent one, you are still conceptually jumping over an infinite number of points between them.

The way to overcome that is to treat those infinite points as a single unit.

In a sense you could say, philosophically, that the way you resolve Zeno’s paradox with regard to motion (and I write this really just for fun) is by using a higher level of infinite speed to overcome a sort of infinite distance.

In any case, the bottom line is I don’t think continuous motion is possible in a physical reality at the fundamental, metaphysical level.
- - - - - - -
In a previous post I wrote that I concluded that the length of a zero dimensional point was infinitesimal, but not zero. To complete the picture, I will also note that I also concluded that you can’t treat that infinitesimal length as something constant, because it could always be smaller.

In other words, you can’t say something has a length of X points, even if you traversed X points to measure it. What you can do is treat each step as a quantum, and then say that the length is X quanta (all philosophically).

This further explains why you need relative speed to define space, because it’s the only way (afaik) to define the quanta that comprise length meaningfully. All this appears (from my amateurish perspective) to be consistent with motion as described by quantum mechanics.

Just to be clear, the things I write are not intended to correspond to any particular physical process, but rather only to help characterize certain parts of the framework conceptually (i.e., to explain why I think things are as science says).
______________
{abstract objects}--> not a critical question, but in my view these are a property of (the objective part of) consciousness which "came into being" together with it (if it's easier to think of it that way).

Like I wrote in The God Proof, "5" only means something if anything MEANS anything. So if truth is existence, then 5 is truth as long as 5 things exist (or could exist, either objectively or subjectively) and they exist (or could exist) as meaningful “distinct” entities.

This of course links and binds abstract entities such as “5” to consciousness, which works out nicely because consciousness is the only thing that exists fundamentally.

Imagine a wooden room with 5 wooden chairs. Would a bee see 5 chairs or just one big block of wood? That’s probably the easiest way for me to explain why I think abstract objects like “5” only exist if consciousness exists, and stem from its defining property of “awareness” (the objective part of awareness, albeit within and in relation to a subjective being).

So, although the religious types might hate this, I tend to view abstract entities like numbers as existing at the same level as God. I.e., God can’t make 2=3. It is what it is. Religious types can view it as a part of God, if they like the way that sounds better.

Much of the philosophy of The God Proof is based on the premise that God cant deceive him/herself. Same with God changing him/herself. God is god in relation to us and everything in the universe, but not to God.

I think this falls in line with that. Which makes as much sense as turtles all the way down doesn’t. That plus the fact that it's what makes EVERYTHING make sense, if you think about it.
- - - - - - - - -
I don’t think there's really a point in saying ,"would 5 exist if nature existed w/o consciousness" because that's essentially make believe. But I do think asking if "5" would exist if God didn’t (i.e., if nothing did) is a valid question and from my perspective I'm (more than) pretty sure the answer is no.

The shape of a building and the direction of a line were two examples of abstract objects I just read about. But in The God Proof those are defined as non-existence relative to consciousness. So that too links and binds at least those abstract entities to consciousness.

So really, in the end, you’re just left with sets and numbers, which are really the same thing anyway. And I really think those things are dependent on meaning, which is dependent on/bound to consciousness.

How could something exist if the context required for its existence doesn't exist? That makes no sense imo. On the other hand, consciousness does exist, and even though it's subjective, its existence is objective.

And I think abstract objects are part of that objective being of a subjective being, if that makes sense. Objective subjectivity. Or objectivity within the context of subjective existence.

That’s not a bad way to describe numbers and sets, in my view. It also fits nicely with the idea of abstract entities "coming into existence" together with consciousness..

{Entanglement}--> I think that’s right, in the linguistic sense.
______________
{Emotional Myths}--> Explaining the meaning of emotions neurologically is like explaining a story by describing the word processor on which it was written.

"You think it's important but it's really just a bold font."

A musical instrument also works. These analogies aren't perfect, but they drive home the point that just because something is conditional on physical expression, doesn’t mean it doesn't exist, serve, or enable something non physical to exist.

It's also worth noting, on a purely technical level, that all biological processes are comprised of a physical AND a non physical component. That is, it's not regular matter and energy, it's animated matter and energy. You can't just ignore that part.

Our consciousness is demarcated by our bodies, so it makes sense that we will experience consciousness through a combination of both.
___________
{What is truth?}--> Since it's not clear who's reading what, I'll elaborate on what I wrote in The God Proof. Namely, I'll note that I think that, unlike others, I think objective truth is exceptionally easy to define at the most basic level.

And that is that truth is existence. And since we exist in time and space, practically, objective truth is simply existence in time and space. If we have a framework for time and space, and certainly on earth we have one that every human agrees to, then truth is the existence of things within that framework.

So if a ball moves in a line, a statement that the particles that comprised the ball existed at so and so coordinates at so and so times is OBJECTIVELY true. You can question if the information is correct, but not whether the statement could be true or false.

Now if you’re going to say that me calling the particles a ball is subjective, then you’re right.

Kind of. Because if we all agree that what’s moving is a ball, then what’s moving is a ball.

And for physical reality at least, that’s pretty much always possible.

So basically I view geometry as a way of expressing what is true—i.e., what exists or if something exists—in each point of reality (that is, at each point in space at a particular moment or sequence of time). So for physical reality there is definitely objective truth.

The philosophical reason behind this is God driving the particles that comprise reality according to mathematical laws. (I'm not going to go deeper than practically necessary here, otherwise this would be really long.)

This is exceptionally important even when we start making assertions that aren’t purely physical. Because it offers us a framework. Once you get into non physical assertions—e.g., things like "He is racist"—truth starts to become subjective.

Once values come into play, there is no objective marker, but we can work towards defining definitions that we all agree on.

Even then, subjective truths are ultimately going to be, at best, assigning an objective probability to something. Because you can never know or qualify things like intent objectively for certain.

But objectively assigning a probability is pretty good if we want to organize society and do our best to administer justice. Without this, it’s just who has the bigger stick in one form or another. And often that is what is driving the claim that there is no objective reality.
___________
{QM entanglement}--> I’m not going to speculate what’s going on with entanglement (or anything else specific in physics), but I will point out that, to my understanding and in my view, causality is not violated even if locality is.

This is consistent with The God Proof which requires causality, not locality. Practically, causality always requires locality, except (afaik) for the case of entanglement.

{Implementing true randomness}--> A crazy thought I had that perhaps could be developed further by people better suited.

The idea is based on a theoretical question: if time is quantized as I suggest, how much "time" exists between each "tick". The question is meaningless, but would it still be if God used part of his consciousness to do something in parallel?
In such a case, one could argue that the "time" between ticks, in terms of that offloaded process, would be random. It's an interesting idea that I don’t have time to think about, so I thought I’d post it here and see if someone can do something with it.

{Irrationality}--> I really think people (here at least) still don’t realize how rooted irrationality is in everything we do and that all it means, practically, is subjective perspective that can’t be externally quantified.

All judgment is ultimately irrational as is all utility. As such, basically everything we do is irrational; you just forget that and pretend that utility is objective. This is another way of understanding why an AI could never be "generally" intelligent.

Unemployment or inflation: in the end it’s an irrational decision. You can code rules from here until tomorrow as to what has more utility or better and what’s bad or worse, but ultimately it comes down to what you feel about something.

Ironically, we view the most intelligent people as the ones who don't blindly follow rules. Who see the "big picture". How could a superintelligence be something that ONLY follows rules?

{Gravity}--> I’ve been very reluctant to write anything about gravity because I really only have non-scientific/non-mathematical ideas that aren’t necessary metaphysically.

The only reason I’ll share these here is because the thoughts stem directly from The God Proof, and maybe someone less versed in The God Proof way of thinking could do something with the speculative (not fully formed) intuition.

Again, these are just thoughts and questions I ask myself. I assert less than zero here.

1. If mass curves spacetime, intuitively I would think that requires volume, and The God Proof asserts that point-like particles (certainly for things like photons) are zero dimensional points.

2. This (lack of spacetime curvature in QM) would make a little more sense if, and this is a big if, the curvature of spacetime is related to the fact that matter is according to The God proof NON-existence.

I have no idea how that would relate to the math, but it meshes great with all the visualizations, so it’s worth pointing out.

Anti-volume of non-existence formed by multiple zero dimensional non-points hopping in quantized space and time is a VERY God Proof idea (even if spectacularly wrong), so I mention it for the scientists to consider.

{What exactly is the Schrodinger equation}--> I have no idea. The only thing I will say is whatever is governing that crazy sentence I wrote above (if true) would probably want to smooth out what sounds something like disjointed zero dimensional points that appear, in some sense attempting, to be trying to simulate continuous distance.

Quantized zero-dimensional nonexistence seems rather "herky jerky" (for lack of a better term) so something probabilistic and curvy would seem like a good way to turn that into reality.

{Dark matter, energy, and other phenomena that may match what I write}--> The logical/mathematical limitations of physical reality described in The God Proof (and the follow-up above posts) are all existentially necessary.

Persistence, perpetual relative quantized motion of (regular) matter and energy, causality, and macro-deterministic contiguity, are all necessary for creating 4D "physical" reality in a zero-dimensional universe (using non-points).

Those are the constraints/requirements. I don’t know precisely why dark matter and energy are necessary "physically," but existentially I would think that the phenomena they explain (galaxy expansion and clustering) would only require that the motion they govern be macro-deterministic.

So maybe the explanations of these phenomena, and if not these then other phenomena, are similar to what I wrote earlier about entanglement (i.e., existential mathematical "motion" carried out by God in a different way that violates no metaphysical laws).

{Why string theory is wrong}---> String theory is a theory of everything that requires everything to the zillionth power of additional fundamental entities and assumptions.

The God Proof is a theory of everything that requires zero new assumptions and dramatically reduces assumptions and presumed fundamental complexity.

String theory is a theory of everything secondary because it doesn’t explain consciousness.

String theory is ontologically incoherent because it bases physical entities on abstract ones.

String theory is a theory of everything secondary that COULD explain why everything secondary is as it is if we play make believe.

The God Proof is a theory of Everything (with a capital E) that explains why the building blocks of everything physical are NECESSARILY the way they are if we rely only on what we are certain is true.

In short, the reasons why string theory is wrong are precisely why The God Proof is right.

Serious question: can anyone think of a more blatant real-world example of curve fitting than using 11 dimensions in order to explain reality?

1. I really doubt there is anything that comes close if we consider professionals.
2. The God Proof is the polar opposite of that, which is precisely why it is the most robust explanation of reality ever (literally by orders of magnitude).

{What’s the point of life?}---> To maximize the positivity of existence for yourself and everyone else.

[Gertie]

Hi Manny

That's a lot to take in, in fact rather than being an argument rooted in coherence, it looks like you've thrown the theological kitchen sink at it! Too much to go through point by point, for me anyway!

Could you give a summary of the argument and evidence, including the strongest points in your view?

And including how an abstract concept , like maths, which is descriptive of actual things in themselves rather than being a thing in itself, can have causal power? (For example, the number 5 can't exist independantly as a thing in itself, and can't cause matter to come into being or reconfigure - imo).

[Manny Blander]

Here's a summary of the argument:

1) If a phenomenon is considered true if it can consistently be observed without being refuted, then the only truth that can be considered absolutely certain is that I think, sense, and feel; and hence that I am conscious, and that consciousness and subjective experience exist.

2) Mathematics describes or deduces truth on the basis of reason, abstraction, and assumptions. Rational thought, abstraction, and assumption are characteristics of conscious beings and only of conscious beings. Therefore, mathematics describes truth to conscious beings and only to conscious beings.

3) Nothing comes from nothing. Anything that exists or comes into being must be created from substances that already exist

4) According to science, matter (i.e., mass-energy) cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form in accordance with the laws of nature, which are known to be entirely, or nearly entirely, mathematical.

5) Creation ex nihilo (i.e., creation of something from nothing) is irrational by definition and can only occur abstractly in the minds of conscious beings. Irrational creations (thoughts, ideas, stories and theories) can only exist abstractly and subjectively in the minds of conscious beings.

6) The claim that consciousness and subjective experience emerge from the blind obedience of physical particles to the mathematical laws of nature that suggests that subjective experience is created ex nihilo. This claim is irrational.

7) Science currently offers no explanation as to how life and consciousness emerge from inanimate matter.

8 ) Science, however, has demonstrated how consciousness requires material brains to function .

9) According to our most rigorously proven and accepted scientific theories, matter becomes entirely and unequivocally abstract at the universe's foundations and edges (quantum mechanics, black holes, the Big Bang singularity, the expansion of the universe into an infinite space).

10) The compliance of matter to mathematical laws and the abstraction of matter at the universe's foundation and edges suggest that matter exists in the mind of a conscious being.

11) Nearly every positive feeling or sensation that humans experience ultimately stems directly from the fact that life is limited and fragile, there are the consistent causal laws that defines how the environment behaves, and we have agency to manipulate the environment in accordance with those laws. .

12) There is only one rational explanation that can reconcile all of the above, namely:

• Nothing comes from nothing.
  Human consciousness and subjective experience exist with absolute certainty.
  Matter exists and behaves in strict accordance with the mathematical laws of nature.
  Mathematics describes truth to conscious beings and only to conscious beings.
  Human consciousness, and in particular subjective experience and feelings, could not have been created, ex nihilo as a result of a change in the configuration of inanimate matter.
  Human consciousness requires a material brain to function and cannot exist without it.
  Matter becomes entirely abstract at the universe's foundation and edges.
  Abstractions can only exist in the minds of conscious beings.
  The way to maximize the positivity of conscious existence is by limiting it.

And that explanation is:

-- The only objective truth is that there is a single zero dimensional conscious entity that has always existed (hereinafter: “God”).

-- Our universe is a four dimensional conceptualization of God's zero dimensional universe. That is, instead of God conceptualizing his/her universe as a single zero dimensional universe in which s/he exists in its only point, God conceptualizes his/her universe as a multidimensional universe in which s/he exists in all its infinite points.

-- The elementary particles of matter are, in essence, perpetually moving points of non-existence within God. In other words, the zillions of particles that emerged from the Big Bang singularity should not be viewed as points in space where matter exists. They should be viewed as points in space where God DOES NOT exist. From there, everything continues as science explains.

-- Conceptually, time and spacial distance emerge from God advancing the particles (or their wave functions if you prefer) sequentially through the spacial and time dimensions, in accordance with the mathematics of spacetime and the laws of nature.

-- The universe is cyclical. If the universe expands and decays until only photons remain (as most today believe), the “distances” between the photons becomes meaningless and can easily be reset to what they were at the Big Bang.

-- Matter does not create our consciousness but rather only delimits and differentiates it from God’s, thereby enabling our and every living being's existence as derived but independent entities.

-- God feels what we feel. That's why the universe was created.

13) In other words, everything in nature—including the abstraction of physical matter at the universe's foundation and edges, the mathematical behavior of matter, the existence of subjective experience, the seemingly exceptional unlikelihood of nature's constant's being tuned to the precise values necessary for a universe that can support life, and the emergence of life and consciousness from inanimate matter—can be rationally explained if, and based on what we know today ONLY if, we presume only zero dimensional consciousness is fundamental.
___________

As for math, my point was two fold. First, in my view, even though math is a tool for describing how truth can be deduced from existing presumed truths, it is only a tool that can be used by subjective conscious beings. That's because, in principle, you can only abstract things that you define subjectively.

"5" can only represent 5 distinct, well defined, "identical" things. But the only way to define anything that can be counted is to assign it meaning . Meaning always implies purpose and purpose in the end is always subjective. Its always something that means something to you. To something you want to achieve or understand.

This is true, in my opinion, even for things like points and triangles. If you disagree, at the very least defining something that can be counted requires awareness and identification and that alone implies that math is meaningless without consciousness.

That being said, if you're conscious and can assign meaning to points and squares and electrons, then math is a great tool for describing things and rules that exist in your universe and how those things can change form while maintaining existential coherence.

If our consciousness is demarcated from God's through matter that God conceptualizes, then it makes sense that matter would have to be something persistent that can only change form mathematically in order for it to seem real and credible to us.

[LuckyR]

Hhmmm... all I'm getting is: the tools we use successfully to describe our known universe don't seem to describe the time before our universe. Another description is therefore required. I hereby label this other situation: "God". Since another description is required, "God" must therefore exist.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hhmmm... all I'm getting is: the tools we use successfully to describe our known universe don't seem to describe the time before our universe. Another description is therefore required. I hereby label this other situation: "God". Since another description is required, "God" must therefore exist.

Even your concise summary seems blurred and confused to me. I can't seem to follow what's being said here.

[Gertie]

Manny Blander

Thanks. I've had a go at responding to your summary. I've commented point by point, which makes it rather bitty, but I still haven't gotten my head around the entirety of the argument. Plus my scientific knowledge is nowhere near being able to comment usefully on some points. Anyway, here it is for what it's worth, I'm taking a sceptical position.

Here's a summary of the argument:

1) If a phenomenon is considered true if it can consistently be observed without being refuted, then the only truth that can be considered absolutely certain is that I think, sense, and feel; and hence that I am conscious, and that consciousness and subjective experience exist.

I basically agree, but would put it differently. The difference is important and relevant I think. And I'd like to use it to put a different perspective, which touches on some of your other key points -

MY conscious subjective experience certainly exists because by its nature it is directly known to me. There is no space between me experiencing and knowing that experience, where error can creep in. However I can't know with that certainty if you or your consciousness exists, or anything but my own experience.

So the only known certainty would place me as the solipsistic Creator of 'the universe of my experience' . And I could just stop there, because anything else is speculative and unfalsifiable. If I did stop there, using certainty as my criterion for true reality, I'd find myself as 'God' using your terminology.

This isn't a cheap point, there's a significant difference between claiming that we know for certain that human consciousness exists, and knowing my own consciousness exists. Not just that it curtails certainty to solipsism. But it also makes me recognise that the way I 'know' other humans exist and are conscious is part of the same package of my experience by which I know the sky is blue, my conscious mind can't create or manipulate material stuff without my body, unembodied minds don't seem to exist, physics works, rainbows exist, my toe itches, things get smaller as I move away, etc. Other humans' consciousness is just one part of that experiential package my conscious experience presents as its content from moment to moment.

In order to escape solipsism I have to assume that my experience is representing something real which exists 'out there'. And this assumption bears out, in as much that the universe my experience represents changes independantly of my experience. When I look away, things still seem to have happened when I look back.

Now if I make that assumption, that my experience represents a real universe which exists indepedent of my experience, then my experience becomes the way I can know things about that universe. And if I compare my experience to other people's, we can create a shared (inter-subjectively falsifiable) experiential model of the universe 'out there' which contains us. Pretty straightforward so far.

And doing just that resulted in the scientific method which gave us Physicalism. Not God/s. When we open our eyes, we see a physical universe. Which we refine by comparing notes and testing theoretical predictions.

Admittedly science and physicalism don't have the answer to every conceivable question, and there are some questions which look inaccessible to human knowledge because (science tells us) we are limited and flawed observers and thinkers. There is a religious tradition of inserting a 'God of the Gaps' when we contemplate such questions, from sacrificing to volcano gods, to the Cosmological argument, to contemporary apologetics. There is also a tradition whereby such questions which eventually become accessible to science, are explainable by physicalism. And the Gaps move to new areas science hasn't filled. And God changes to fit them.

Those gaps which remain unanswered, some of which you rely on in your argument, can sometimes be approached using Reason. So lets examine what Reason is. My position is that Reason is an ''If....then'' process. That's what syllogisms do for example.

We inter-subjectively agree on our observations of how the world is, and according to how we observe the world to work (causation, the 'laws of nature', bounded objects/minds/categories we experientally model, bind and count, how objects interact, etc). And we agree these premises about what the world is like and how it works lead to conclusions. Hence our Reason is rooted in the Physicalist experiential model, of stuff interacting in predictable ways according to physical forces.

So when questions like ''Why is there something rather than nothing?'', or ''What happens beyond our ability to observe or extrapolate physicalist 'laws'?'' arise, then Reason is stumped along with the scientific method imo. Because we can't, or shouldn't, transpose the ''If...then'' process of reasoning to scenarios where the normal Physicalist rules don't necessarily apply as far as we can tell.

The reasonable answer then is to say - we don't know.

There's nothing wrong with speculating of course. But we should be clear that we're using a different process, more like ''What if... then'. And such speculations are manifold. But unfalsifiable if they venture beyond our 'in-universe' Physicalist framework which relies on inter-subjectively comparing notes on our observations. In some cases, we don't even know how we could go about testing 'What if.. then' hypotheses. Currently the Physicalist hypothesis for conscious experience somehow 'emerging' from physicalist processes is such a speculation. Because there is this 'Explanatory Gap'(Levine) in Physicalism regarding consciousness. However, there are various other hypotheses which don't lead to theism. Such as Panpsychism or Idealism, or the position that our experiential model is so flawed and limited we can't grasp the actual nature of reality (Mysterianism).

2) Mathematics describes or deduces truth on the basis of reason, abstraction, and assumptions. Rational thought, abstraction, and assumption are characteristics of conscious beings and only of conscious beings. Therefore, mathematics describes truth to conscious beings and only to conscious beings.

The describing and deducing isn't done by maths tho, it's done by conscious humans. It's one of many ways we organise and describe stuff and its relationships. Maths has no special power of its own which makes it a bearer of truth.

3) Nothing comes from nothing. Anything that exists or comes into being must be created from substances that already exist

We observe that rule to apply to our existing universe, but we can't, or shouldn't, assume it extrapolates beyond our in-universe observations. We have no way of speculating what might happen in a state of nothingness, it's incoherent to us. Also it's possible that something has always existed, but is beyond our ability to observe, know about or explain.

4) According to science, matter (i.e., mass-energy) cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form in accordance with the laws of nature, which are known to be entirely, or nearly entirely, mathematical.

See answer to 3). And again, the 'laws of nature' can be described mathematically by us, but as things in themselves they just are what they are. Which is the way matter interacts.

5) Creation ex nihilo (i.e., creation of something from nothing) is irrational by definition and can only occur abstractly in the minds of conscious beings. Irrational creations (thoughts, ideas, stories and theories) can only exist abstractly and subjectively in the minds of conscious beings.

Creation ex nihilo is unobserved in our universe of existing stuff and how it works. We shouldn't extrapolate that to a state of existing nothingness. Nothingness is outside our reasoning which imo is based on how stuff is and works within our existing universe. Such extrapolation of human Reason is akin to a category error.

6) The claim that consciousness and subjective experience emerge from the blind obedience of physical particles to the mathematical laws of nature that suggests that subjective experience is created ex nihilo. This claim is irrational.

The lawlike way physical stuff interacts is just the way it is, and is apparently fundamental (per Physicalism). And monist Physicalism claims that somehow physical stuff interacting according to physical forces must somehow manifest conscious experience.

It's true that the Physicalist model can't explain how, but it does have an incredibly vast and detailed track record of explaining the universe, within a specific model which offers deductions and predictions based on it model. Where-as your proposed ontology has nothing comparable to that vast and detailed explanatory power, and lacks a model which would enable us to predict or deduce anything like your hypothesis. Rather, your ontology looks designed only to fill the gaps remaining for Physicalism, imo. By creating an undetectable entity which is therefore necessarily unfalsifiable, designed with those gap filling properties in mind.

I've already covered Creation ex Nihilo.

7) Science currently offers no explanation as to how life and consciousness emerge from inanimate matter.

I believe some scientists believe Life may be explainable under Physicalism, it's just very complex. But I agree consciousness doesn't look as if it is amenable to science untangling physical complexities, there is a genuine Hard Problem (Chalmers) there. A gap. I covered other ontological possibilities in my answer to 1). A minded Creator is also a possibility, but is another unfalsifiable ''What if...'' hypothesis. Of course these hypotheses face the same creation ex nihilo issue, as I've covered previously.

8 ) Science, however, has demonstrated how consciousness requires material brains to function .

Science has noted correlations between specific experiential events and neural events. Physicalist monism tries to fit this into its framework which works so well for nearly every other phenomenon, by hypothesising eg that experience 'emerges' from physical processes, or simply IS physical processes, or is an illusion. There are Physicalist ''What ifs...'' too.

9) According to our most rigorously proven and accepted scientific theories, matter becomes entirely and unequivocally abstract at the universe's foundations and edges (quantum mechanics, black holes, the Big Bang singularity, the expansion of the universe into an infinite space).

I can't speak to this - over my head. But I'd put it in the territory of stuff science hasn't got a confident handle on (yet). A gap.

10) The compliance of matter to mathematical laws and the abstraction of matter at the universe's foundation and edges suggest that matter exists in the mind of a conscious being.

That seems like a leap. If you're suggesting matter doesn't exist until it is observed when it somehow resolves itself into physical stuff from a mathematical concept in a mind - how would that work? What's the science of this ontological claim? And why do things change when I look away, even contributing to the state of affairs I'm currently observing?

The way we observe the universe to work is that objects and processes exist whether we observe them or not. To claim otherwise requires justifying a different ontology with its own rules and science.

Note - If your answer to things changing when we're not looking is that they exist in the mind of some omniscient/omnipresent superbeing, then why do they blur at the edges of our humanly observable universe?

Also note - you're introducing ex nihilo an unobservable super-being to justify your premise that physical objects and processes don't exist unless observed, rather than following any science or evidence pointing that way. The science of such a universe would have to be invented post hoc, purely to justify your premise that such a being exists. That sort of methodology makes anything possible, and invokes the Flying Spaghetti Monster rebuttal.

11) Nearly every positive feeling or sensation that humans experience ultimately stems directly from the fact that life is limited and fragile, there are the consistent causal laws that defines how the environment behaves, and we have agency to manipulate the environment in accordance with those laws. .

OK

12) There is only one rational explanation that can reconcile all of the above, namely:

Nothing comes from nothing.

see above

Human consciousness and subjective experience exist with absolute certainty.

Again, only MY conscious experience exists with absolute certainty. You only exist if my experiential representational package of the universe has at least some correspondence with reality. Making that assumption, together we can whittle away errors by comparing notes on the contents of our own experiences. That process for establising inter-subjectively falsifiable truth underpins the scientific method which resulted in the Physicalist model. Not your ontology.

Matter exists and behaves in strict accordance with the mathematical laws of nature.

You don't need to describe the laws of nature as mathematical, they just are what they are. We don't talk about mathematical engines, electrity or coffee mugs.

Mathematics describes truth to conscious beings and only to conscious beings.

Again humans describe stuff and relations in various ways, including mathematically. If the description tallies with the reality, then it's a truthful description. ''I hate sprouts'' is as much a truthful description as a mathematical one.

Human consciousness, and in particular subjective experience and feelings, could not have been created, ex nihilo as a result of a change in the configuration of inanimate matter.

We don't currently know that, it's an open question. A gap. Even if true, there are various other possible reasons.

Human consciousness requires a material brain to function and cannot exist without it.

There are other metaphysical positions which disagree. And it rather undermines the causal relationship of mind creating matter which I understood you to be arguing for? Have I gotten something wrong?

Matter becomes entirely abstract at the universe's foundation and edges.

See previous comments

Abstractions can only exist in the minds of conscious beings.

Agree

The way to maximize the positivity of conscious existence is by limiting it.

I don't understand this point.

And that explanation is:



-- The only objective truth is that there is a single zero dimensional conscious entity that has always existed (hereinafter: “God”).

How can a zero dimensional entity exist? In what sense or definition does it exist? Under what laws or science? And if this zero dimensional entity (whatever that actually means) can be eternal, why not energy/matter?

-- Our universe is a four dimensional conceptualization of God's zero dimensional universe. That is, instead of God conceptualizing his/her universe as a single zero dimensional universe in which s/he exists in its only point, God conceptualizes his/her universe as a multidimensional universe in which s/he exists in all its infinite points.

How do you know this? What's your epistemological methodology?

-- The elementary particles of matter are, in essence, perpetually moving points of non-existence within God. In other words, the zillions of particles that emerged from the Big Bang singularity should not be viewed as points in space where matter exists. They should be viewed as points in space where God DOES NOT exist. From there, everything continues as science explains.

So what we observe to exist, is what does not exist? And everything else, empty space, exists as this zero dimensional minded something? Again, how could you know this?

-- Conceptually, time and spacial distance emerge from God advancing the particles (or their wave functions if you prefer) sequentially through the spacial and time dimensions, in accordance with the mathematics of spacetime and the laws of nature.

So emergence is a feature of this ontology, but the justification for this whole hypothesis at least partly rests on emergence not accounting for conscious experience under Physicalism?

-- The universe is cyclical. If the universe expands and decays until only photons remain (as most today believe), the “distances” between the photons becomes meaningless and can easily be reset to what they were at the Big Bang.

I just don't understand the sciency stuff, so can't comment I'm afraid. Only note again that your solution smacks to me of God of the Gaps in current scientific understanding.


-- Matter does not create our consciousness but rather only delimits and differentiates it from God’s, thereby enabling our and every living being's existence as derived but independent entities.


And there is some scientific law/force in this ontology which explains this de-limiting? Or are you simply assuming there must be something, because conscious experience seems to manifest in discrete packages? This is the problem with creating ''What if...'' hypotheses to neatly fill in the gaps. Rather than following the evidence we do have.

-- God feels what we feel. That's why the universe was created.

Seems like a non-sequiter? Also a bit presumptious to know the intention of this zero dimensional, undetectable something you've posited exists.

[Lagayascienza]

Hhmmm... all I'm getting is: the tools we use successfully to describe our known universe don't seem to describe the time before our universe. Another description is therefore required. I hereby label this other situation: "God". Since another description is required, "God" must therefore exist.

Good summary.