/sci/ - Science & Math

The universe is a computer. A computer that does what? A computer that designs it's own self-awareness. The most obvious manifestation of this is the development of self-awareness of the universe, by the universe, in the creation of human consciousness. All processes in the universe are also acting out, or dramatizing the process of self-awareness.

The universe in it's entirety, starting at the level of personal consciousness, is a computer that is queried with intent, attitude, emotion, spirit, 'mental stuff', and returns a physical manifestation to that query. When the result comes back, consciousness then probes that result and compares it to the intention that begot it. The returned physical manifestation is then queried further, based on that comparison in attempt to understand and manipulate it further. This recursive feedback loop between the mental and the accretion of the physical representations of those mental states is the cause of complexity and intelligibility in the universe.

This is the process of self-awareness, recognition, consciousness, etc.

This can be simplified with the following equation: Input -> Medium -> Output

In fact the whole universe is the thing itself, a unified organism coming to know itself by the products of it's own imagination.

Therefore we could say that we, the manifold manifestations of that singular imagination — consciousness — are the created, creating the creator, by creating like him.

The problem is truth and metaphysics are also a part of the universe, the uni- is the whole of all those things: physical, metaphysical, the relations and objects etc. If truth is metaphorical then what metaphorical truth can there be of the whole? That the universe is like the universe? Metaphors can only be applied between parts of the universe compared to other parts of the universe, the universal whole has nothing to be metaphorically compared to other than itself, in which case the relation is identity: A=A, not A is like A.

These are the most foundational metaphysical concepts the human mind is as of yet capable of understanding. These are revealed in the heart of every world religion, wisdom tradition, or mythology, including modern big bang cosmology and evolutionary theory. All large scale explanatory models are metaphors cast in different metaphors and symbols of the process of the feedback loop we call self-awareness or consciousness.

Perhaps the biggest take away is what the wisdom traditions have been telling us all along: that the global imagination, consciousness is not a product of the universe, built by the universe, using the materials of the universe as lego blocks. But rather, the universe are the lego blocks that are used to make imaginative states manifest in a way that renders them intelligible to others.

'The stone the builders rejected will be the cornerstone'

Want to find out more? Watch the video @ https://youtu.be/xqY08gN_FCM?si=4m8GKzn04ZMdPEJl

Godspeed

>>15742946
>the universe is (like) a computer
Aren't you just metaphorically applying something you know, the computer you're typing on, to an unknown, the universe as a whole, and creating the world out of your ignorance in the same way a 16th century man would look at worms coming out of a block of cheese at the market and see the (metaphorical) truth of the universe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cheese_and_the_Worms

>>15742949
The question is: what can the uni-verse be compared to, since it is all there is, there is nothing BUT the universe. The answer: that is exactly right. The universe is compared to the thing which made it, the thing it came from. What is that? The same thing as is inside a blackhole, the same thing that was before the big bang — nothing! No rules! No stuff! No nothing! Only this can be said of it: that it desired to create, and to know itself by knowing another.

What better metaphor can be used to describe that, than love?

God is Love.

>>15742947

>>15742983
Yes absolutely. Exactly the same. You see, physical relations between things are always already couched in a physical medium, easily intelligible to others. On the other hand metaphysical relations, by definition, exist without physical medium. Therefore in order to express metaphysical revelation/relations, an intelligible medium must be found. In this case the computer or the worms in the cheese are the arbitrarily chosen symbols used to express a truth about the 'mental' or metaphysical world, which is common to us all, yet not visible, ie: not intelligible.

In fact this is what we are doing all the time, every second of the day, is expressing the qualities of your ever-present consciousness in physical reality. And in fact, this is what universe generally, globally speaking, is doing through consciousness: creating a logged physical record of the activities of the imagination — creating a likeness of itself.

>>15742947
Have you read Yuk Hei?
https://www.amazon.com/Recursivity-Contingency-Media-Philosophy-Yuk/dp/1786600536

>>15742991
>What better metaphor can be used to describe that, than love?
I'd suggest there are better metaphors to that act of self-becoming than love, as we know the universe is riven with, and we may say more strongly that it is driven by, strife, and that eris is as much a fact of existence as eros. Have you read Schelling's freedom essay? He came to the same conclusion that the universe must have been created as a contigent act of willing from nothingness, a hunger from the void. But he gives a better account of the potencies than does naive Platonism that would have eros as the only power at work in the world. Pic is good secondary lit on his potencies theory:.

>>15743020
No I haven't. I'm sure she's talking there about the same things I am here, however ... I am keen not to miss the forest in the trees.

I am most interested in a reconciliation between ancient 'revealed' wisdom and modern cosmology and evolutionary theory, for a deeper understanding of the both. I believe the next step in human understanding follows from the application of prophetic/shamanic conceptual wisdom to the hard sciences.

Traditions like Hinduism/Buddhism and Christianity/Judaism/Kabalah archive an immense amount of accumulated wisdom, much as science does today, whereas every modern philosopher seemed egoistically propelled the reinvent the wheel.

>>15742943
Your notion of truth is metaphysical. As in, imaginary. lol

>>15743015
Aren't we then in danger of building idols limited by the horizon of our own imaginations and knowledge? Wouldn't all truth then be a series of xoanons and fetishes, cheese and laptop universes?

>>>/lit/cringe

>>15743032
Let me take a little bit of a roundabout answer which I go through in the video to resolve the question of theodicy. What I am saying is that the intelligible universe is the quantization and organization of ever-present mental qualities, the ultimate reference point of which is a state of not quantization, no organization. Total symmetry, in other words, of all qualities, no relations.

In Semitic thought, man was created in the image of, or the likeness of God. In Greek thought man is the microcosmos and the universe is the macrocosmos. Consciousness then, being the reflection of God (all qualities) within the world/universe (quantization/organization), must necessarily contain ALL the contents, attributes, qualities of God/Nothing/Singularity — those would be not just limited to Love, Kindness, Pleasure, Companionship, and Gratitude, but also Fear, Hatred, Avarice, Loneliness, and Suffering. These are all necessary components in creating a likeness of God.

However, God did not just create a physical, quantifiable, inteligible representation of all qualities, but has also given that creation itself the potential for self-conscious manipulation or organization, of itself. That is consciousness, the son of god, or the image of god. That is us. And this action of overflowing even the bounds of the infinite and the perfect, in order to see what even the infinite and the perfect cannot imagine, is what makes me declare that Love is a perfectly adequate metaphor, for the power that created and sustains the universe.

>>15743040
Isn't that the frightening absurdity and responsibility of freedom, known as hell, which remains always a possibility?

>>15743036
Ye-es ... that is exactly what I am saying. And that is exactly what Nietzsche, the Buddha, Jesus, and Moses were all saying.

'The Kingdom of Heaven is within you'
'I am that which I choose to become'

>>15743059

I don't really have anything to contribute but I enjoy Deleuze posting.
Maybe the universe isn't "like" anything because it's pure difference, difference itself, the plane of immanence. Etc. It defies analogy. Although that sort of comes back around to a sort of divinity, ironically.

>>15743844
It isn't like anything. 'It is what it chooses to become'. This is the secret name of God given to Moses on the the mountain.

>>15743069
No, they were saying (at least most of them, at least according to canon) that your "metaphysical truth" is some inaccessible ultimate reality. I'm reminding you that your "metaphysical truth" is just pure human fancy. It doesn't mean anything for anything to be anything except all of its possible appearances.

bump

>>15742946
Hi Chris