Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,822
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, because someone has otherwise expressed that it is "annoying" to them to discuss such topics in the open forum at large, I'll put it here, in this dead pit of a forum.
This thread is not to debate whether it is wise to discuss this topic. This thread is not to debate whether the kernel of the subject of this topic exists. This is thread is for exploring that which is observed.
There are a few different kinds of 'gods' that could be discussed. If someone would like to discuss them, because this is a topic which deserves clarity and precision to explore in this way.
I would like to discuss each of them in turn, but here discuss the various formats of the idea.
Categorization:
To properly discuss this topic, we should distinguish between a few ideas.
First, there is the idea of a "god", with the quotation marks appropriate, I think, at this point. This is a thing given existence as some act of social puppetry: the idea of fairies such that people hallucinate them and "the old rules" take hold as they believe a small bit of madness into existence as a reflection of a large bit of madness; or the unfortunate phenomena where greed drives people to act in service of the very idea of money and having it and having power over others through contact with it that is "mammon" as acknowledged in the bible. This would incorporate any sort of figment or make believe thing born of human or animal or other thought such as faeries, demons, devils, angels, etc.: characters invented by people and given form through our actions and emulations.
Then there are gods, always left without capitalization, said flatly even at the start of a sentence. This is, in this presentation of language, to serve as a category for something based on its position relative to some other thing, namely as physical controller(s) relative to a simulation. These are philosophically important to understanding even a tiny fraction of the subset of ideas that are "gods of this world", the next category and something I don't care to discuss.
Next, there are (not necessarily) gods of this world, said all together and with particular intent on specificity, which are not the discussion here, but specifically physical controllers assumed to exist over this world, under the assumption that our experience of existence is as an active simulation. I think the discussion of these is droll, mostly because they can neither be proven nor disproven except in particular ways not more easily explained by a "god" than through the assumption of a god of this world. I do not think thisnthread an appropriate place for assumption.
And finally there are(not ever) Gods, the sorts of internally contradictory logically impossible nonsense beings believed in by religion, impossible nonsense computers that can calculate the future rather than merely calculate continuous things through continuous phenomena, any invocation of predestination except through explicit redirection, "something I don't understand", "an excuse to find meaning and purpose in nothing rather than just doing it for myself and my society for our own sakes", or any other such thing. Gods are also not the topic here as noted by the little g in the thread title. I have distinguished these particularly separately from the thread topic.
If someone would like to offer better ways of speaking about these specifically different categories, I am all ears.
In my contributions to this thread I will be discussing gods, and the relationship between simulation and host. Many of my observations will be case study to inform on the class and understand, primarily, the things that have this relationship, and whether there are ethical obligations that arise from it.
This thread is not to debate whether it is wise to discuss this topic. This thread is not to debate whether the kernel of the subject of this topic exists. This is thread is for exploring that which is observed.
There are a few different kinds of 'gods' that could be discussed. If someone would like to discuss them, because this is a topic which deserves clarity and precision to explore in this way.
I would like to discuss each of them in turn, but here discuss the various formats of the idea.
Categorization:
To properly discuss this topic, we should distinguish between a few ideas.
First, there is the idea of a "god", with the quotation marks appropriate, I think, at this point. This is a thing given existence as some act of social puppetry: the idea of fairies such that people hallucinate them and "the old rules" take hold as they believe a small bit of madness into existence as a reflection of a large bit of madness; or the unfortunate phenomena where greed drives people to act in service of the very idea of money and having it and having power over others through contact with it that is "mammon" as acknowledged in the bible. This would incorporate any sort of figment or make believe thing born of human or animal or other thought such as faeries, demons, devils, angels, etc.: characters invented by people and given form through our actions and emulations.
Then there are gods, always left without capitalization, said flatly even at the start of a sentence. This is, in this presentation of language, to serve as a category for something based on its position relative to some other thing, namely as physical controller(s) relative to a simulation. These are philosophically important to understanding even a tiny fraction of the subset of ideas that are "gods of this world", the next category and something I don't care to discuss.
Next, there are (not necessarily) gods of this world, said all together and with particular intent on specificity, which are not the discussion here, but specifically physical controllers assumed to exist over this world, under the assumption that our experience of existence is as an active simulation. I think the discussion of these is droll, mostly because they can neither be proven nor disproven except in particular ways not more easily explained by a "god" than through the assumption of a god of this world. I do not think thisnthread an appropriate place for assumption.
And finally there are(not ever) Gods, the sorts of internally contradictory logically impossible nonsense beings believed in by religion, impossible nonsense computers that can calculate the future rather than merely calculate continuous things through continuous phenomena, any invocation of predestination except through explicit redirection, "something I don't understand", "an excuse to find meaning and purpose in nothing rather than just doing it for myself and my society for our own sakes", or any other such thing. Gods are also not the topic here as noted by the little g in the thread title. I have distinguished these particularly separately from the thread topic.
If someone would like to offer better ways of speaking about these specifically different categories, I am all ears.
In my contributions to this thread I will be discussing gods, and the relationship between simulation and host. Many of my observations will be case study to inform on the class and understand, primarily, the things that have this relationship, and whether there are ethical obligations that arise from it.
I am a "god"/gods/gods of this world/God nerd, in addition to other things. Like a Star Wars nerd, I do not believe in the reality nor truth of my nerdy interests, except when used in applicable and appropriate ways.
The interest is not based in belief, however I think that thinking about this stuff does lead to better, or fewer, beliefs.
The interest is not based in belief, however I think that thinking about this stuff does lead to better, or fewer, beliefs.