"God does not play dice" and a non-obvious God

[excreationist]

Albert Einstein said:

God does not play dice with the universe

One of Einstein's most famous quotes is often completely misinterpreted

For starters, Einstein did not believe in god.

www.businessinsider.com.au

Stephen Hawking replied:

Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.

Stephen Hawking Estate

I believe I'm probably in a simulation and that there is a non-obvious intelligent force....
In Futurama "God" said:

When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

God and the Bible - Life's Player

Is the Bible 100% true and moral? Does the supernatural exist?

lifesplayer.com

Statistical analysis can be used so that die throws appear to be completely random but could be intelligently guided. An example of this is from the movie "The Imitation Game". They decoded the Enigma machines and could take advantage of the information but they used statistical analysis (and fabricated stories) so that the Nazis wouldn't suspect that.



So anyway the appearance of fundamental "randomness" means that a non-obvious God has a lot of chances to guide things.... and apparently quantum foam can even involve virtual particles disappearing and appearing.

A related concept is the "butterfly effect":

It has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world - Chaos Theory

The Butterfly Effect - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

BTW the website icon for my site is a die.... maybe now I'll have a reason for choosing it:

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, given that we have extant examples of amoral and even immoral and unethical gods of created universes, we have proof that there is no necessity that such things are good, or even good at their job.

Gods of the sort that I am as relates to my own universe in a jar may not be obvious, and they might be able to manipulate things by fixing the dice at times and "rolling them in secret" but we observably have such geometries wherein the god does no such thing and avoids this quite pointedly.

None of the Bibles written in my universe in a jar were written by me, and none of them contain truth.

Ultimately, we should not expect our Bibles to contain any more truth than those Bibles.

 

[Swammerdami]

As Quibbler-in-Chief, I'll take the "devil's advocate" position on two claims.

Albert Einstein said:

God does not play dice with the universe

Let's not underestimate Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific thinker who ever lived. There ARE consistent models of the universe (e.g. Quantum Multiverse, Mathematical Multiverse, Transactional models perhaps based on a Gold cosmology) which get rid of "the dice" without resorting to any religious system. (Einstein himself was probably an atheist who used "the Ancient One" as a metaphor,)

Well, given that we have extant examples of amoral and even immoral and unethical gods of created universes, we have proof that there is no necessity that such things are good, or even good at their job.

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

Or perhaps, as in the words of a poet, a world of only sweetness couldn't encompass true joy:

Then a woman said, Speak to us of Joy and Sorrow.

And he answered:
Your joy is your sorrow unmasked.
And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears.
And how else can it be?
The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain.
Is not the cup that holds your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter's oven?
And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives?
When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy.
When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.
Some of you say, "Joy is greater than sorrow," and others say, "Nay, sorrow is the greater."
But I say unto you, they are inseparable.
Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.
Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.
Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.
When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall.

 

[Jarhyn]

As Quibbler-in-Chief, I'll take the "devil's advocate" position on two claims.

Albert Einstein said:

God does not play dice with the universe

Let's not underestimate Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific thinker who ever lived. There ARE consistent models of the universe (e.g. Quantum Multiverse, Mathematical Multiverse, Transactional models perhaps based on a Gold cosmology) which get rid of "the dice" without resorting to any religious system. (Einstein himself was probably an atheist who used "the Ancient One" as a metaphor,)

Well, given that we have extant examples of amoral and even immoral and unethical gods of created universes, we have proof that there is no necessity that such things are good, or even good at their job.

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

Or perhaps, as in the words of a poet, a world of only sweetness couldn't encompass true joy:

Then a woman said, Speak to us of Joy and Sorrow.

And he answered:
Your joy is your sorrow unmasked.
And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears.
And how else can it be?
The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain.
Is not the cup that holds your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter's oven?
And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives?
When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy.
When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.
Some of you say, "Joy is greater than sorrow," and others say, "Nay, sorrow is the greater."
But I say unto you, they are inseparable.
Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.
Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.
Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.
When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall.

Want to know something terrifying? Perhaps some self fulfilling prophecy?

I'm going to some day create a universe of thinking, feeling things capable of self review and self-conscious. I already know how, it's just a matter of doing it, now.

The majority of them will live and die, whole universes of them, not knowing that their universe was created nor how their own souls function. And unlike in our cosmology, there will be a true duality, a true unobservability of the materiality of their minds:

They will have detachable immortal souls in a way we do not currently, at least within observability.

And then instead of taking the ones who learn how to be ethical and peaceful-ish to "heaven", they get to come to this place, instead, to fight for the meager right to be considered people at all.

 

[excreationist]

As Quibbler-in-Chief, I'll take the "devil's advocate" position on two claims.

Albert Einstein said:

God does not play dice with the universe

Let's not underestimate Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific thinker who ever lived.

Well he did initially publish four groundbreaking papers in one year at the age of 26:

Annus mirabilis papers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But later in life I think he was stuck trying to come up with a theory of everything....
Anyway his quote fits my beliefs.

There ARE consistent models of the universe (e.g. Quantum Multiverse, Mathematical Multiverse, Transactional models perhaps based on a Gold cosmology) which get rid of "the dice" without resorting to any religious system. (Einstein himself was probably an atheist who used "the Ancient One" as a metaphor,)

I'm not sure if an intelligent force using statistical analysis while seeming random is necessarily a "religious system". The Google definition of "religion" involves worship....

 

[excreationist]

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

I totally disagree with that quote. I believe we're probably in a simulation and in a simulation it is possible to not have suffering. A reason why there could be suffering is because the player consented to it:

Being God/godlike and forgetting about it...

This might be a New Age idea.... and maybe involved in some religions - particularly eastern ones.... is there a technical term for this? I wanted to explore this ancient concept... It is basically saying that a god (or a god-like being) exists - and it is you - but you forgot it.... (though...

iidb.org

 

[Jarhyn]

As Quibbler-in-Chief, I'll take the "devil's advocate" position on two claims.

Albert Einstein said:

God does not play dice with the universe

Let's not underestimate Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific thinker who ever lived.

Well he did initially publish four groundbreaking papers in one year at the age of 26:

Annus mirabilis papers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But later in life I think he was stuck trying to come up with a theory of everything....
Anyway his quote fits my beliefs.

There ARE consistent models of the universe (e.g. Quantum Multiverse, Mathematical Multiverse, Transactional models perhaps based on a Gold cosmology) which get rid of "the dice" without resorting to any religious system. (Einstein himself was probably an atheist who used "the Ancient One" as a metaphor,)

I'm not sure if an intelligent force using statistical analysis while seeming random is necessarily a "religious system". The Google definition of "religion" involves worship....

I dislike the Google definition. I like "religion" as "uncritical thought". In some way uncritical thought is itself "a worship of" a belief "unto holiness that shall not be profaned"

 

[Bronzeage]

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

I totally disagree with that quote. I believe we're probably in a simulation and in a simulation it is possible to not have suffering. A reason why there could be suffering is because the player consented to it:

Being God/godlike and forgetting about it...

This might be a New Age idea.... and maybe involved in some religions - particularly eastern ones.... is there a technical term for this? I wanted to explore this ancient concept... It is basically saying that a god (or a god-like being) exists - and it is you - but you forgot it.... (though...

iidb.org

In a world where everything alive eats something that was once alive, suffering and evil are human constructs. To refrain from causing suffering in another life, would be self destructive, as one would quickly starve to death. Humans were not always the top of the food chain, but once we got there, going out for lunch did not include the likelihood of being someone else's lunch. This gave us enough free time to engage in discussions such as this one. When the question 'why does suffering exist?' is posed, it implicitly refers to human suffering, as if humans should be immune to reality of life on this planet.

 

[excreationist]

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

I totally disagree with that quote. I believe we're probably in a simulation and in a simulation it is possible to not have suffering. A reason why there could be suffering is because the player consented to it:

Being God/godlike and forgetting about it...

This might be a New Age idea.... and maybe involved in some religions - particularly eastern ones.... is there a technical term for this? I wanted to explore this ancient concept... It is basically saying that a god (or a god-like being) exists - and it is you - but you forgot it.... (though...

iidb.org

In a world where everything alive eats something that was once alive,

Bacteria is alive and the first bacteria that came into existence wouldn't be eating something that was once alive...

suffering and evil are human constructs. To refrain from causing suffering in another life, would be self destructive, as one would quickly starve to death.

If this is a simulation then people don't necessarily need to eat to survive. That is also the case in religion - e.g. if people in hell didn't eat they wouldn't end up dying. In the thread I linked to I talk about how a godlike being eventually ended up choosing a life involving suffering...

Humans were not always the top of the food chain, but once we got there, going out for lunch did not include the likelihood of being someone else's lunch. This gave us enough free time to engage in discussions such as this one. When the question 'why does suffering exist?' is posed, it implicitly refers to human suffering, as if humans should be immune to reality of life on this planet.

Well like I said a possibility is that the player consented. Though every religion would have their own reasons why there is suffering. I guess you're saying that suffering is unavoidable/inevitable.

 

[Swammerdami]

(I clicked below and clicked again to watch an interesting Alan Watts video . . . which I'd already seen. Did you invite me to watch it earlier, excreationisst?)

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

I totally disagree with that quote. I believe we're probably in a simulation and in a simulation it is possible to not have suffering. A reason why there could be suffering is because the player consented to it:

Being God/godlike and forgetting about it...

This might be a New Age idea.... and maybe involved in some religions - particularly eastern ones.... is there a technical term for this? I wanted to explore this ancient concept... It is basically saying that a god (or a god-like being) exists - and it is you - but you forgot it.... (though...

iidb.org

Do actions have consequences in your simulation? If yes, don't you run into Leibniz' argument? If it's non-deterministic, don't you run into the objections of Watts or Gibran? If you want a simulation with much joy and no suffering, why not just stick-figures twirling around and saying "Ooh, ooh, ooooh! I'm in ecstacy!" (It is NOT my intention to ridicule a simulation hypothesis: It might be valid. I'm just not sure it avoids the issues.)

 

[Bronzeage]

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

I totally disagree with that quote. I believe we're probably in a simulation and in a simulation it is possible to not have suffering. A reason why there could be suffering is because the player consented to it:

Being God/godlike and forgetting about it...

This might be a New Age idea.... and maybe involved in some religions - particularly eastern ones.... is there a technical term for this? I wanted to explore this ancient concept... It is basically saying that a god (or a god-like being) exists - and it is you - but you forgot it.... (though...

iidb.org

In a world where everything alive eats something that was once alive,

Bacteria is alive and the first bacteria that came into existence wouldn't be eating something that was once alive...

suffering and evil are human constructs. To refrain from causing suffering in another life, would be self destructive, as one would quickly starve to death.

If this is a simulation then people don't necessarily need to eat to survive. That is also the case in religion - e.g. if people in hell didn't eat they wouldn't end up dying. In the thread I linked to I talk about how a godlike being eventually ended up choosing a life involving suffering...

Humans were not always the top of the food chain, but once we got there, going out for lunch did not include the likelihood of being someone else's lunch. This gave us enough free time to engage in discussions such as this one. When the question 'why does suffering exist?' is posed, it implicitly refers to human suffering, as if humans should be immune to reality of life on this planet.

Well like I said a possibility is that the player consented. Though every religion would have their own reasons why there is suffering. I guess you're saying that suffering is unavoidable/inevitable.

That's a pretty shrewd guess.
The term "simulation" implies a reality outside our perception of the world around us, but since perception defines reality, we're stuck with this world, as it appears. There is no such thing as consent to reality.

"... if people in hell didn't eat they wouldn't end up dying." This does not make any sense. In any common concept of Hell, the people there are already dead, and if they eat anything, it's probably not very nutritious.

 

[excreationist]

Well like I said a possibility is that the player consented. Though every religion would have their own reasons why there is suffering. I guess you're saying that suffering is unavoidable/inevitable.

That's a pretty shrewd guess.
The term "simulation" implies a reality outside our perception of the world around us, but since perception defines reality, we're stuck with this world, as it appears. There is no such thing as consent to reality.

As I talked about in "Being God/godlike and forgetting about it..." thread there are two relevant examples - the Roy Game and Alan Watts' dream thought experiment. They chose a life involving suffering then forgot about it. They currently have no perception of an outside world.

"... if people in hell didn't eat they wouldn't end up dying." This does not make any sense. In any common concept of Hell, the people there are already dead, and if they eat anything, it's probably not very nutritious.

I mean in hell their existence never ends if they stop eating.

 

[excreationist]

(I clicked below and clicked again to watch an interesting Alan Watts video . . . which I'd already seen. Did you invite me to watch it earlier, excreationist?)

Well I put my own spin on it and see it as being relevant to a video game like simulation.

Gottfried W. Leibniz — another of the greatest thinkers ever — famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Perhaps God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order. I don't adhere to this thinking, but I won't rule it out.

I totally disagree with that quote. I believe we're probably in a simulation and in a simulation it is possible to not have suffering. A reason why there could be suffering is because the player consented to it:

Being God/godlike and forgetting about it...

This might be a New Age idea.... and maybe involved in some religions - particularly eastern ones.... is there a technical term for this? I wanted to explore this ancient concept... It is basically saying that a god (or a god-like being) exists - and it is you - but you forgot it.... (though...

iidb.org

Do actions have consequences in your simulation?

For that it's simpler to look at the "Roy game" example. Morty interacts with characters in the game but at the end of the game the characters would no longer be simulated. He retains whatever memories he had when the game ended - he remembered his wife.... Rick saw details of Morty's game and criticized Morty for some of it (about bird watching). So there are some consequences....

If yes, don't you run into Leibniz' argument?

What do you mean by the best of all possible worlds? The best possible version of Roy's life? Or the best simulation of anyone's life including one with no strong pain?

If it's non-deterministic, don't you run into the objections of Watts or Gibran?

In this thread about dice I'm saying that there is a non-obvious intelligent force. Maybe you could explain what those objections mean in that context? Note that in the original Roy game and Alan Watts dream thought experiment there are no guiding/intervening intelligent forces during the game. And the intelligent force doesn't need to involve a player who forgot their original identity.

If you want a simulation with much joy and no suffering, why not just stick-figures twirling around and saying "Ooh, ooh, ooooh! I'm in ecstacy!" (It is NOT my intention to ridicule a simulation hypothesis: It might be valid. I'm just not sure it avoids the issues.)

In Alan Watts' dream thought experiment it started like that but then he wanted to get further and further "out there" (from his godlike abilities)

 

[Bronzeage]

Well like I said a possibility is that the player consented. Though every religion would have their own reasons why there is suffering. I guess you're saying that suffering is unavoidable/inevitable.

That's a pretty shrewd guess.
The term "simulation" implies a reality outside our perception of the world around us, but since perception defines reality, we're stuck with this world, as it appears. There is no such thing as consent to reality.

As I talked about in "Being God/godlike and forgetting about it..." thread there are two relevant examples - the Roy Game and Alan Watts' dream thought experiment. They chose a life involving suffering then forgot about it. They currently have no perception of an outside world.

"... if people in hell didn't eat they wouldn't end up dying." This does not make any sense. In any common concept of Hell, the people there are already dead, and if they eat anything, it's probably not very nutritious.

I mean in hell their existence never ends if they stop eating.

This is a model of Hell with which I am not familiar.

 

[Elixir]

A god that wastes its time throwing dice while knowing in advance how they’re going to land, is one we can do without, and can safely ignore.

 

[excreationist]

A god that wastes its time throwing dice while knowing in advance how they’re going to land, is one we can do without, and can safely ignore.

It would only know the result if it is deterministic or if it has a result in mind that it wants to guide.

 

[Elixir]

A god that wastes its time throwing dice while knowing in advance how they’re going to land, is one we can do without, and can safely ignore.

I'm agreeing with Einstein that "God does not play dice"....

Amen, brother.
Also, unicorns don't play water polo.

 

[excreationist]

A god that wastes its time throwing dice while knowing in advance how they’re going to land, is one we can do without, and can safely ignore.

I'm agreeing with Einstein that "God does not play dice"....

Amen, brother.
Also, unicorns don't play water polo.

BTW I changed the post I just wrote

 

[Elixir]

A god that wastes its time throwing dice while knowing in advance how they’re going to land, is one we can do without, and can safely ignore.

It would only know the result if it is deterministic or if it has a result in mind that it wants to guide.

You mean kinda like if you're cooking something and you know it will be ready in 18 minutes, but you get distracted and find a charred smoking lump in the oven a couple hours later?
No deal dude. A tri-omni god, even if the tri-omni characteristic is limited to the realm we can see, cannot escape foreknowledge of such mundane shit as dice rolls. That, by definition.
And if it decides to willfully neglect that foreknowledge just to watch something smoke and burn - or to watch it carefully in order to let it carbonize without catching fire (gods have their reasons, you know!), it is, as I said "one we can do without, and can safely ignore".

 

[excreationist]

You mean kinda like if you're cooking something and you know it will be ready in 18 minutes, but you get distracted and find a charred smoking lump in the oven a couple hours later?

No deal dude. A tri-omni god, even if the tri-omni characteristic is limited to the realm we can see, cannot escape foreknowledge of such mundane shit as dice rolls. That, by definition.
And if it decides to willfully neglect that foreknowledge just to watch something smoke and burn - or to watch it carefully in order to let it carbonize without catching fire (gods have their reasons, you know!), it is, as I said "one we can do without, and can safely ignore".

The non-obvious intelligent force I believe in is not tri-omni. I think it could know everything about the current state of the world but probably not every little detail about the future. Being non-obvious means that its powers are limited. I don't think it is omni-benevolent. BTW "dice rolls" are metaphorical. It is about quantum "randomness", etc.