Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Universe and God

The Universe and God

|Views: 37|Likes:
Published by gib65
This paper explores the implications MM-Theory has for the nature of the universe and God. Read more at http://www.mm-theory.com.
This paper explores the implications MM-Theory has for the nature of the universe and God. Read more at http://www.mm-theory.com.

More info:

Published by: gib65 on Apr 03, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Bookmark this page now!
IntroductionGod -Omni-EverythingMetaphysicsJustificationandEquivalence
Foundationsand Origins
Foundations ObjectionsOriginsScale, Time,and CurvyDimensionsFinalThoughts
TheAnatomy ofGod
Three-DimensionalityStandard andAlternateAlgorithmsFundamentalityInfiniteComplexity
Science asCommunicationWith God
DecomposingTheFundamentalExperimentalScienceThe Statue inThe Rock
The Problemof Evil
The "Theory"MetaphorThe "Drama"Metaphor
Life in TheHeavens
The Universe and "God"
ABSTRACT: In this paper, we explore the similarities anddistinctions between the Universal Mind and more traditionalconceptions of God. We also touch on some of the mostintriguing cosmological implications that follow fromMM-Theory, shedding light on some of the details of thestructure of the universe that other papers left unaccounted for.After comparing and contrasting the Universal Mind with theconcept of God held by most western religions, we definemetaphysics on the basis of the epistemology of experiences,outlining which experiences can be represented by sensationsand which can't. Before delving into the heart of the subjectmatter of God, we formally define two important concepts:"equivalence" and "justification". We then plunge headlonginto the central questions of this paper: what is the UniversalMind in essence and whence did it come? The answers tothese questions will lead us to a formal definition of "God".Having conceptually encapsulated the essence of the universein this way, we will be in a position to explore the finer detailsof the fabric of existence and how it is structured. In particular,we look at space and its three-dimensionality and the nature of fundamentality, bringing the very existence of the latter intoquestion. This skeptical look at fundamentality will bring usinto a framework within which we can contemplate thepractice of experimental science as a method for asking Godquestions and receiving his answers. Furthermore, we willconsider a view according to which the experimental methodis a way of creating more fundamental levels to the universe,God's responses being more akin to approvals rather thananswers. The final two sections, before the conclusion, touchon the problem of evil (though taking a different form than whatone usually encounters in traditional theology) and thepossibility of immaterial beings (spirits).
MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"http://www.mm-theory.com/god/god.htm1 of 784/2/2010 5:54 PM
Everything we have looked at in this website so far, save the brief overviews of the neurosciences andquantum mechanics, has been very speculative. This speculative approach is about totake a giant leap. Wecan't escape speculation when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics, and it has been implicitly assumedthat the reader knows this and, if he/she has followed me this far, has tolerated it - maybe even took pleasurein it. But in this paper, there is an urgent need - one might even say an obligation - to make this assumptionexplicit. The subject of God is a very touchy one, and it is rarely engaged in without some bias or emotionalsensitivity. Therefore, I have deemed it important to warn the reader what we are getting into here. This isindeed a paper on this very subject, and there is no reasonable basis upon which totake what is written hereas even remotely close to Truth or objective argument completely free from bias andinterpretation. In fact,the approach we will take in this paper will not even be one in which we attempt torigorously defend aparticular position to the exclusion of others. It will be much like inDeterminism and Free-Willwherein weconsidered a variety of different views and approaches to the problem of determinism and free-will. Soalthough one might argue that our approach has always been quite speculative, and he/she would be right insaying this, this is especially true for this paper. What we are involved in here is such a vast and deepsubject that to think the human mind capable of grasping even a shadowy glimpse of it is to succumb to alevel of naivety only a fool could stoop to. So be forewarned - the reader is
to take the ideas andproposals in this paper to heart without wearing his/her best critical thinking cap. In fact, the reader is noteven to take this as
official position on the subject. The reader is to understand that we are onlyentertaining possibilities in this paper, not answers.
Having acquitted ourselves with this disclaimer, it should be added that there is one point this paper willmake that should be taken, if not in full seriousness, at least as seriously as everything else in this website,and that is the proposed answer we offer here to the question left unaddressed nearthe end of theAdvancedTheory. We left off saying that
may be enough to explain what sustains the existence of the universe,but it doesn't explain why there should be a universe in the first place - that is,how the universe
toexist. Here we will offer an answer to this question. Once this last piece of the puzzle is put in place,however, there will be very little left of our theory demanding immediate attention. This is not to say thateverything else is pure child's play, just that the theory could survive without it. Except for the last section of this paper, we will be touching on aspects of our theory that could use some fleshing out and strongersupport. But overall, the greater part of this paper is meant to be taken relatively lightly.
The Universal Mind 
Needless to say, the purpose of this paper is twofold: 1) to tie up all loose ends in our theory, and 2) toaddress the uncanny resemblance between what we have christened the
Universal Mind
and what mostwestern religions understand as God. Now, before I got to work writing this paper, I struggled somewhatwith the issue of whether to embrace this resemblance wholeheartedly, revealing anddefending as manysimilarities as I could find, or to reject this resemblance outright, admonishing the reader not to equate ourtheory with any form of institutionalized religion. What I settled on was honesty. The honest truth is that I docherish this idea - that I can say I believe in God and that my relation to Him (orHer) is a profoundlyintimate one - but at the same time I understand it to be a dangerous idea - if notfor me, then for others whomight misinterpret or abuse it. Therefore, as much as the idea of God appeals to me(at least, as construed byMM-Theory), I do recognize the responsibility that falls on my shoulders to point out what things can be saidabout the Universal Mind as God and what things can't - and further, what things should simply be leftunsaid. I have deemed the relation between these two concepts - the Universal Mind and God - as tooconspicuous not to be treated. If I didn't say a word or two about it, others undoubtedly would. Trusting inthis assumption, I feel the need to make it absolutely clear
the Universal Mind can be construed as God,and to implore the reader not to construe it otherwise.Another, less pressing, issue I lingered over was whether to use the traditional pronoun "He" when referringto God. Why not "She"? After all, I've been careful to conjoin "he" and "she" together as "he/she" throughoutthe rest of this website. Why not in the case of God? One thing that came to mind, soon after asking myself this question, was simply to use "It". God, at least in the present context, is asexual. But that felt too out of place. At one point, in reaction to the angst I felt over the mere use of the name "God" (which is why I felt itappropriate to put "God" in quotation marks in the title), I considered not even using the word, opting insteadfor the "Universal Mind" throughout, and only describing it as
. But that, I figured, was going to anextreme that risked defeating the entire purpose of this paper, and the use of the name "God" wasunavoidable in at least a few cases. After a while, I figuratively gave my head a shake and told myself tosnap out of it - I was blowing the issue way out of proportion. Right then, I decided to stick with traditionand refer to God as "He", being careful to note, here in the introduction, that by use of this word, I by nomeans intend to condone a male chauvinistic prejudice about God, but rather to allow my writing to flowmore naturally - for following tradition does come natural. I hope the reader can understand.
MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"http://www.mm-theory.com/god/god.htm2 of 784/2/2010 5:54 PM
Yet a third issue remained: in comparing and contrasting the Universal Mind with more traditionalconceptions of God, how global should I be? How global
I be? By "global", I mean how manymainstream religions should I take into consideration? Having been raised by and now live in a culturewhose dominant religion is Christianity, I am foremost familiar with this religion.It would make sense,therefore, that my conception of the traditional God is closest to how the typical Christian thinks of God. I amalso familiar with the Jewish and Muslim God, but I would expect slightly less so. I am severely lacking infamiliarity with the gods of southeast Asia, and practically all tribal religions, and if I'm not mistaken, a fewof these (Buddhism and Taoism come to mind) don't even involve gods. What I have decided upon as myformal stance on this issue is to say that if the religion in question depicts God (or
god) as objectified,anthropomorphic, and individuated from the rest of existence, then this is the sortof god I'm concerned withcontrasting the Universal Mind against.One last point to mention before we begin is the following. In the greater part of this paper, it might seem asthough our discussion digresses from the topic of God and merges into cosmology. Ifwe were to adopt thestandard conception of God (i.e. an objectified, anthropomorphic, individuated deity), this would indeed bean unnecessary digression. But since MM-Theory identifies the Universal Mind as God, cosmology becomesmore or less synonymous with theology. This is not to say we will discuss cosmologywith a theologicalflavor - that is, when discussing cosmology, we will stick as close to areligious and scientific terminology aspossible, the phrase "Universal Mind" coming in only when necessary. Nonetheless, it will be implicitlyassumed that the reader understands that what we say about cosmology can be, and for all intents andpurposes is meant to be, translated into theological concepts. After all, if God and the universe are one, thenalmost anything said about the universe is also said about God.
God - Omni-Everything
Our first task, then, is to formally declare that if the Universal Mind is to be construed as a god of sorts, nolink can be drawn between it and the god of the Bible or any other world renowned holy book. This is
the god that created the world in six days, this is
the god that parted the Red Sea, this is
the god thatappeared before Moses as a burning bush, this is
the god that created Adam and Even, this is
the godthat sent His only begotten son to man in order to save him from his sins, and thisis
the god that casts judgment upon our souls and sentences us either to Hell or Heaven after we die. Thegod referred to in theBible, the Quran, the Torah, or any other religious text borne from western cultureis an objectified,anthropomorphic, and individuated deity. He created the universe but is not one with it - He remains
of it. He sometimes intervenes in human affairs and performs miracles, and as a consequence, suspends thelaws of nature in so doing. Once every so often, He chooses a special someone and speaks to them through ahuman language. Sometimes, He imparts sacred knowledge to these people, knowledge that can be written asprophecy, and is supposedly destined to be realized sometime in the future. MM-Theory says nothing of thissort. It makes no such predictions, and in fact, speaks
the notion that such things are possible. Ourtheory says that the experiences of the Universal Mind - of "God" - coincide with the nature of the physicalworld as we understand it in a scientific context. It says that, for all practical purposes, there really isn't anyrational basis upon which to believe that these experiences would ever
in such a way that we wouldwitness the sorts of miracles proclaimed in most religious texts. There isn't even a rational basis upon whichto believe that these experiences are at all remotely like human experiences, in which case we can't say, withgood reason, that God thinks this or that about human affairs. He doesn't necessarily
. He doesn'tnecessarily feel emotions either. We can't very well say, in that case, that He feels this way or that abouthuman affairs, for He doesn't necessarily
anything. We can't attribute such mental states to God inregards to
human experiences. The only sense in which this is not entirely accurate is in that we are apart of the Universal Mind and therefore, as God, we can only say that He experiences human mental statesinsofar as those experiences are had by
.To put this point more succinctly, we have no right to identify any one god, like the Universal Mind, withanother god, like the biblical one, unless it can be convincingly shown that the concepts of each have acommon source. The source for the concept of the traditional God of western religion is the set of holy textsbelonging to these religions (the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah). The source for the concept of God as theUniversal Mind is MM-Theory. So unless the account the above holy texts give for God can somehow beinterpreted as the same account our theory gives, and more importantly that this interpretation is not similarmerely by coincidence, there is no basis upon which to claim that the Universal Mind is the one and onlyGod referred to in these holy texts. To claim otherwise would be to posit that the words of the saints,prophets, and other messengers of God, written in the holy texts of western religion, are more or less thesame words we have written in our theory. This is highly doubtful, not only becauseour theory is veryspecific and depends greatly on the neuroscience known only in the twentieth century, but because such a
MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"http://www.mm-theory.com/god/god.htm3 of 784/2/2010 5:54 PM

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
shadeofsocrates liked this
michael_hail liked this
shadeofsocrates liked this
hasanlutfi liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->