An Idea I Recently Alighted Upon

… that the mythology fanboys have never thought of.

This is going to be another excursion on my part, into conceptual territory that I present honestly as speculative, but which I present for a reason.

Quite simply, I’ll start with a question. Namely, if you suddenly found yourself possessing the ability to bring an entire new universe into being, via whatever means, would you be content to do this just once?

Now I don’t know about anyone else here, but if I found myself with this capability, I’d be curious about several aspects thereof. Such as, if I exert the requisite power more than once, will the resulting universes be the same, or different? I’d want to explore what rules governed this new found capability of mine, and what outcomes were made possible thereby.

Now it so happens, that the Polish science fiction author Stanislaw Lem touched upon questions of this sort (and numerous others) in his short story Non Serviam, which explored the conceptual landscape that would open up, if computer scientists were given the hardware and software required to run a universe simulation in the laboratory. Now, his exposition centred upon an issue that I’ve covered in my exposition on how braneworld cosmology made me conceive of a better god than the cartoon characters contained in pre-scientific mythologies. That issue centres upon the relationship between those responsible for instantiating a universe, and any sentient inhabitants thereof that might arise as said universe evolves through time.

Lem was interested in some of the ethical issues involved in said relationship, while I was merely concerned with the ramifications of such a relationship, for the limited religious preconceptions that have held sway since humans invented them. But, Lem’s story implied the existence of multiple experiments in this vein, conducted as a means of seeking answers to questions that were deemed intractable by various philosophers. Not for nothing did Lem use phrases such as “experimental theogony” in his story. My regular readers can already deduce the enjoyment I’m having at this juncture.

In my case, I’m asking this question not with respect to simulations of a universe, but with actual physical instantiation of new universes as an experimental endeavour. Quite simply, why would any entity with such an ability only do this once?

Of course, this hypothetical scenario also requires that I would persist as a sentient entity, long enough to perform the requisite investigations, but we’ll assume that this additional ability is granted, for the purpose of pursuing this question. Those familiar with the conduct of scientists, will know that they prefer to work with as diverse a data set as possible, before attempting to formulate any conclusions. If your data set is characterised by N=1, your ability to derive substantive knowledge therefrom is necessarily limited, even if the resulting data set is large. If, on the other hand, you’re working with a data set characterised by, say, N=1,000, then your conclusions will be on much more solid ground. A relationship that holds in the N=1 case may fall apart completely upon moving on to the N=1,000 case.

As a corollary of that elementary fact I’ve just presented, any sentient entity, even one possessing stupendous gifts of knowledge, must surely still possess the basic curiosity required to ask that question - “what happens if I do this again?” Which becomes even more pressing, if it transpires that the mechanism for instantiating a new universe possesses numerous parameters, able to be set to arbitrary values by any entity deploying that mechanism.

I cannot emphasise that last point more strongly. If you’re able to fabricate a large collection of universes, each with different settings of the parameter knobs, surely you’re going to want to try this out? Upon doing so, you’ll probably be even more strongly motivated to pursue this course of action, if the first few trials yield, say, universes with radically different sets of indigenous physical laws, or different sets of macroscopic spacetime dimensions.

Now, in the light of the above, again, why launch a new universe into existence only once? It doesn’t make any sense. What makes even less sense, is doing so just once, for the express purpose of seeing that universe produce some sentient beings, which you then manipulate to treat nonsense as fact, just so that you can savour the spectacle of them engaging in ever more egregious behaviour, which they pursue with the aim of demonstrating how much they want to kiss your arse.

That is just so sad.

By taking this course of action, you would demonstrate, in effect, that you were going to be the “god” of these sentient beings, in the most sad-bastard way possible, by demanding that these hapless sentient beings waste their time masturbating your manchild ego. How low would you have stooped to, to turn a newly emergent sentient species into subjugated chattels, their mental well-being poisoned forever by your decreeing on high, that perfectly natural and harmless behaviour on their part constitutes some sort of “abomination” in your eyes, and that they have to subject themselves and each other to damaging repression in order to please you?

If I found myself in the position to influence such a species, I would want that species to learn. I would want to encourage its curiosity, and seek to teach that species useful facts that said species can then build upon and use to improve their lot. I certainly wouldn’t teach them that curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge were “sins”.

For that matter, I would dispense altogether with mythology as a means of disseminating knowledge, because it’s manifestly the least reliable medium for the purpose. No, I would start by teaching them how to build lenses. From there, I’d move on to teaching them how to build telescopes and microscopes, and tell them in advance the sort of things they would see with their new instruments, so that they knew that I coul be trusted, when they discover that yes, indeed, they do see the things I tell them. I certainly wouldn’t fill their heads with nonsense about diseases being the product of “demons”, when there are perfectly observable bacteria, protozoans and viruses in their universe as causative agents, or whatever other organisms fulfil the same role in their universe.

But of course, mythology fanboys routinely demonstrate, that they are incapable of thinking in terms other than “my mythology is shiny and precious and wonderful and so is my magic man”, and engage in at times egregiously mendacious fabrication in order to prop up this tinselly hologram. The idea that there may exist candidates for the “god role” other than their pet choice of magic man, let alone better choices, is completely alien to them.

Isn’t it wonderful, being able to think for yourself?


On the one hand, you seem to be asking the question, “if God were a Scientist of sorts, why wouldn’t he test out multiple universes?”

On the other hand, you’re throwing dirt in the faces of theists by mentioning your approaches, as God, to early humans (building lenses as opposed to inscribing commandments on pieces of stone).

A question comes to mind and a comment on Buddhist cosmology arises as well.

If God had created “multiple” universes, how would we even know? What dimension would they exist in.

Secondly, as Nietzsche proposed, the world - according to determinism - is an “Eternal Recurrence”.

Now what if God were a true adept of the evolutionary premise that systems evolve when new adaptations arise which are more beneficial and thus suited to its continued survival? Except on a cosmic scale?

What if …? The universe were truly expanding and contracting as Buddhist cosmology “states” and certain physical theories suggest?

Would not that continual cycle of “similar” but not exact “universes” allow for “minute” changes in our spiritual growth - such that the most evolved universe would mirror God.

Beyond mere speculation, I often wonder this exact idea when experiencing déjà vu at times when the universe appears exactly as it has countless times (to me) BUT … I do something “just a little different” to offset the déjà vu and … “snap out of it”.

I am of the opinion that every cycle of the universe is slightly better than the last. It has to be.

In this world, the Buddha has become enlightened. In all previous worlds he was not. If the world could not change, then no enlightenment of the Buddha would have occurred. But it did. And THAT man … he has escaped the fate of “rebirth” over and over again. Ie. he has reach the summit of God’s “plan” (I don’t mean that literally - just figuratively).

And the seminal reality that a Buddha has arisen in this world means A LOT of things for anyone else transmigratting through it (as they have been since time immemorial).

For instance, I am a dirty old man. BUT … having been exposed to Buddhism … and also … having the “mental condition” of “listening “ to voices all the time … the, sort of, “challenge” if you will, from my “helpful captures” has - up to this point - allowed me to surpass my condition as a human. Ie. I have reached the summit of spirituality.

Ie. the world continues to get better and better. And it continues exponentially. We are on a “slow rise”. But once the momentum gains traction, it will be unstoppable. And our experience as humans will surpass even God’s expectations. Ie. He will feel loneliness no more.

That being said, our future (as it is) has already been laid out. We will follow the path of technology, create AI, merge with it, perfect technology of gravity, fusion, and space-time control - in order to expand beyond our solar system. We will conquer the galaxy and rule as they do in Dune (my favourite science fiction movie/novel).

Aww. Shucks!

The obvious fanboy counterargument would be that “God has infinite power and knowledge, and knew even before He created the universe what it would be like, how it would turn out, as well as each and every detail of the life of each individual person and animal. In other words, this universe is the perfect universe created by a perfect being, no experimentation needed. God is all-knowing, so He does not need to play scientist. Take that, you filthy atheist!”

You just cannot win against those types of slippery “arguments”.

1 Like

Don’t forget, though, that we have Free Will to make whatever choices we want… :neutral_face::kissing_closed_eyes::grin::grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes::grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::sweat_smile::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy: (Sorry. I tried, but just couldn’t keep a straight face.)


Yes, and that’s the beauty of it - He knows exactly what each and every one of us are going to do. Because free will is His invention, so he knows exactly how it works. Yup. That’s how it works. Definitely.


I think an even more relevant point is why would a god create a universe with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars when all he seems to be interested in is a single species of ape on a single small planet orbiting an ordinary star in the backwaters of one of those billions of galaxies?

1 Like

Oooh, I love playing a fanboy :slight_smile: Because God knew beforehand what would make a self-sustainable universe, and without the universe being infinite, it would just collapse in on itself pretty quickly, due to the physical laws He created in his infinite wisdom, and which He knew would work, and the exact position and speed of every quantum particle (yes, even Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation is not uncertain for an infinite mind like God’s).

Phew. Think I nailed it?

1 Like

To give us pretty lights to look at in the sky? Either that, or he was REALLY bored. Here’s a good one, though…

After he created the universe he was doing a detailed inspection, during which time he noticed Earth. And upon closer examination he saw all of us biped hairless apes wandering around and thought to himself, “What the…? How the hell did THAT happen? Aw, geez! Now I need to go down there and give them a bunch of fucked up confusing laws so that maybe they will eventually kill themselves off.”

That’s Speciesism you rattling tin can. Just because you can’t grow any hair you think you’re special. Hah! I can hang from a tree limb with just my toes. Beat that you hairless hunk of tin!

1 Like

Hmph! :triumph: I have you know I can… :thinking:… Well… :thinking:… I mean, I am able to… :thinking:… Aw, shit. I have to admit I can’t compete with that… (heavy sigh)…

Not even with toes like these?

Edit: Screenshot from animated gif:


1 Like

Want to think about something really strange. Consider symmetric and anti-symmetric particles.
Because they are totally identical, and even in principle they can not be differentiated, they follow a different statistical distribution. Leading to the situation:

  1. God can’t tell them apart, OR:
  2. God can tell them apart, but can’t tell you (even in principle) for some unknown reason.

The point is (#2) if it is possible for you to tell them apart (even in principle), they will NEVER exhibit the probability distribution of identical particles, they will follow the classical Boltzmann distribution instead. Therefore: if god exists and knows all this stuff; he can’t tell you about it for some unknown reason (otherwise probability distributions would be totally different, something we could easily detect).

This is only tangentially relevant, but…it seems like the electron could, in fact, be perfectly round. The experiments showing this are so accurate that if an electron was scaled up to the size of the earth, they would be able to detect a bump the size of a sugar molecule on it. This in itself is incredibly fascinating, but there’s more to it. The roundness of the electron also sets bounds for the energy scales for new and as yet undiscovered particles. But have any creator god given us such information indicating this? Nah.


1 Like

Another interesting property electrons are thought to have is identicalness. In other words, every electron in the universe is exactly identical to every other electron in size, charge, etc.

God does amazing work. I remember when he first started out. In the beginning there was only the word. And then BANG! God made the universe come into existence from nothing. Well, not really nothing because God was there. Well, he wasn’t really there because there was nothing, and he obviously could not exist in nothing. He had to exist beyond nothing. The nothing containing nothing in which nothing became nothing. You see, a god that can be nothing and still respond to prayers is more powerful that a god than is something. Tha’t it. God is the all powerful Nirvana, the embodiment of nothing. In him all things exist and he is in all things. God is nothing.

1 Like

I’ve got nothing to say about that. And just to be clear, that statement means absolutely nothing.

1 Like

That is what I meant when I said symmetric and anti-symmetric particles (electrons are anti-symmetric). Crudely speaking, if you underhandedly switched a pair of electrons in a system without telling anyone, it would leave a change on the state that would be demonstrable with certain measurements (the act of switching adds a negative sign to the state).

I’ll give a hand wavy derivation:

We’ll start with some system of two particles in state Ψ, then we’ll try to deduce the properties of a swap operator (S[]) on Ψ. We’ll start with the obvious:
Ψ = Ψ

now apply the swap operator S[] to both sides:
S[Ψ] = ??? (we don’t know this outcome, yet)

now apply the operator again to both sides:
S[S[Ψ]]= Ψ

In the case of swapping twice, we do know the right hand side because if we swap the two particles TWICE in a row, it MUST be the same as doing nothing.

Suggesting that acting twice with the swap operator is the same multiplying by 1.
Suggesting that operating with a single swap operator is the same as multiplying by the square root of 1, which is either 1 or -1.

Nature takes advantage of both solutions! Experimentally it was discovered long ago:

  1. Photons are symmetric, so operating with the swap operating on them is the same as multiplying by one. S[Ψ] = (1)Ψ = Ψ
  2. Electrons are anti-symmetric, so operating with the swap operator on a pair of them with be the same as multiplying the state by negative one. S[Ψ] = (-1)Ψ = -Ψ

I’m not familiar with what symmetric and anti-symmetric means with respect to subatomic particles. Can you clarify what this means?

1 Like

If you have two identical particles in your lab, in separate boxes (their location in this example is not identical, the boxes are on opposite sides of the room and are different colors). However, while you were at lunch you overheard the owner joking about how he just went into a lab and swapped someone particles! But you aren’t sure if he was talking about you!
The question that comes to mind: is there any experiment you can do on the particles to figure out if your particles were the ones that got switched?

  • If the answer is no, it means the particle pair you were using are symmetric particles (bosons, like photons).
  • If the answer is yes, it means the particle pair you were using are anti-symmetric (fermions, like electrons).
1 Like

If I is god, I is doing it perfect first time (something manifestly untrue) so …