God/law, universal intelligence is this…
There has to be ‘something’ which denotes that there are the ingredients which compose existence; information, objects, mind, consciousness, and I guess that something has to be intelligent and must also compose the entirety of reality in order to make such designations of things within reality!
As designed by intellect the result will be intellects, order and universe, always.
What is the something?
Some ancient Greeks answered that question, but the answer was lost in history because it was not understood. See the works of Plato, and notations of it in Aristotle.
There are two elements of every thing, form and material difference. Neither of these elements are things, and all things are composed of them.
From this two-element metaphysics, ever thing is derived.
Things are not created from things, but two very specific, not things, or nothing.
What is ‘material difference’? I think their answers were simplistic by today’s standards, but I suppose mine are too lol.
I think the idea of forms is/has been refuted by reducing everything down to matter and info?
A material difference, or simply difference. Linearity is a material difference.
If you can put a limit, shape, boundary it is a material difference, even space is a material difference.
First principles are simplistic. And today’s standards are anything but.
Your body, its environmental acquisition systems, each can abstract one of the two elements. A things material, or a things form.
Every form of reasoning can be derived from the two element metaphysics.
Sure but what I am alluding to is that the greek definitions are extrapolated holistically, as opposed to being some fundamental aspects of the reality we now know.
You’ll note that the op was considering the thing as ‘reality’ ~ the entirety, and an ability to shape that universally. The greeks didn’t even have monotheism, so I guess they were considering things in terms of universals e.g. geometry, rather than taking the whole thing together at once.
I could be wrong though, I often wonder what is meant when the term ‘god’ is written into ancient works [as monks done the translating] from a time prior to Christianity. What would the greeks have meant where that term is used?
God is defined Scripturally as “Truth”.
This is not an anthropomorphic definition, it is functional. All we know and can do, has to be done when our language is true to reality. Logically and analogically.
A “god” is an ultimate determiner for what ever it is a god over. Because it is ultimate, there can only be one for each subject.
The god of war, for example, is defined by “whatever single highest principle ultimately brings a war and determines who shall win”.
The god of love, is defined by "whatever single highest principle ultimately brings love and determines its outcome.
“The God” (cap G) denotes the single highest principle above them all, through which all understanding and wisdom comes.
The word “pray” is a derivative of the word “prey”. The hunter seeks something, a prey. The one who prays seeks of something, a god or whatever. To pray to the god of war means to seek of the principle of war so as to either bring about a war or guide and control a war. Israel claims to understand all of the principles through knowing the highest principle, “God” and thus can bring about conflict and war to anyone at any time. Although a legitimate concept, they seem to exaggerate rather regularly.
Currently inspired by Israel, the Western media is fully engaged in “praying to the god of war” concerning Iran, the next of Israel’s competing neighbors.
How the media manipulates the world into war
The universe is wasteful and full of stupidity and ignorance.
Intelligently designed systems are very different from this big dead realm.
Quetz, I thought of you when I read this in my search for an understanding of determinism. It may have some bearing on your question:
Emphasis is mine.
James, the message here is of a single divine source rather than gods in the plural, it’s the whole of reality acting at once to manifest the building blocks of existence. see also below.
Sure but what the op means is that the fundamentals are designed/created/arrived at [info objects etc], and from then on let loose to work their own magic - so to speak.
Liz, see my thread in the religion section concerning prophecy, it says roughly why I don’t think divinity uses prophecy, and why it would even want to be omniscient [or at least use that to effect things] as it unstitches history. Here I present a far freer interpretation of divinity that just ‘lets it all happen’ rather than plays puppeteer. 
_
There are two ways you can view the progression of the universe.
One, an infinite ultimate being which is most powerful and complex, created simpler, less powerful things.
Two, things started small then slowly became more powerful and complex.
Which is more likely? Which is more natural?
I think that our physical realm follows the path of least resistance. It’s atomically dissolving.
Another realm which is based in things that grow instead of dissolve, collided with this one.
That was the so called matter and antimatter which made the big bang.
Different realms have different laws. Our realm’s laws tend to be very minimalistic. Entropy is a big thing here.
Or three, nothing existed until intelligence observes and places meaning to and on things.
Do you actually believe what you just said?
I think two is more likely. However when we say things started small, and that there was an antimatter-matter collision, we still have to arrive at how the very objects and information in those things originated.
We are talking about ultimate origins here, I am happy to see that in the context of self developing, or of something manifesting those ingredients. It seems to me that reality itself needs to be intelligent or some manner equivalent to that, because the whole of reality has to manifest those ingredients and ‘compose’ them into singularity or whatever formed that.
It could simply be that reality is fundamentally information based, and hence will self organise. Even seemingly random objects contain info and hence communications, it always organises itself because every information belongs to a relationship. Lets just imagine that reality as entire equally correlates as information [in the same way as an object], then singularity or whatever comes after reality as entire also produces info relative to the whole.
Info in our minds = informational thought, mind is not physical, does the informational universe think?
…is it similar to our subconscious in that its reactive ~ I’d say it is after those first few moments where info is responsive to the then conditions. ‘Something’ though, is communicating in the origins and prior to anything physical.
_
We can talk about string theory if you like. Some forces outside of timespace don’t have a beginning or an ending, they are just a single point or group of points.
I have read some creationism arguments dealing with the balances between electrical charges, weak and strong nuclear force, gravity, speed of light, entropy, etc. And everything in the universe must be just-so before it can support life and consciousness. Also there is a sameness amongst reality, in that laws of nature apply across a wide range of space, instead of there being unpredictable chaos. I choose to remain mostly neutral about the true nature of a God, because I don’t have first hand experience, but, it’s one of those things that is big with humanity.
I’ve mostly considered reality as force based on information based. But I guess it does allot of transmission.
I believe it because I decided with the evidence I take as valid, that makes sense to me. I have been a devout Godly man, a lovely questioner of all things philosophical therefore I am and so on, and a devout Jungian bent on finding the unconscious thread in all reality. Which I am still grasping onto quite tightly:) But overall I am placing that in this paradigm which allows me to be free in thinking. I don’t need a God to tell me right from wrong, I was lucky enough to have my parents and beautiful partners and friends to help me through moral dillemas and set examples as such. Again that is my observation and then my choice. I am responsible, so in that sense I may not lean toward a God but really I am very Agnostic in everything. You asked me if I really believe in number three, and I truly do. Until the solipsistic channel reveals itself and the heavens or the ID of every intelligent creature in the multiverse (just as possible as a God) flows through me, that is the structure I use when I believe in things.
Repectfully,
~tminusmat
This is what I don’t get about science, it talks about things as if there’s no information [and its network] ~ except in the holographic theory of course. I am sure we could have some interesting discussions concerning what points ‘are’, but something has to make it that way. What are forces outside of time-space? Point being that whatever we say occurs, something has to make reality conducive to that! …and I feel there’s a whole science/philosophy in that alone.
Ya I just keep digging for more info. The sameness across reality is natural considering reality is a oneness, and all things originate in that unity imho. Things that aren’t the same tend to get cancelled out. To get chaos there would have to be something creating that ~ an innately conflicting plurality, but we don’t have that situation.
Indeed. Somehow info is manifest in form, ergo the forces dimensions and relationships [laws etc] occur respectively = transmission.
tminusmat
You sound like you’ve had a nice life and known people with much integrity, I wish I could think of life in a similar manner. On the other hand I got my morals from seeing at first hand how I didn’t want people to behave.
I don’t believe in the multiverse; its science hokum
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177837
_
I love my life and grateful to everyone in it, but I will admit I have learned more rapidly from those who’s example was, for me, that it was better to do the opposite than. And then read as many thinkers and doers, (like yourselves) as I can. And realize no way was anything inherently bad or good, it makes me who I am today, but the paths to get here varied wider than the stars in the sky. All I am saying is don’t believe in all the hype reality feeds ya, it’s NOT all relative or relevant:) Oh and the multiverse is only the universe. I get the concept but again I can’t get why the need to make one plural. Wasn’t the Galaxy the Universe at one time? Why would we be so short sighted not to see that everything is big and small all at the same time. In some reference you can say, just the theory and mathmatics itself, makes it real because we observed it and gave it meaning.
Respectfully
~Tminusmat
The galaxy wasn’t the universe at one time, no. look up ‘singularity’.
The rest of your post is food for thought, thanks!