Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I think self-reference is just fine for reverse-engineering -because we must be made of the same stuff as an original would be -the difference being that we are based on the complexity of the atoms, etc., which must be composed of more elemental things. I believe the term "elements" was even chosen because it was believed that they were essentially the most basic building blocks. Perhaps it is a bit of a misnomer given that much more elemental things are being discovered.I do that too...especially when talking about stuff at the highest level...I was having a little trouble following what you are saying. I have to go back and re-read the original post and re-think. Sometimes it means I've headed in the wrong direction in my own mind.
The trick with this sort of topic is to ground one's intuitions firmly in the metaphors that they always reference. As soon as we start abstracting intuitively without reference to the bodily metaphors that our abstract ideas come from we can enter a space-less-timeless void where thought is a little too free to wander and i have often gotten lost.
For me it is a tricky subject to understand the difference between what is created and what is not especially as some want to claim that the whole Universe is something created by a someone. The problem for me is that this is self-referential and that to say the Universe is created threatens to undo the very meaning this statement. Without a way to distinguish between the created and the "natural" the very idea becomes useless and meaningless. It is equivalent to "All Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan."
The origin and source of the Universe as a whole is a great place to create intuitive philosophies precisely because it provides a sort of mouse hole out of the walls of our practical experience and into another realm where we can feel free from the constraints of common understanding and even, to some extent, common sense. Such philosophizing is deeply gratifying and useful for re-imagining the world especially when it becomes deeply mired in its own sense of futility.
My imaginings regarding the Nothing-Yet of Infinite Potential was that if such were a personality then It would immediately be a lonely one who had no measure against which to objectively determine its own power, knowledge or value. Its primary motivation would be to prove to itself It did, in fact, exist at all. In so doing, creation would spill out...but even that would not satisfy without a truly Other being to second guess It and also to validate It.
But clearly this is all a projection of my own psyche. If I were the Creator, I would be afraid to be alone and unable to measure my power or value. I would be concerned that I was merely a hallucination alone in a vast nothing. My creating would be a cosmic displacement of my true underlying desire to be known by some Other.
But all such musings are projections as we have only the vast range of our human experience and ideas with which to venture out into the mystery of the unknown.
Anyway -we actually have all of the evidence around us and in us -because it is not as if anything has gone away.
Self-reference actually becomes a problem, however, when we only reference that which we presently know or experience. It would seem that our capabilities must have been preceded by the Big Bang, elements, etc. -and that is true of us on our level -but the Big Bang must have been preceded by something.
If we do not consider that, we are essentially accepting that the horse should logically follow the cart -regardless of what preceded the Big Bang.
In actuality, we have a big cart to consider -but also that we are a little horse drawing a little cart on our level (creativity preceding that which it makes possible). We are missing a big horse -and it is quite logical to believe it should resemble the little horse.
The big horse would be made of the same stuff as the little horse -but on a more basic level -which would actually allow for greater power (not being subject to complexity at our level). We know that basic stuff became an entire universe -so why would we believe it impossible for it to have first become something able to "create" a universe?
We have consistently proved our initial thoughts to be wrong about life -and even intelligence/learning -and have consistently found such where they "should not" be.
We are also a bit stuck on the evolution VS creation thing -when they are both stages of the same overall thing. On our level we see development/creator/creation -but preceding us we only SEE creation.
Some believe all which preceded man was natural development alone -without creativity -but creativity IS a natural development which logically precedes created stuff.
Showing that original "nature" must have been mirrored/modeled in memory/imagination, altered to suit the needs/desires/will of a self-aware creator in the form of the universe seems difficult, but -especially when referenced against the greatest degree of simplicity -something must have developed before the universe which was capable of processing pre-universe nature into the universe, and the nature of the universe -a vast and complex interactive environment prepared before and producing an infinite/near-infinite variety of life forms which have no say whatsoever in their own development -but essentially awaken as already-increasingly-complex and -capable individuals -able to not only interact with, but deeply experience -even appreciate and enjoy -absolutely screams creativity was necessary -and that the universe was created FOR those life forms -and the ORIGINAL creator.
One reason is what you said about how an original creator would (paraphrasing) "feel" -because once a creator developed, psychology would ensue -and "the universe" answers and fulfills all such psychological questions and needs. "Simplicity" would have no reason or ability to become specifically the universe unless first becoming self-aware, creative, etc.
Last edited: