God Is the Machine

IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 0. AND THEN THERE WAS 1. A MIND-BENDING MEDITATION ON THE TRANSCENDENT POWER OF DIGITAL COMPUTATION

At today's rates of compression, you could download the entire 3 billion digits of your DNA onto about four CDs. That 3-gigabyte genome sequence represents the prime coding information of a human body — your life as numbers. Biology, that pulsating mass of plant and animal flesh, is conceived by science today as an information process. As computers keep shrinking, we can imagine our complex bodies being numerically condensed to the size of two tiny cells. These micro-memory devices are called the egg and sperm. They are packed with information.

That life might be information, as biologists propose, is far more intuitive than the corresponding idea that hard matter is information as well. When we bang a knee against a table leg, it sure doesn't feel like we knocked into information. But that's the idea many physicists are formulating.

The spooky nature of material things is not new. Once science examined matter below the level of fleeting quarks and muons, it knew the world was incorporeal. What could be less substantial than a realm built out of waves of quantum probabilities? And what could be weirder? Digital physics is both. It suggests that those strange and insubstantial quantum wavicles, along with everything else in the universe, are themselves made of nothing but 1s and 0s. The physical world itself is digital.

The scientist John Archibald Wheeler (coiner of the term "black hole") was onto this in the '80s. He claimed that, fundamentally, atoms are made up of of bits of information. As he put it in a 1989 lecture, "Its are from bits." He elaborated: "Every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely from binary choices, bits. What we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes/no questions."

To get a sense of the challenge of describing physics as a software program, picture three atoms: two hydrogen and one oxygen. Put on the magic glasses of digital physics and watch as the three atoms bind together to form a water molecule. As they merge, each seems to be calculating the optimal angle and distance at which to attach itself to the others. The oxygen atom uses yes/no decisions to evaluate all possible courses toward the hydrogen atom, then usually selects the optimal 104.45 degrees by moving toward the other hydrogen at that very angle. Every chemical bond is thus calculated.

If this sounds like a simulation of physics, then you understand perfectly, because in a world made up of bits, physics is exactly the same as a simulation of physics. There's no difference in kind, just in degree of exactness. In the movie The Matrix, simulations are so good you can't tell if you're in one. In a universe run on bits, everything is a simulation.

An ultimate simulation needs an ultimate computer, and the new science of digitalism says that the universe itself is the ultimate computer — actually the only computer. Further, it says, all the computation of the human world, especially our puny little PCs, merely piggybacks on cycles of the great computer. Weaving together the esoteric teachings of quantum physics with the latest theories in computer science, pioneering digital thinkers are outlining a way of understanding all of physics as a form of computation.

From this perspective, computation seems almost a theological process. It takes as its fodder the primeval choice between yes or no, the fundamental state of 1 or 0. After stripping away all externalities, all material embellishments, what remains is the purest state of existence: here/not here. Am/not am. In the Old Testament, when Moses asks the Creator, "Who are you?" the being says, in effect, "Am." One bit. One almighty bit. Yes. One. Exist. It is the simplest statement possible.

"(The fact that you can't see the insult found in your original "one book" comments is telling.)"

Sorry, but this wasn't meant as an insult even though you seem to want it to be. Besides, I thought that Calvinists being big believers in the "complete and inerrant" nature of the Bible would read the scriptures regarding "The Book of Life" and agree there is only one book in the library.

"Just how many "realities" are there?"

As I tried to explain, there is only one actual reality. I believe we can both agree on this. No matter how many multiverses there might be (and I tend to believe that there is only one single universe) these are all part of the single reality that God created, maintains, and perceives.

The past very long discussions on Calvinism and Arminianism I believed to be good forums for discussions on free will and determinism. However, it seems that most of the discussion was directed toward what some call "The Economy of Salvation" rather than on whether or not we have free will and how free it is. Most people seemed to agree that free will is a good thing and we have it, but everything the Calvinists did to describe their particular view on the Economy of Salvation suggested to me that they really didn't believe in free will, or at least a form of it that most people living in modern democracies would find acceptable.

Maybe the concept of free will as freely being able to attain one's destiny made sense in monarchical and feudalistic times, but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense today. If it is true that we don't have free will in the sense that most people wish we had, then maybe that would be a good argument against democracy and in favor of a form of political arrangement that matched the spiritual realities more, i.e. a theocratic monarchy.

And of course I'm not saying that all Calvinists favor a theocratic monarchy, but their views on free will and predestination would seem to jibe more closely with such a political arangement.

"Because one IS omnipotent doesn't mean they have to exercise it all the time."

I guess the modern restatement of this is: Can God create an encryption algorithm that he can't break?

Some have suggested that we have a quantum mechanical / probabilistic world BECAUSE God doesn't want to know what is going to happen so that we can have free will.

However, as others have pointed out, God is outside the whole shebang, so no matter how goofy the laws of physics are, there is no escaping his knowing everything already.

Also, just because we use probabililistic models to make calculations doesn't mean that things actually behave probabalistically. This might just be the closest approximation our limited minds can make.

I'm working on other ideas about the nature of decision making. There were other discussions in the Calvinism/Arminianism debates that suggested that we aren't free because we are bound by sin and human imperfection. I think I have a modest answer to some of these tangents, but none of them involve God deciding not to peek ahead to see whether or not you decide to have Corn Flakes or Oatmeal on July 14, 2005.

#109-who_would_fardels_bear: "The major difference in theories about free will among Christians seems to be Calvinism vs. Arminianism. ....Those of us who would like to "prove" that we truly have free will are now left with two choices ... basically I don't believe its that simple. ..a disturbingly large percentage of the posters on this forum seem to be limited in their vision"

#114-M-PI: "In light of that comment I guess you would say that there are more than two religions. If that's what you're saying, then please list the others you seem to know about."

#116-who_would_fardels_bear: "My comments were not in reference to other religions but to other attitudes with regard to blindly following free market dogma, blind acceptance of our "need" to join in on every foreign crisis, blind allegiance to every whim of the Bush administration, etc."

REALLY??? That's amazing. The comments you made that I was asking you about had nothing to do with that. Here they are again for the third time:

Now I'll ask you again: If you don't think it's that simple and think you have more than two choices in religion, please name them. I only know about two, so teach me what you know. I'm all ears.

"If you don't think it's that simple and think you have more than two choices in religion, please name them"

I don't "know" much for absolute certain, but as much as we limited humans can "know" anything here goes:

There are two basic ways you can determine how many religions there are: ask people and ask yourself.

If you ask people then you will find that there are probably somewhere around 10 basic religions in the world each broken up into many sects or faiths. Off the top of my head people would tell me they belong to one or more of the following religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Animism, Zoroastrianism, Paganism, Shinto, Materialism/Atheism, etc.

If you ask yourself then how many religions there are depends on how you choose to value the differences in religious experience, structure, and expression and how to classify these differences: basically we're talking set theory.

So if you believe that the only real difference is whether or not someone believes in a God, then there are only two religions for you. If, however, you are like most people, then you will differentiate between those people who believe in a single God and those who believe in multiple Gods. You will also differentiate between those people who believe that physical reality (our Earth and ourselves included) is part of God or is separate from God. You will also differentiate based on the nature of that God: is he a "simple" God made up of a single person, or is he three persons in one God, one of which became Man.

You may think these distinction are of little or no importance, but others have died or been killed or started wars or broken up families over these differences.

For instance the Jews and the Muslims both believe in a single "simple" God and yet they are often dire enemies.

With regard to the current "discussion" (or rather all of us except Terriergirl talking past each other...) even two faiths within the same religion can have heated arguments over fine points of theology. My understanding is that Catholics can faithfully hold either the Calvinist or Arminian view on predestination. I believe that some Protestants must believe one or the other depending on their congregation (but I could be wrong.) Personally I believe that with regard to free will there is not a dimes worth of difference between the Calvinist and Arminian views when it comes to free will. There seem to be major differences with regard to other issues such as the Economy of Salvation, but that is not the current topic.

So I guess unless I can "solve" this problem (which may only be my problem since most people not currently staying up late in a dorm hallway arguing philosophy seem to be quite certain of their free will) then I am something of a Pelagian ... i.e. heretic ... i.e. damned to Hell.

So be it.

I just wish that the holier-than-thou types would try and have a discussion with me on the philosophical points. I know I don't always make myself perfectly clear, and I know that they all value the Bible dearly and would much rather discuss this from a Biblical point of view, but can't any of the Calvinists or Arminians just for once in their lives look at this from a philosophical point of view.

I spent years having the King James Bible shoved down my throat and I used to be able to quote scripture and verse on a number of issues. But I believe that there is a God and that he created the Universe in such a way that it is a reflection of his might and wisdom and glory. So whatever we can determine about God from the Bible we can also make a stab at from pure human reason regardless the limitations.

"So if you believe that the only real difference is whether or not someone believes in a God, then there are only two religions for you."

Religion is a matter of "ultimate concern." Obviously religion is more than this, but it cannot be less. Every person has something that concerns him/her ultimately, and, whatever it is, that object of ultimate concern is that person's God. (There's no such thing as an atheist).

wwfb: "If, however, you are like most people, then you will differentiate between those people who believe in a single God and those who believe in multiple Gods. You will also differentiate between those people who believe that physical reality (our Earth and ourselves included) is part of God or is separate from God. You will also differentiate based on the nature of that God: is he a "simple" God made up of a single person, or is he three persons in one God, one of which became Man."

So far, you haven't shown me more than two religions.

One religion is man-centered (man is sovereign).

The other religion is God-centered (God is sovereign).

Finally an interesting discussion!

With regard to sovereignty I can posit at least four distinct religions:

1. Single God separate from physical universe which we are part of. If I believe that this God created me and the wonderful universe I live in then I become humbled and I bow to his sovereignty by regularly thanking him for his creation and by trying to conform my life to what I believe his will to be.

2. Multiple Gods separate from physical universe which we are part of. If I believe that these Gods worked sometimes in unison and sometimes at odds to create me and the wonderful universe I live in then I become humbled and I bow to their sovereignty. However, rather than trying to conform my life to ALL of the sometimes conflicting wishes of these Gods, I must pick and choose which Gods I believe to be most helpful to me and follow their will. I may get crushed by God A for following the will of God B, but so be it: I cast my lots and see how they fall.

3. Single God of which the universe and I are part. Because I am part of God I share partly in his perfection. I can not really talk about sovereignty, but rather more of collegiality. I am working with the other parts of God to realize the ultimate goals of God. I am humbled because I am only a bit of God, but I am also somewhat proud because of my direct association with an infinite being.

4. No God, only universe. Even in this case, if I have half a brain in my head, I need to be humbled by my relative place in the Cosmos. It is huge and I am small. Like the case of pantheism (universe as part of God) there is less talk of sovereignty and more of collegiality with my fellow sentient beings. I suppose I could get a superiority complex if through some combination of hard work, cheating, luck, and ruthlessness I become very powerful and/or very wealthy. But if I have any perspective at all I will see that whatever empire I create will last a mere nanosecond compared to the life of the universe and will have an effect over a mere dust speck of that universe. Not much to write home about.

So it seems that with regard to sovereignty there are two basic positions: one where we are definitely inferiors to one or more truly sovereign beings, and one where we are collegially related either to the other elements of an infinite being or to our fellow non-god beings.

So the sovereignty issue doesn't turn on whether or not there is a God, but whether or not we are all of the same stuff. Whether we are all just matter in a spiritual void, or we are all bits of god in a purely spiritual realm!

"1. ...and by trying to conform my life to what I believe his will to be."

Man-centered religion. "This is what *I* do".

"2. I must pick and choose which Gods I believe to be most helpful to me ....I cast my lots and see how they fall."

Man-centered religion. "This is what *I* do."

"3. ...I am part of God I share partly in his perfection. ...I am only a bit of God ..."

Man-centered religion. "This is what *I* am and what *I* do".

"4. ...if I have half a brain in my head, I need to be humbled by my relative place in the Cosmos. ... there is less talk of sovereignty and more of collegiality with my fellow sentient beings. ..."

Man-centered religion. "This is what *I* need to do and the relationships *I* will have with the other gods."

"So the sovereignty issue doesn't turn on whether or not there is a God, but whether or not we are all of the same stuff. ..."

From the looks of it, you believe there is a god, and he, she, it, they, is/are you. LOL

O.K. then:
1. Single God who is separate from physical universe: God from all time decides how everything will go. Everything happens as God planned.
2. Multiple Gods separate from physical universe: Gods work together and sometimes at odds to cause things to happen in the universe and the heavens.
3. God includes physical universe: God from all time decides how everything will go. But God does not act upon the universe, as he is the universe and the heavens.
4. No God. Life in the universe follows whatever physical laws happen to exist. Everything follows these laws.

These are still four distinctly different religions and nowhere did I use the word "I" or mention Man. Multiple Gods duking it out for supremacy is different than a single God. God that includes the universe is different from a God that is separate. A universe with no God is different from a universe with a God.

Life is more complex than God or Man.

P.S.: Pitting Man against God is a little like that cult film classic "Bambi vs. Godzilla"!

I apologize for taking so long to answer, hope this responds to the majority of your threads.

You are correct, in that I do enjoy replying to things that may be controversial, that’s one of the main reasons I like Freerepublic. I never discuss, in depth, politics or religion with my friends or relatives, since these discussions rarely end, whether in agreement or not. Another reason I like this forum, no strained relations, no worrying about hurting someone you care about’s feelings, and they end when you want them to. Also, it’s possible to reach many more people, with many different views than the relative few that are family and friends. In a way, people are more honest on the internet, than when dealing with family or friends, face to face.

I, of course, assume humans are only flesh and blood, because we are. I too, believe in a soul/spirit, but that’s not as easily proved as the flesh and blood.

The Socratic club was from you in #44.

It’s a belief. You can either choose to believe people are inherently mean or not. I choose to believe people are born either good or bad, but the majority are good.

I have no way of telling if people are truly in love or acting, it’s none of my business. I can only go on appearances and intuition.

If you will note, I never said, anywhere, that I care about finding out WHAT people believe, only WHY they believe. That is why I don’t bother to do much research on different religions.

You are also correct in that I don’t care to do much research on my own. This is because we are talking about things that cannot be proven, ie, religious/spiritual beliefs, philosophical beliefs, etc. It doesn’t matter who you are/were, or how learned you are/were, or famous, etc, since none of these can be proven as being right or wrong, then anyones' theory has the potential of being valid. Why not stick to your own beliefs/theories?

The God of the bible may very well want an individual relationship with people, but who is to say that is correct?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.