I nearly jump out of my seat every time I see some smug materialist say something like “the idea of a creator solves nothing because it presumes some complex entity had to create the universe without explaining that complexity”- essentially the idea is that we are making an anthropocentric error of a “watchmaker”- when the laws of physics appear to be much simpler and originate from a totally simple singularity-

the fatal flaw in this argument is obviously the assumption that God as Creator is complex- but with the most basic of education on theism/deism it is clear that the aspect of God that represents our perspective of the beginning is the SIMPLEST possible thing: the self-reflecting Monad- Eheyeh: I AM- the simplest possible expression of being as formless existence reflecting itself since there are no more fundamental forms/boundaries to give it form- all form must emanate from it’s self-reflection- Eheyeh asher Eheyeh: I AM THAT I AM-

now the self-reflective feedback space of the Monad is IMMANENT and ‘instantly’ expresses the ultimate aspect of God as Omnipotent/Omniscient/Omnipresent meta-being – the Omega Point- however any procedural expression of the I AM Monad connecting to the Omega Point necessarily generates a time-like dimension of causal evolution that builds from the simple singularity origin to the omega Point- and compiles the whole configuration space – the Akashic Records- in the process-

so for observers within the time-like causal history they see God at the beginning of time as the simplest possible being- the I AM quantum of cosmic consciousness- and they see the God as infinitely complex meta-being at the END of time as the Omega- but from ‘God’s perspective’ the I AM immanently forms the Omega as a single omni-dimensional shape- just as in a photon’s perspective the entire history and space from Big Bang to Omega is collapsed to an instant – in fact I argue that the photon is not just the quantum of energy and light- but also the quantum of space/time and a more fundamental projection of the quantum of consciousness itself- and that at specific resonant frequencies photons collapse into singularities we call quarks that form the building blocks of the Standard Model of matter

to say ‘god created the universe’ is really just saying that the universe logically emanates from the simplest possible quantum of Being.


God does not compute. By the most advanced SAI, he will not compute. By combining all the possible universes, he will not compute. Why? Because truth transcends theoremhood.

You can say God is outside theoremhood, but how you gonna prove it? Every definition of God must declare him “outside” something, beyond something, extra something, right to infinity, which ends where?

There exists no decision procedure to get from “here’ to truth, and there exists no decisin procedure to get from “here” to “God” if you define “God” as the sum of truth. And of you don’t, why the hell would you want to get there in the first place?

Whether there was a God to crreate the mess from the start is a useless argument, because the very complexity that developed from simplicity does not allow a return to “God” as simple. We got this thing called entropy, see? It tends to erase such connections.

That means God either makes a lot of mistakes, or he has no intention of us discovering him/her/it/them. Everything else is pure speculation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. I heard the word ‘god’ wayyyy to often in this article. This whole ‘god’ idea is just a quaint parochial delusion that emerged in a tribal desert culture. It evolved so hard and fast it has become essentially meaningless. From a historical perspective this ‘god’ is just a contaminating meme that thrives on genocide, paternalism and vague allusions of something “woow duude” as yet another deranged epileptic mystic stares too long in the sun while overheated, starved or intoxicated.

    It’s all just evil advertising by any means.

    It is first and foremost a desert derived mystical cult that just happens to be highly contageous. In a few centuries a space based civilisation will shake their collective heads and wonder ‘wtf was it with that whole raghead neurologically impaired crap they went on and on about’.

    It will be so glaringly obvious – that whole offensively repetitive ‘the biggest most powerful vaguely male decider in charge that is a XAZILLION TIMES BIGGER AND STRONGER AND MORE AWESOME than your dad’ I wonder why not more people see it for what it is.

    Once you exercise that ass crap ‘god’ from your thinking, after first properly defining what it is and what it is not, the better you be.

    Plus, Azaothoth, Cthulhu and Nyarlotep have just about HAD it with this whole ‘god’ nonsense and they MAY hold you accountable for your actions and statements.

  2. Serendipity Seraph says:

    Huh? A being complex enough to create an entire universe and, according to most religions, care about the fine grained events of individual beings life as well, is certainly MUCH more complex than the natural world. There is not fatal flaw in the anti-watchmaker argument. Equating the “God” concept with the Big Bang makes no sense. This is saying that those who say no god is required, the universe naturally arose, are in fact talking about a God which was simply that natural quantum singularity. This is absurd. There is nothing to say “I AM” or any consciousness at all about a quantum convolution that explodes into a Big Bang. I am amazed you would take such a line.

    There is no quantum of “cosmic consciousness” as far as anything we have any evidence whatsoever for. As rational people we have no business with sloppy statements like this. Especially not in the face of the proclivity of our species to see “God” behind every bush and to claim whatever we will and ascribe it to “God’s” commandment. This sort of loose reasoning gives fuel to the avowed enemies of a technologically fueled transcendence of current highly limited human state in reality.

    • Seren, my darling, you are going to find that my secondaries are not all what you would call ‘rational’ people. Some demonstrate enough knowledge that I can believe their claims to be actively working in computation science, nanoscience etc. Others are more interested in things like alien abduction, shamanism and other things that I would consider to be the far fringes of science (if indeed, they can be called scientific at all). There are even one or two Intelligent Design proponents among them (who demonstrate that they do not understand evolution more than anything).

      I quote comments that strike me as interesting, and a window onto the worldview that others have. It does not necessarily mean I agree with such comments. To be honest, often times the conversation is a bit over my head. I have no idea really what a ‘quantum of cosmic consciousness’ is. Think of Secondary Thoughts as a scrapbook collection of thoughts taken from a variety of philosophical, spiritual, theological and scientific worldviews, rather than as a single and coherent argument of the headline topics.

      • Serendipity Seraph says:

        Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

        For the record, no one knows what a ‘quantum of cosmic consciousness’ is because ‘cosmic consciousness’ is utterly without referent or meaningful definition. So it is not over you lovely head at all. It is far beneath it.

  3. thordaddy says:


    What allows you to dismiss Supremacy and then talk of technologically fueled “transcendence?” Where in the Universe is there any technology not ultimately “fueled” by humans? How do you know a “transhumanist” will be able to do anything useful when he seems to suggest being human is so pointless and oppressive. Why else “transcend?” Why “transcend” at all when one is anti-Supremacy. It’s incoherent and irrational.

    Read the post above yours…

    Who would actually spend that much time to verballly assault the idea of Supremacy? The driving force behind EVERYTHING including the Singularity… However fueled? What is driving this “transcending” technology other than INDIVIDUALS seeking the Singularity BY STRIVING towards Supremacy?

    The notion of the Singularity being a collective techological phenomenon seems unlikely. First, there is no evidence of such a thing ever existing. It’s pure speculation. And second, the “collective” (including most “scientists”) ARE anti-Supremacy…

    Meaning, they have no desire for the Singularity… The love their “equality.” They can be atheist “scientists.”

    • Serendipity Seraph says:

      What allows me? My mind allows me to, of course. Do you think I have contradicted myself? How so? We can and will, if we don’t screw up too badly or meet with a fatal natural disaster, transcend the human condition. We will end aging, have indefinitely long life times, perfect the body, move our minds to more rarefied (computational) substrates, increase our intelligence and abilities radically and with few known limits short of the laws of physics that apply to this universe. That is what I mean by “transcendence”. Not one bit of it takes any faith in the sense of believing something without evidence or excuse believing things just because you would like to.

      Being human is not in the least pointless. It is a great state to be born into. That does not mean it is the best state attainable by any means.

      This “Supremacy” kick sort of implies some over-being we are all beholden to. Why should there be such a being? If there is one then why doesn’t it openly show itself? I have no need for or patience with some supposedly supreme being that is coy, and if your belief scriptures, petty and vengeful. I challenge the very concept of a Supreme or Ultimate being beyond which no further state being with more capabilities is at all possible. It seems like an arbitrary imaginary asymptote, a claim to know the Ultimate in order to end argument.

      Singularity as I use it is only the advent of > human [probably artificial] intelligence. Nothing else. It is a virtual certainty barring us wrecking ourselves or being wrecked before we get there. It is not collective except in the sense that all inventions build on what came before.

      Don’t confuse Singularity with “Supremacy” or god. It is none of these.

  4. thordaddy says:


    There is no “transcending” or Singularity without a backdrop of Supremacy. The idea that one can dismiss the driving force behind a “transcendent” movement on the way to the Singularity is the stuff of radical liberalism and self-annihilation. Anti-Supremacists “transcend” through self-annihilation.

    You tell us of all these things that will enable humans to “transcend” our condition, but don’t tell us why we would want those things. WHY would Seraph want to be immortal? Ageless… Boundless…? Radically autonomous…?

    • Maybe I am misreading you, Thordaddy, but I get the impression that you see Supremacy as a bad thing. I agree that it can be, if achieving supremacy is accompanied with contempt. Personally, the supremacy I am interested in is supremacy over myself. I want to be as good as I can be in every possible area, and I see no reason to accept any boundary on my personal development, save for those ultimate limits enshrined in the laws of nature. I also see no reason why acknowledging I have scope for improvement should mean I feel contempt for the person I am today, or that my future self would, in retrospect, feel that way. And if I can respect myself (while at the same time acknowledge my disabilities and strive to overcome them) I can accord other people the same respect and leave them alone to define their own limitations.

      I know Seren, so I know she does not seek immortality. Immortality is endless life whether you desire to live or not. She definitely wants to be ageless and the reasons why aught to be obvious to everyone. The aging process is one that increasingly limits one’s capacity to live a productive life, and eventually to live any kind of life at all. Yes, there are positive aspects associated with long life (such as wisdom from life experience) but none of these would be lost if we rid ourselves of the negative aspects of aging. On the contrary, they would be enhanced because the wisdom of old age would then be accompanied with the vitality of youth. This universe we live in is so vast I cannot imagine a person of healthy mind and body ever becoming bored of being alive. But if anyone ever did grow weary of life, they aught to be able to choose death.

  5. thordaddy says:


    No, no… Supremacy is the standard to which we strive INCLUDING those seeking the Singularity. There is no Supremacy through contemptuousness.

    The problem is that those most Western “scientists” are anti-Supremacists. And most Westerners are anti-Supremacist. We are all immersed in a drive towards “equality.” How then can the Singularity have a hope of emerging in our environment? Doesn’t a collectivist-style “technological” Singularity signify “equality” as our highest principle and not the unabashed ascent towards Supremacy REQUIRED by the Singularity?

    The Singularity without a spiritual component isn’t any Singularity that we can conceive of. Instead, we merely ponder what the Singularity will bring forth as though that weren’t also a violation of Singularity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s