God's Metric
I often say that God grants us a limited free will.
But a scientific mind might ask, if God grants us limited free will, how much free will does he grant us?
The answer is that it's arbitary and is decided by God.
This entire world is arbitrary, at least as far as we know.
If you simply even believe arbitrary things exist or can exist,
then there is no reason to assume that all things have some metric.
If you don't, and believe that there is some level of ultimate
cosmic perfection to it, that is still possible. However, even
within it, without taking into context ALL the factors affecting
something, an event always seems arbitrary.
So coming from that level, free will itself may not be the metric,
and it could be the result of some other metric that is balanced.
Further, it is not possible to empirically arrive at a set of axioms
that defines all metrics perfectly. Because reality is infinitely
vast, and to infinity, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies.
The only way one can have full knowledge of reality is if they
detach from the nuances of their own confined reality and identify
as one with the whole of it.
This is possible, in the same sense as a gear in a machinery can
identify either as an individual entity, or as he gear itself.
But then the gear with all its nuances has no particular reason for
existing in reality as itself (assuming that the gear is infintely
vast as well). Further, every movement will change what the gear
was and turn it into something else.
So being something that changes, a gear has no fixed identity. It
has nothing that it can say is its own, that time will not take
away.
Yet it exists.
Now, if something arbitrary like this should exist, such that all
things within it have deeper levels of abstractions (i.e. in either
direction), then that itself should have a higher cause. We need to
unpack this statement.
If a gear exists, then it exists because of two things. It exists
because it has a form, and it has a material. The material is more
subtle, while the material is organized into a form. Now, a gear is
a part of a machine. While a machine cannot exist without a gear,
and so a gear is a material component of the gear, a gear would also
not exist if not for the purpose of making a machine. Of course, it
can be used to make several different machines, but that is just the
list of forms that it can cause. Which is in other words, its purpose.
What forms the machine or gear from their componentes is its maker,
which in the usual case, is a human.
So basically, a form comes into being after there is a material. But
a form can be envisioned before it's put into place. Then, the form is
put into being using its components. The componenets too are envisioned
before they are assembled. First one generally envisions a form, then
they envision the components that can make the form into being.
(As for whether one should ideally first think of a form and build the
components, or whether they should start with a component and then think
about the forms they can build from it, I've never had a definite opinion
on this matter. But I guess, why not try it out now?)
<< BEGIN NOTE >>
So, one can envision the components that can create a form, because
they already know what components exist. But then, sometimes, a machine
is so innovative its components too do not already exist. Typically,
then, one starts by envisioning the higher form, then they know that
it needs some lower componets to exist, and they try to see if any
combinations of lower components will suffice. If it doesn't, they will
realize that it needs a component that itself should be made. So this
shows us that what we really do is just envision top-down, but we take
help from our knowledge of what's available at the bottom to speed up
this process.
But then, we sometimes also end up making something without a form. In
those cases, it's either by accident, by a desire to make something out
of it, or to make just anything that's profitable. Things that are made
by accident or things that are made just to be profitable are just that,
incidental. The latter case too, while is based on some knowledge, still
based on metrics not relevant to the form itself, but then those metrics
decide the form. Same for the former case. But the middle case, where one
wishes to make something out of it is more interesting. These are further
of two types. One is where someone realizes that a few things they already
have can be put together to make something larger, and the other is where
it's like a painting where the artist follows the brush. In the latter case,
it is a blend of external metrics and the artist's vision. [But in the former
case, it is a case of spontaneous vision that emerged from the knowledge of
what can be.]
That is in particular the whole case, I believe, that even caused this
entire doubt. That is, is vision informed by components that already exist?
A common idea is that all ideas or products are just compilations of ideas
that already exist. But that would invalidate the entire existence of the
other case - of ideas that are dreamlike and are not based off of other
ideas - and secondly, the existence of the world itself. So I believe, that
this argument is actually only an idea made in retrospect and one that also
advocates for materialism. That is, given any book and an observer, the
observer can easily find out patterns in the book, and say that the book is
just a combination of all the words that exist in the book, and the words
are combinations of letters and punctuations. That's a true statement that
does not really mean anything. That is, any intelligent idea can be in this
manner be reduced to material. But that's simply because there is simply no
proper definition for what's material and what's not when it comes to ideas.
The whole idea of "intelligent thoughts" only exist based on the understanding
that consciousness comes from something beyond the material world. This in turn
is based on our observations of two things - one being that humans had never
created an intelligent being, and secondly, that the world is too arbitrary to
have come about from any concievable causes, much less known causes. But
the existence of LLMs have made use of the same book analogy I provided earlier
to prove that it can construct rational arguments.
However, this is only possible because rationality itself is based on axioms
and that can be automated. However, creative thought that defines most of human
experience (outside of dire circumstances like war) is not structured in this way.
<< BEGIN SUB NOTE >>
todo-think Actually, thinking of that, indeed, logic mostly only applies in case of war
and in case of trade, where war actually exists when fair trade fails. Aside from
war and trade, there is also work, skilled or unskilled, but again, that's another
form of activity that's associated with trade. That is, trade itself only exists
because work needs to be done and resources need to be produced and shared.
Anyways, what I'd like to point out here is that, Muhammad's ideology of submission
is violent because it ignores the creative aspect of human experience in order to
only value its logical aspect, when logic itself is only a tool meant to make room
for a proper experience of life in co-existence.
<< END SUB NOTE >>
[Just like reality itself is not limited to the confines of rationalism, and it only
works in the confines where something is finite and conserved under transformations,
like energy] (#todo-think-completed), human thought too has that nature, and often
because the mind does not obey conservation laws, and is fluid without a boundary
(i.e. water and air are held in place by gravity, while thoughts are more chaotic,
as they tend to revolve around known ideas, but they also move away from them), and
then there are also dreams that are not always based on prior experiences, and can
often also reveal new information.
[Though an LLM can generate images, it only does so using the limited data about
the human experience available from completed works,] and it cannot have a good
knowledge about what goes on inside a person's mind as they create such a work and
how that can be related to by others. It only knows about it to the extent a person
can aritculate it into words, such as by reviews. (#todo-think-completed)
<< BEGIN SUB NOTE >>
My argument for both above ideas is that though human "expressions", or more likely,
human creations, are finite, the ideas that go on into creating them come from an
infinte source. It thinks, but it's speed of thought is not constrained by material
limits like a clock speed, but then it is also constrained by the conditions of the
body and the mood. But though they constrain it, it is not as if thoughts are based
on material transformations (as in the case of AI). It's more like thoughts come from
an infinite source, but is filtered through a door that gets opened or close depending
on the body's conditions and memories. Memories influence the thoughts we entertain,
but the thoughts can come from beyond our memories as well. It can also be understood
to be more like a filter (net) whose grids constrict or open wide, or a lens that gets
dirty and needs to be cleaned. [This is part of why I say that materialists simply
cannot find this source of consciousness, simply because they do not clean their brains
to allow these thoughts to flow in.] And I'm not talking about sex related thoughts.
It's simply that are so full of hate and they deny that anything beyond the realm of
the material world and the material brain can exist, and they end up focusing only on
the logical part of the mind and do not allow any conscious thought that cannot be
validated by the data available to the mind from the senses to even flow in, and then
they try to rationally validate any information they get using this limited data alone.
Basically, they start by denying creative thought to find a logical explanation for it,
and eventually end up not being able to produce any creative thought at all, and end up
thinking that it does not really exist. And they just end up ignoring the beauty in all
things around them. They even end up going far away from people who have creative lives,
and then they say that they cannot find any evidence for creativity. Then they just live
in a realm where they do not even recognize creativity, and whenever they hear about the
word, they just think it's a scam used by marketers. Now a lot often, someone may know
that creativity does exist, but then that it should not mean that capitalism is just.
[But the problem is that, these people start by looking at poverty, and by saying that
capitalists are bad, and then instead of solving the problem, they look at how the rich
people are religious, and then they say that anyone who claims to believe in anything
such as God is definitely lying, and that they also trick others with religion and use
them to hold power, and then hold a materialist ontology.] Now, since this argument is
popular, it's possible for anyone who wants to solve poverty to find some rationale in
most of this, and they may end up studying that. But in even attempting to do that,
they end up getting too into the logical portion of their brain, and end up being blunt
and lose their creativity for a long time. But then, if they are good, and always stick
to the truth and peace, they they will be taken out of it. In fact, their entire
experience of falling for this argument may be necessary for them to understand this
worldview and its faults well - since a person always has to understand the pitfalls
and deceptive tactics too in order to be smart.
This is also why if there was a material entity that was deceptive by logic cannot win
over truthful people. Because they will have access to truth that will be beyond the
realm of material thought to be able to invalidate them. That is, in effect, Satan would
simply be only as powerful in reasoning as an LLM, which does not have access to the
entirety of human experience. And how would such a "being" exist? Well, a fallen
angel is defined as someone who refused God. So though they could clean the lens of
their mind and see the reality for themselves, they have refused to do so, out of spite.
Now why would they do so? I do not know. Maybe it's just an illustration of what the
human mind itself does when it tries to live by logic alone.
In this sense, I believe Satan is simply a representation of the logical part of the
human mind. But then, for the first human to even lock their mind, there should have
been evil in some sense. That is, if you consider linear time. If you ignore linear
time, then some other religion applies. This can only happen if the first human was
tricked using the logical part of his mind.
[Actually Talmud claims that Cain was fathered by the Devil]
Satan has the power to read people's thoughts, and insert thoughts into the minds of
other people - so that even if people did not express their thoughts, other people
would invalidate any arguments they had validating what's good. Of course, he can only
insert such thoughts into the minds of people who have already denied truth. So in that
sense, when you shut the door of consciousness, it allows another portal to open.
One solution is to stick to your community.
<< END SUB NOTE >>
Further, when it comes to AI, although it's smarter than just being able to parrot
ideas, it still doesn't always know how to take a side. Not all humans know this
either, but with enough data, when one has defined their values as well, from those
values, one can use the data to argue in defense of those values. The thing about
values is that they are dogmatic. They can be amended, but only if there are deeper
values that these values violate, for reasons which are not apparent prior to one's
analysis of those details. Nevertheless, at each point in time, one needs to have
some values. If you can change your values, then you can argue in favour of anything.
There is no such thing as objective truth, as that implies objective values as well.
Any rational system can only exist as long as the values are definite. (#todo-think-completed)
<< END NOTE >>