Models of Reality

• Centralized: A god said "be", and the universe was there. Every action occurs according to the initial force that was generated in the word "be". Hinduism for example describes this as "Ohm". In this model, everything is part of the plan, and hence there can be no punishment as part of the afterlife, as every action happened as intended, and even the "bad guys" were made to act so by god. Humans have no control over who is good or who is bad, and even if god created some people as good and others as bad, neither can people convert a bad person into a good person. All they can do is assume that a person who fits the description of bad is bad, and the others are good. But it would be pointless for a god to make bad people just to put them in eternal torment as part of his own plan.
• Decentralized: Several points of the universe said "be". Not every points, but those points which could make decisions are the points at which conscious thought exists. By means of reproduction, these points, of cosmic intelligence can survive along with it's sensors and actuators to interact with the external self (self being the universe). That would mean there was at minimum a single cosmic intelligence, and due to it's nature, and also because it's the consciousness of the universe itself, it will always find a way to continue, while still living out different stories.

This intelligence could either be deterministic, or indeterministic, as with the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum mechanical model of physics. The deterministic model would make the points of intelligence meaningless, so it would be similar to the centralized model. But there is still a difference in that everything is a manifestation or avatar of god, rather than god being an external agency putting everything into motion. This model could also be called "Centralized and distributed".

As Monsoon said "Free will is a myth, religion is a joke. We're all pawns controlled by something greater. Memes. They are the culture. They are everything we pass on." By this, I would say that rather than it being fully deterministic or fully free willed, it is more likely that it is partly both. Simply, as a result of the information we take in from the outside world, we shape our understanding and hence it also affects our decisions made in free will. This is simply an effect of coexistence. To truly have independent free will, one would need to always be mindful to not let the external world get to them, and many people find themselves leading solitary or monastic lives to achieve this, although that is not strictly necessary.

• Centralized Master and Decentralized Slaves: A god said "be", and the universe was there. Every action occurs according to the initial force, except that life was further created in the universe. The nature of life is to spread and multiply, just like the decentralized model I mentioned earlier. However, the theology states that the master dictates the actions the slaves should take, and doing what's in opposition to those laws would result in the person being destined for eternal torment after worldly life. This is different from the "centralized and distributed" decentralized model with a the centralization being external, because in this case, the entire universe wasn't what was created as conscious, but just humans. The body of humans would however be also dependant on the universe.

I find this theory unreasonable because the body of humans depends too much on the world, the air pressure, the air to oxygenate the blood to cleanse the toxins, water to hydrate the body and cleanse toxins, food to replenish energy, becuase the body is too much like a closed room. It is more likely that humans evolved from the world. Because otherwise life itself wouldn't be made of and dependant on the nature of the world in which they live.

Also, the only centralized and decentralized model I know in real life is the DNS network model. DNS servers can be decentralized, but by standard, everyone should only accept the ICANN DNS Root, and alternate roots will result in a different network. Personally, I find this model terrible, but again, I find that it is somewhat reasonable, although it being capitalistic isn't; for having a stable system without relying on hardcoded algorithms for security, and instead choosing human trust. But in reality this system is more about capitalism than trust, just like everything else in our current world, but that aside. Software package management in the free computing space also follows such a centralized decentralized model, to a lesser extend, with it more being centralized, because the repositories of a distro can have mirrors, but all cloning the centralized repo, with the purpose only being redundancy and lower latencies.

Other types of purely centralized systems would be Subversion version control system, and traditional network services with accounts in a server. Other decentralized systems would be federated network services, usually based on ActivityPub, Yggdrasil network, Git version control system and distributed ledger technologies such as blockchains. It's to be noted that the decentralized models of reality I described earlier often fit federated models more, because humans live in clans, but still we can take it as decentralized. Federated and decentralized models are almost very close, but federation more accurately depicts the nature of reality than complete decentralization, as I said referencing Monsoon's quote.

What this model really does match is the model of early societies, with a king and subjects. Which is why, I say that religion originated at the dawn of civilization, with the ideas being shared in writings, with the historically valid stories dating approximately as far back as when writing systems first emerged. The Quran describes this about itself much well, as I've mentioned in Problems with Islam. Basically the Quran was also shared in the language of the Arabs, so they may understand the ideas. And the problem I'm highlighting is that words originated as mere symbols to share ideas. But if we look back at simple symbols, people often misunderstand symbols, and warning symbols are often adapted to the ways of the civilizations as society progressed. And even with our complex languages, we still miscommunicate to this day. The reason for this is that communication is not absolute, but rather, we communicate with one another through shared feelings more than anything else.

This is the concept of Trust, Love and Faith. Trust is knowing that if what you feel is exactly what the other person feels, and if they are confident and not insecure, they will do the same thing that you will do. Love is knowing that what everyone wants is peace, and hence we always have to give more to the world than we take from it. Faith is hoping that what the other person feels is exactly what you feel, so that having love and trust works out.

What religion attempts to do is, to set a common standard to which people have to align their feelings to, because feelings are often dictated by experiences, and they can vary between people having been at different places at different points in time. But this is much similar to the concept of westernized education, because we are taught to view the world through one lens and that lens alone, rather than seeing it free of any preconceptions and coming to a natural understanding about it.

This is also why I say that true religon of every man is nothing more than his feelings. Even a person who does not believe in the explanations of god can believe in their own sense of morality, which is by which they judge other people. But with complete understanding there will be no judgement, but I'm talking about conventional human nature here, where people don't always pause to understand things deeply. Religious people often say in a black of white manner that atheists have no morality, but that isn't always true, and only corrupt people, that is people who have lost faith to love or trust, really don't recognize the concept of morality. I used the word faith with my earlier definition thant he religious definition. As for other atheists, who are more often agnostic atheists rather than staunch atheists, they tend to be more inclusive, and tend to think of religious people as immoral, and limiting their morality to just upholding the morality as described by their books rather than opening their eyes and looking at the world and forming their own moral understandings. In other words, they see them taking their holy books as prescriptions rather than descriptions.

The order of development would be Feelings -> Language -> Civilization -> Religion.