Reason • Reality • Philosophy • Science • Psychology • Spirituality
It is possible to create any number of simulations of physical reality (including consciousness) within actual physical reality. It is possible, and perhaps even probable, that the physical world which we experience is itself a simulation of actual physical reality (although this is just a speculation). It is also possible to create simulations within simulations. To create such a simulation does not make one a “God,” if one defines “God” as an infinite and eternal (no beginning or end in space or time) being, who is omnipresent, all-loving, all-powerful, perfect and infallible. If some person were to create such a simulation, that person would still retain all of their human limitations and fallibilities. Such a person might be a “good” person, but still far from perfect. Such a person might even be a sadist, who created the simulation in order to make the conscious beings simulated within it suffer. To be the “creator” of such a simulation does NOT make one an infinite, eternal, omnipresent, all-loving, all-powerful, perfect, and infallible “God.” While such a person would certainly have power over the simulation, he or she would not necessarily be any more just or moral than his or her simulated creations, and therefore not at all worthy of “worship” as any sort of a divine being at all.
A “creator” could be “worshiped” out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, of course. It should be obvious, however, that any “creator” who actually demanded such “worship” would essentially be a narcissistic dictator who would gain nothing other than foolish amusement, a sense of dictatorial power, and false sense of superiority from any such worship. To actually grant rewards merely for such meaningless worship would only serve to inflate the ego of such a narcissistic and foolish “creator;” to grant punishment for the lack of such meaningless worship would reveal the sadism of the “creator.”
Mathematical truth, in contrast to the type of “creator” described above, certainly does have some of the qualities of “God,” such as being immutable, eternal, and omnipresent. Mathematical truth is also “all-powerful,” in the sense that everything exists and operates in accordance with mathematical truth. Mathematical truth is also “perfect” and “infallible” in the sense that it is entirely consistent throughout its infinite and eternal structure.
Mathematical truth, however, lacks some very essential qualities which make it impossible to equate with “God.” Mathematical truth, for example, is certainly not “all-loving,” and it is certainly not “perfect” or “infallible” in any sort of moral sense. That which is painful or evil or bad is just as much within the realm of mathematical possibility as that which is pleasurable or virtuous or good. Mathematical truth is completely indifferent to morality, and cannot stand as a sort of “higher” external moral authority which commands humanity to serve, obey, or submit. Mathematical truth is completely indifferent to prayer or worship. Mathematical truth does not reward with heaven or punish with hell, or provide for any sort of eternal “afterlife” at all.
Our ultimate “creator” (whether we live in the “real” physical world, or a simulation, or a simulation nested within any number of “higher” simulations) is not some hypothetical “God,” but the very real structure of mathematical truth itself. No hypothetical “God” is required to create anything at all, and such a “God,”in fact, could create neither mathematical truth nor consciousness. “God” is mathematically and logically impossible, and therefore does not exist.
Thus reality is “without God” or “atheistic” by its very nature. (Greek: a, “without,” and theos, “God.”)The closest thing we do have to a “God” is the immutable, infinite, omnipresent, and in some sense “perfect” and “infallible” structure of mathematical truth. If it were possible to equate “God” with “mathematical truth,” then it would be correct to say that all of reality is a “part” of “God,” and
As has been demonstrated, however, it is not possible to equate the immutable, infinite and eternal structure of mathematical truth with “God;” furthermore, “God” is mathematically and logically impossible, and therefore does not exist. It would therefore be incorrect to use the term “pantheistic” as a description of reality as being mathematical in all its parts. A new terminology is required, and we will introduce it now.
“Pan-mathematical” can be used to describe the nature of reality as being completely mathematical in all of its parts, and as a whole. “Matheism” or “pan-matheism” can be used to refer to the belief or knowledge that this is so, in contrast to either “theism” (the belief in a “God”) or simplistic “atheism” (the simplistic belief in no “God”). A person possessing such knowledge could then be identified as a “matheist” or a “pan-matheist,” or as being “matheistic” or “pan-matheistic.”
(Generally speaking, it is not necessary to prefix “pan-” to these words. The concept of “matheism” already include the idea that mathematical truth is the “ultimate cause” for reality and all parts of reality. The prefix “pan-” is thus redundant, but was useful above as a sort of linguistic and conceptual “bridge,” so to speak, from “pantheism” to “matheism.”)
While matheism is, strictly speaking, a type of atheism, it accomplishes things which simplistic atheism does not. Matheism, goes beyond asserting that no hypothetical “God” exists, to identifying the mathematical and logical impossibility of any such “God.” Matheism then goes further, and positively identifies the structure of mathematical and logical truth as the necessary and sufficient cause for consciousness, which in turn is the necessary and sufficient cause for that which we experience as physical reality.
“God” is not a “mathematician.” There is no “God.” There is just the immutable, infinite and eternal structure of mathematical truth itself. This is atheism, but is not the simplistic atheism which merely denies the foolish concept of some hypothetical “God.” This is matheism – the beginning of true enlightenment.
Please help advance Scionics by commenting:
We welcome all comments, positive and negative, about our work and our website. We are particularly interested in any errors you find, whether these be simple typographical errors, or errors in facts or logic. If reporting an error, please be as specific as possible in identifying it, so that we will be able to properly identify and assess it. You may leave a publicly visible comment below, or in our forums, or you may send us a private comment using our contact page.