It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in
every particle interaction is realized in one parallel world/universe or
another, then there is no need for a god. Everything is deterministic and
known ahead of time for all time.

However, if in a Single World Interpretation SWI, a single quantum state is
selected in each particle interaction to become physical (based it seems on
information), then there may be a need for some sort of consciousness to
make that selection. If so then that consciousness controls every particle
interaction and we may rightly call it god. Note that SWI allows for free
will and hence morality that MWI lacks.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, John Mikes <> wrote:

> A bit from 'outside the box':
> the 'religious' ideas emerged from the 'awe' how very ancient apes looked
> at the world. It went through innumerable changes to reach a tribe with
> writing skills and the Bible was established saving positive attitudes of
> the Super Naturals (whatever THEY were) as 'Good Lord' FOR ME. (Some
> polytheistics also included vile characteristics, but never mind that). In
> Mono (or almost mono) it is MY GOD who I ask to destroy MY enemies - and
> HeSheIt does it.
> My enemy, however asks (the same?) God to destroy ME and HIS GOOD LORD
> does just that.
> Over the past 5000+ years the 5000+th version of such Scriptures still
> attracts faithful.
> Surprisingly well educated and reasonably smart people still take such
> hearsay for basic knowledge.
> As we got smarter, the main questions concentrated on Creation and
> Teleology. With all the mental training we underwent  we still have no
> better image than the bearded old man in a white nightgown?
> I propose a different image:
> The World (Everything) is an Infinite Complexity.
> Never mind how it occurred, it is WAY beyond our mental capabilities even
> to imagine it. Some features transpired into human minds (=mental functions
> we apply by our tool - the brain) and Homo rounded it up continually into a
> MODEL of the TOTAL, explaining ALL questionable features from WITHIN it.
> The 'Infinite Complexity' includes more and we have no access to the
> 'beyond our model' features, nor how they (their relations?) may be
> 'organized', - BUT there is an easy way: we imagine it in OUR ways, i.e.
> anthropocentrically as 'processing topics'. (They may be completely
> different, relations of aspects, or even descriptions beyond our present
> vocabulary.)
> Such 'imaging' (?) makes the debate about 'name' or 'idea' of 'G-O-D'
> baseless and superfluous.
> There are some idioms in the discussion I don't care about:
> 'Random' - if such exists, we have no physical (or other observed) order
> to establish.
> 'Evolution': every change occurs within the feasibility of the 'givens' -
> some survive, some don't. Occasional snapshots of our science don't even
> detect the completely unsuccessful.
> 'Free Will': cousin of 'random', we, as products of the Infinite
> Complexity have circumstances to live within and cannot even 'decide'
> outside the givens. Some such decisions are conscious, some are not.
> Etc.
> I really enjoyed the dicussion
> John Mikes
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM, John Clark <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012  Craig Weinberg <> wrote:
>>> > It's not trying to explain how God did it though, it gets around that
>>> by collapsing all whats and hows into a single overarching Who and Why.
>> Exactly, religion takes everything we don't understand and puts it into a
>> box, it then writes "God" on a label and sticks it on the box and decrees
>> that the problem is now solved. This is progress? If the physicists at CERN
>> announced that all life including human life was created by the Klogknee
>> Field but didn't even attempt to explain how it had done this miraculous
>> thing would you be satisfied? I wouldn't be.
>> When Charles Darwin wrote his book in 1859 he didn't just say Evolution
>> is the key to understanding life he explained how, he explained how it
>> could lead to the origin of species; and that's why he was the greatest
>> scientist who ever lived and that is the difference between science and
>> religion.
>> > The mechanemorphic model is certainly a tremendous improvement over the
>>> anthropmorphic but it is still half wrong. [...] The biggest problem for me
>>> with the God idea is that it is arbitrarily humanoid.
>> I don't dislike the God theory because of anthropomorphism, although I'm
>> not a big fan of long white beards myself I feel than any being should have
>> a right to facial hair if He fancies that sort of thing. The reason I
>> dislike the God theory is that it explains absolutely nothing.
>>> > If we were to take the worldview of mechanism literally, we would have
>>> no idea who we were, nor would we care.
>> I don't know what this means.
>>  > I don't see that it would be a problem for God to make physics
>> Great, so how did He do it? I'm all ears!
>> > I can make a castle out of sand, so God can make a universe out of
>>> physics
>> I don't know about you but I can explain how I made a castle out of sand,
>> so why can't God do what I can. If' you're puzzled how something as
>> marvelous and complex as X came to be and someone tells you that Y made it
>> but cannot even begin to explain how it did so and also cannot explain how
>> Y came to be in the first place then that "explanation" has not really
>> rendered you any the wiser. It's often said that science can't explain
>> everything and that's true, but religion can't explain ANYTHING.
>>  > I don't see that the universe has any particular preference for
>>> simplicity over complexity, it seems to make good use of both.
>> Yes but explanations do have a preference for simplicity over complexity;
>> that's what a explanation is, describing something we don't understand in
>> terms of something we do understand.
>> > You must understand that spirituality is an anthropological universal:
>>> we have never, ever come
>>> in contact with any culture which does not have spiritual concepts.
>> And what things have all those millenniums of spirituality produced?
>> 1) Lots and lots of fancy tombs built with backbreaking effort by people
>> who would have preferred to be doing something else.
>> 2) Some good paintings.
>> 3) Poetry that nobody reads if they're not teaching or taking a class in
>> it.
>> 4) Ridiculous philosophy.
>> 5) Lots and lots of cadavers manufactured in bloody holy wars.
>>> > This cannot be brushed aside
>> I think I just did.
>>> > randomness becomes another name for God.
>> Yet another example of someone willing to abandon the idea of God but not
>> the 3 letter word "G-O-D".
>> > Causality magically appears from randomness. Why?
>> I don't know, but I do know that given enough time even astronomically
>> unlikely things will happen, in fact they will happen a infinite number of
>> times if infinity is at your disposal.
>>   John K Clark
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> For more options, visit this group at
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to