Universum2201
New Member
- Registriert
- 22. Januar 2007
- Beiträge
- 16
Hallo! Habe ein neues Buch geschrieben mit dem Titel:
The Digital God
anbei in Englisch (unkorrigiert).
Würde mich über feedback freuen bzw. alles, was falsch erscheint und was fehlt, was unlogisch klingt und was sonst noch auffällt ect.
Viel Spaß beim Lesen!
Martin Braun
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Digital God
by Martin Braun
Table of Contents
3 Preface
5 The biggest mistake ever
7 The meaning of life
9 The situation-based perspective
14 Where is God in all that?
The Digital God – Martin Braun 2007
Preface
It is said, that one can go many different ways and choose the direction. That was not always so, especially when looking at the origin of the universe.
After you recognise that life will come to an end one day, there are far less different ways to select. There are only two choices:
0) Ignore the question about what happens to you after you die.
1) To think about what happens to you after you die.
There is no alternative to the two choices.
You can eighter think about it or not. And even if you thought about it only for a fraction of a second, you did choose 1 and not 0.
Everything can be reduced to a point of separation that provides exactly two possible ways.
One is 0 and the other is 1, as we know it from digital technology. And this reduction also helps to bring the answer to the most interesting questions ever brought up in our world.
This book is about going back to the origin. It does not consider science, though. In fact, science would only set a frame around all arguments and prohibit to get out of it, subsequently. Science increases knowledge. That is required to understand how and why things work. However, if the most important questions need to be answered, it is essential to let go of science for the moment, to get a clear picture of the journey back to the origin.
The biggest mistake ever
Since humans think about their environment and surroundings consciously, a lot of mistakes and wrong assumptions were made. It is even more astonishing, that one certain mistake, which also was made many thousands of years ago, still is being made.
There was a time, when the earth was described as a flat disc with the sun revolving around it. When looking up to the night sky the movement of all the stars and the moon is visual. Their repeated appearance and the way how they show up every night suggested to many people that everything which is out there is moving all the time. However, that argument also claims, that the earth does not move at all making it the center of everything that surrounds it.
Many people tend to see themselves as the tip of the evolution which appearently only is correct for the complexity of the brain and inside the limited space called earth.
They think they are in control here dominating all animals. In fact, they even feel so important, it occures to them to develop a strong wish to be the center of the universe. That is the biggest mistake humanity ever has made. To be self-centered may serve the success in life quite well, but it blocks the clear thinking which is vital to be able to see the big picture. Even today there are people, who seriously think that the world was made in a way it perfectly fits to them. But that makes those people become the center of the universe again and perhaps they do even deny any possibility for an extraterrestrial life.
Such an approach also leads to the imagination that life on earth eventually could be unique. However, everyone who sees humanity as the top-class life form on earth and believes that no higher or more intelligent life exists, eventhough the universe offers so much space for it, would classify humanity as the center of the universe again.
There is a bright side, though. To answer the upcoming question in the next chapter, it is not relevant if humanity, or anything else, is the center of the universe or not.
The meaning of life
We now will take a closer look at the mother of all questions:
“What is the meaning of life?”
More questions instead of answers:
What life exactly? .. on earth only? .. and who is asking?
Usually a certain sub-question arises:
“Why are we here?”, or to be more precise:
“Why are we here in the universe?”
If there would not be a universe, we would not be here. As the universe is our home we live in and also we depend on it, the question can also be interpreted as:
“Why does the universe we are living in exist?”
This would be a more appropriate question because it does not put humanity in the center of the universe and so avoiding the old mistake from being repeated again.
Independent of whatever you believe in, the question can be simplified one more time:
“Why does anything exist at all?”
That would be a good replacement which brings us even further to the origin.
We do not need to understand how the universe works to think about why it does exist. At least we all do agree that there is something. It can be that what we can see or measure. It can be much more than that which is yet to be discovered if it can be. It might be some sort of a dream and no way to determine what reality is. But when did it show up the first time? If the universe was always there, then why does it look exactly the way it is? Now we are getting more and more closer to the origin which still appears hidden behind the clouds.
Time to switch to another perspective.
The situation-based perspective
To get to the origin of the universe we first need to define words to be able to use the language properly.
Useful definitions for the upcoming explainations are as follows:
Universe: This is everything which is more than nothing. Any kind of model e.g. multiple universes, are a universe. There is only one universe. If there are more, they can be seen as one family. They have in common that they are all universes and they all together would be summarized as: the universe. We are part of it.
Nothingness: This is the absence of everything. No matter, no energy whatsoever. It is easier to grasp the universe than the nothingness, because the latter has no finite components that help to get any clue.
The basic idea of the situation-based perspective is to think solely about the origin and imagine what situations could have been the first or better, the basic ones. These are the ones which are on top of all the subsequent situations. It turnes out that there are two different situations remaining:
0) Only nothingness.
1) A universe.
Currently we have situation 1 as the valid one.
If nothingness and universe can coexist, the result would be universe again (1).
Could there ever have been situation 0?
It would be much more likely that situation 0 is the preferred one as it seems easier to get accomplished since there is nothing that needs to be accomplished at all.
So the issue is, why is there no situation 0, although it is a possible situation, too? Situation 0 is the only available alternative to a universe.
Situation 0 Situation 1
Nothingness Universe
Size 0 or infinite finite (e.g. 1 feet)
Information 0 finite (e.g. 1 bit)
Time no time infinite
Age no time infinite
(time and
space unseperable)
To create a universe out of nothing would mean, that the information suddenly jumps from 0 to a finite value. If there were time, then it would happen in exactly 0 seconds. Thus, the universe had to be always there. There never was a situation 0, yet it is the only possible alternative we can think of. So it must be taken into consideration as well. It would be a mistake to simply ignore this only alternative situation.
Can the universe come out of nothing: No!
Can the universe be there without the option nothingness: No!
Situation 0 has no time (no motion) and no information. There are two different models for two possible sizes, though.
We know that Situation 0 never ever was valid. But we also know that it must be considered as an alternative, a counterpart for the universe.
Sub-0: Situation 0 / size zero
If nothingness is a dot of size 0, then it would open up the possibility that there can be an infinite number of such dots or nothingnesses. Nothingness plus nothingness will still be nothingness and the size of each nothingness always is 0. Thus, placing only two dots together will still lead to a size of 0. However, what will happen, if the number of dots equals an infinite value? The dots would all fit into a space of 0. But what if they are infinite in number?
Sub-1: Situation 0 / size infinite
If nothingness has no limits it can be assumed that there is an infinite size available. Nothingness cannot have a limitation in size because a finite dimension requires defined borders or information about it which would be more than nothing. So the Situation 0 cannot have any borders or limits to keep its state. Its size can be seen as infinite eventhough there is no space.
Both situations (Sub-0, Sub-1) do not only remind us of the digital world of technology.
These two situations have in common to bring two extremes, and nothing else, together.
They are:
Zero and Infinite
This is the notional origin of the universe. It never was a valid situation, yet without it, no universe could be there instead. The universe depends on its counterpart situation to be existent. The clash of the two extremes, which never happened of course, but would happen it they were forced to, is the groundwork of the universe. But it also is describing an origin which is not to find in the universe itself.
The origin of the universe (situation 1) never occurred, but the basic two situations (one as the counterpart of the other) made it possible that situation 1 is valid and not situation 0.
Where is god in all that?
By finding a way to unveil god it is vital to look for the motivation that makes one seek after it. It is humanity that invented the word “god“ after all. And there are even more different names and fantasy figures.
In this book we are talking about the mother of all gods, to avoid that any of the invented gods were being made by another god which is even higher in hierarchy.
When thinking about the origin of the universe it is important to take the one god of all gods, to be able to catch this real and only god.
There are many situations which evoke the motivation for humans to believe in god:
e.g. humans see themselves as the center of the universe and so claim to be the most advanced lifeform that exists. To compensate this arrogant claim, it is necessary to invent an intelligent being which is more powerful than everyone. By doing so, these people do no more feel themselves as arrogant.
A second motivation for believing in a god is the underestimated force of social networking. In times of loneliness and hopelessnes, perhaps even accompanied by suffering and much pain, leading to the thought that a life could come to an end in such an emergency situation, there might be no other option left as to speak to god because individuals depend on social interaction. They even invent friends and enjoy to talk to things. To get an idea of how important social networking is, go to a supermarket and you have many thousands of people work for you to bring food to the store. How many people are involved in the design of the screw of the speed indicator of the truck which will transport food to the supermarked? Social networks are often invisible today but highly organised and very broad.
A third motivation is revolution. Poor or unhappy people feel uncomfortable to obey rich and powerful people if they do just benefit from them and do not share success with them. So they need to point with their fingers to a god which is more powerful than all the rich and powerful people together. After all every human looks quite the same and should have the same rights, too.
But beside all that there are two main situations leading to serious belief:
0) Life was brought to the planet earth (direct approach)
1) Someone or something had to build the universe including the capability to create life (indirect approach)
Is it possible that everything can be created out of nothing? The answer is no, indeed. But it is a matter of perspective, too. The answer also can very well be: Yes - but …
… not in a way we think about creation within our finite universe. Creation is a process that requires developement. Going back to the origin, which is a situation, there is no time and so there are no processes occuring.
There are just situations that must be taken into consideration. The situation which describes nothingness must be considered; cannot be ignored.
If we would ignore it, we would again repreat the same old mistake by refusing to see possibilities beyond what we can imagine within our home, the universe. That would make us again the center of the universe. However, we must consider that we do not have the privilege to make any rules and so we need to have a look at all possible paths.
The situation 0 cannot be described by mathematics and we know that science cannot help answering our questions. But as a kind of symbolic illustration, the situation can be showen as an equation in spite of it:
Zero x Infinite = Undefined
Whereas we know that the universe cannot pop up out of nothingness, we also must see the fact that there is the possible situation 0 that brings zero and infinite together. In mathematics the result would be not defined. But given the fact that a result has to be, since the situation itself would force it to come, we need to think about what “undefined” does mean. Clearly it does not mean zero or infinite.
Since there must be a result, which is what we call the universe, “undefined” turns into finite.
That is the universe we became a part of and we are living in.
An individual who tends to feel like the center of the universe might ask, why do we look the way we do? But that is not the issue at all. Because a finite universe has at least somewhere locations that consists of a finite complexity. And we, plus our whole surrounding, are the products, which have to represent that certain complexity.
If god should be the one who was to kick off the universe, then god is situation 1 (universe) that is in need of situation 0 (nothingness), as a platform for the game.
It is popular that so many modern people tend to argue a god which is the same as the universe, yet there is always something expected to be outside the universe, too.
We live in a time where nearly no one any longer believes in an old wise man with a white beard who is making himself comfortable somewhere between the clouds. The universe itself, however, will not be a satisfying replacement for any type of god, because it is so obviouse that there also must be something that was/is outside. However it never was anything outside. Situation 0 only exists as situation and not as valid reality. And that situation is called nothingness which forces the universe to come into existence. Situation 0 was never valid, yet it is required to have such a counterpart for the universe and it is mostly overlooked that both situations depend on each other. There, where is no time at all, because nothingness has no time, no development can happen. So the universe always was there because it couldn´t be developed. Development requires time and it only can happen under situation 1 (universe).
Today there are even many people who go one step further and say: What we think we will never know, is most likely what can be identified as god. At least in this case god is dividing everything into two parts: the part we know and the part we don´t know. But when reading the previouse sentence again, it appears ridiculous to reduce god to the more misty part, to the part we don´t know.
There is a question that remains, though.
If we look at the situation very intensly in our desperate search for god, which I do not even attempt but I am sure that many would, then god is more likely about to mutate into a digital god providing exactly two possible situations for the origin of which one of them never had a chance for any existence. One of the two basic paths (situation 0 or nothingness) is required to turn extremes into a finite universe (situation 1). But why there are two situations necessary instead of one ….?
We will never know, except for the digital god.
The Digital God
anbei in Englisch (unkorrigiert).
Würde mich über feedback freuen bzw. alles, was falsch erscheint und was fehlt, was unlogisch klingt und was sonst noch auffällt ect.
Viel Spaß beim Lesen!
Martin Braun
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Digital God
by Martin Braun
Table of Contents
3 Preface
5 The biggest mistake ever
7 The meaning of life
9 The situation-based perspective
14 Where is God in all that?
The Digital God – Martin Braun 2007
Preface
It is said, that one can go many different ways and choose the direction. That was not always so, especially when looking at the origin of the universe.
After you recognise that life will come to an end one day, there are far less different ways to select. There are only two choices:
0) Ignore the question about what happens to you after you die.
1) To think about what happens to you after you die.
There is no alternative to the two choices.
You can eighter think about it or not. And even if you thought about it only for a fraction of a second, you did choose 1 and not 0.
Everything can be reduced to a point of separation that provides exactly two possible ways.
One is 0 and the other is 1, as we know it from digital technology. And this reduction also helps to bring the answer to the most interesting questions ever brought up in our world.
This book is about going back to the origin. It does not consider science, though. In fact, science would only set a frame around all arguments and prohibit to get out of it, subsequently. Science increases knowledge. That is required to understand how and why things work. However, if the most important questions need to be answered, it is essential to let go of science for the moment, to get a clear picture of the journey back to the origin.
The biggest mistake ever
Since humans think about their environment and surroundings consciously, a lot of mistakes and wrong assumptions were made. It is even more astonishing, that one certain mistake, which also was made many thousands of years ago, still is being made.
There was a time, when the earth was described as a flat disc with the sun revolving around it. When looking up to the night sky the movement of all the stars and the moon is visual. Their repeated appearance and the way how they show up every night suggested to many people that everything which is out there is moving all the time. However, that argument also claims, that the earth does not move at all making it the center of everything that surrounds it.
Many people tend to see themselves as the tip of the evolution which appearently only is correct for the complexity of the brain and inside the limited space called earth.
They think they are in control here dominating all animals. In fact, they even feel so important, it occures to them to develop a strong wish to be the center of the universe. That is the biggest mistake humanity ever has made. To be self-centered may serve the success in life quite well, but it blocks the clear thinking which is vital to be able to see the big picture. Even today there are people, who seriously think that the world was made in a way it perfectly fits to them. But that makes those people become the center of the universe again and perhaps they do even deny any possibility for an extraterrestrial life.
Such an approach also leads to the imagination that life on earth eventually could be unique. However, everyone who sees humanity as the top-class life form on earth and believes that no higher or more intelligent life exists, eventhough the universe offers so much space for it, would classify humanity as the center of the universe again.
There is a bright side, though. To answer the upcoming question in the next chapter, it is not relevant if humanity, or anything else, is the center of the universe or not.
The meaning of life
We now will take a closer look at the mother of all questions:
“What is the meaning of life?”
More questions instead of answers:
What life exactly? .. on earth only? .. and who is asking?
Usually a certain sub-question arises:
“Why are we here?”, or to be more precise:
“Why are we here in the universe?”
If there would not be a universe, we would not be here. As the universe is our home we live in and also we depend on it, the question can also be interpreted as:
“Why does the universe we are living in exist?”
This would be a more appropriate question because it does not put humanity in the center of the universe and so avoiding the old mistake from being repeated again.
Independent of whatever you believe in, the question can be simplified one more time:
“Why does anything exist at all?”
That would be a good replacement which brings us even further to the origin.
We do not need to understand how the universe works to think about why it does exist. At least we all do agree that there is something. It can be that what we can see or measure. It can be much more than that which is yet to be discovered if it can be. It might be some sort of a dream and no way to determine what reality is. But when did it show up the first time? If the universe was always there, then why does it look exactly the way it is? Now we are getting more and more closer to the origin which still appears hidden behind the clouds.
Time to switch to another perspective.
The situation-based perspective
To get to the origin of the universe we first need to define words to be able to use the language properly.
Useful definitions for the upcoming explainations are as follows:
Universe: This is everything which is more than nothing. Any kind of model e.g. multiple universes, are a universe. There is only one universe. If there are more, they can be seen as one family. They have in common that they are all universes and they all together would be summarized as: the universe. We are part of it.
Nothingness: This is the absence of everything. No matter, no energy whatsoever. It is easier to grasp the universe than the nothingness, because the latter has no finite components that help to get any clue.
The basic idea of the situation-based perspective is to think solely about the origin and imagine what situations could have been the first or better, the basic ones. These are the ones which are on top of all the subsequent situations. It turnes out that there are two different situations remaining:
0) Only nothingness.
1) A universe.
Currently we have situation 1 as the valid one.
If nothingness and universe can coexist, the result would be universe again (1).
Could there ever have been situation 0?
It would be much more likely that situation 0 is the preferred one as it seems easier to get accomplished since there is nothing that needs to be accomplished at all.
So the issue is, why is there no situation 0, although it is a possible situation, too? Situation 0 is the only available alternative to a universe.
Situation 0 Situation 1
Nothingness Universe
Size 0 or infinite finite (e.g. 1 feet)
Information 0 finite (e.g. 1 bit)
Time no time infinite
Age no time infinite
(time and
space unseperable)
To create a universe out of nothing would mean, that the information suddenly jumps from 0 to a finite value. If there were time, then it would happen in exactly 0 seconds. Thus, the universe had to be always there. There never was a situation 0, yet it is the only possible alternative we can think of. So it must be taken into consideration as well. It would be a mistake to simply ignore this only alternative situation.
Can the universe come out of nothing: No!
Can the universe be there without the option nothingness: No!
Situation 0 has no time (no motion) and no information. There are two different models for two possible sizes, though.
We know that Situation 0 never ever was valid. But we also know that it must be considered as an alternative, a counterpart for the universe.
Sub-0: Situation 0 / size zero
If nothingness is a dot of size 0, then it would open up the possibility that there can be an infinite number of such dots or nothingnesses. Nothingness plus nothingness will still be nothingness and the size of each nothingness always is 0. Thus, placing only two dots together will still lead to a size of 0. However, what will happen, if the number of dots equals an infinite value? The dots would all fit into a space of 0. But what if they are infinite in number?
Sub-1: Situation 0 / size infinite
If nothingness has no limits it can be assumed that there is an infinite size available. Nothingness cannot have a limitation in size because a finite dimension requires defined borders or information about it which would be more than nothing. So the Situation 0 cannot have any borders or limits to keep its state. Its size can be seen as infinite eventhough there is no space.
Both situations (Sub-0, Sub-1) do not only remind us of the digital world of technology.
These two situations have in common to bring two extremes, and nothing else, together.
They are:
Zero and Infinite
This is the notional origin of the universe. It never was a valid situation, yet without it, no universe could be there instead. The universe depends on its counterpart situation to be existent. The clash of the two extremes, which never happened of course, but would happen it they were forced to, is the groundwork of the universe. But it also is describing an origin which is not to find in the universe itself.
The origin of the universe (situation 1) never occurred, but the basic two situations (one as the counterpart of the other) made it possible that situation 1 is valid and not situation 0.
Where is god in all that?
By finding a way to unveil god it is vital to look for the motivation that makes one seek after it. It is humanity that invented the word “god“ after all. And there are even more different names and fantasy figures.
In this book we are talking about the mother of all gods, to avoid that any of the invented gods were being made by another god which is even higher in hierarchy.
When thinking about the origin of the universe it is important to take the one god of all gods, to be able to catch this real and only god.
There are many situations which evoke the motivation for humans to believe in god:
e.g. humans see themselves as the center of the universe and so claim to be the most advanced lifeform that exists. To compensate this arrogant claim, it is necessary to invent an intelligent being which is more powerful than everyone. By doing so, these people do no more feel themselves as arrogant.
A second motivation for believing in a god is the underestimated force of social networking. In times of loneliness and hopelessnes, perhaps even accompanied by suffering and much pain, leading to the thought that a life could come to an end in such an emergency situation, there might be no other option left as to speak to god because individuals depend on social interaction. They even invent friends and enjoy to talk to things. To get an idea of how important social networking is, go to a supermarket and you have many thousands of people work for you to bring food to the store. How many people are involved in the design of the screw of the speed indicator of the truck which will transport food to the supermarked? Social networks are often invisible today but highly organised and very broad.
A third motivation is revolution. Poor or unhappy people feel uncomfortable to obey rich and powerful people if they do just benefit from them and do not share success with them. So they need to point with their fingers to a god which is more powerful than all the rich and powerful people together. After all every human looks quite the same and should have the same rights, too.
But beside all that there are two main situations leading to serious belief:
0) Life was brought to the planet earth (direct approach)
1) Someone or something had to build the universe including the capability to create life (indirect approach)
Is it possible that everything can be created out of nothing? The answer is no, indeed. But it is a matter of perspective, too. The answer also can very well be: Yes - but …
… not in a way we think about creation within our finite universe. Creation is a process that requires developement. Going back to the origin, which is a situation, there is no time and so there are no processes occuring.
There are just situations that must be taken into consideration. The situation which describes nothingness must be considered; cannot be ignored.
If we would ignore it, we would again repreat the same old mistake by refusing to see possibilities beyond what we can imagine within our home, the universe. That would make us again the center of the universe. However, we must consider that we do not have the privilege to make any rules and so we need to have a look at all possible paths.
The situation 0 cannot be described by mathematics and we know that science cannot help answering our questions. But as a kind of symbolic illustration, the situation can be showen as an equation in spite of it:
Zero x Infinite = Undefined
Whereas we know that the universe cannot pop up out of nothingness, we also must see the fact that there is the possible situation 0 that brings zero and infinite together. In mathematics the result would be not defined. But given the fact that a result has to be, since the situation itself would force it to come, we need to think about what “undefined” does mean. Clearly it does not mean zero or infinite.
Since there must be a result, which is what we call the universe, “undefined” turns into finite.
That is the universe we became a part of and we are living in.
An individual who tends to feel like the center of the universe might ask, why do we look the way we do? But that is not the issue at all. Because a finite universe has at least somewhere locations that consists of a finite complexity. And we, plus our whole surrounding, are the products, which have to represent that certain complexity.
If god should be the one who was to kick off the universe, then god is situation 1 (universe) that is in need of situation 0 (nothingness), as a platform for the game.
It is popular that so many modern people tend to argue a god which is the same as the universe, yet there is always something expected to be outside the universe, too.
We live in a time where nearly no one any longer believes in an old wise man with a white beard who is making himself comfortable somewhere between the clouds. The universe itself, however, will not be a satisfying replacement for any type of god, because it is so obviouse that there also must be something that was/is outside. However it never was anything outside. Situation 0 only exists as situation and not as valid reality. And that situation is called nothingness which forces the universe to come into existence. Situation 0 was never valid, yet it is required to have such a counterpart for the universe and it is mostly overlooked that both situations depend on each other. There, where is no time at all, because nothingness has no time, no development can happen. So the universe always was there because it couldn´t be developed. Development requires time and it only can happen under situation 1 (universe).
Today there are even many people who go one step further and say: What we think we will never know, is most likely what can be identified as god. At least in this case god is dividing everything into two parts: the part we know and the part we don´t know. But when reading the previouse sentence again, it appears ridiculous to reduce god to the more misty part, to the part we don´t know.
There is a question that remains, though.
If we look at the situation very intensly in our desperate search for god, which I do not even attempt but I am sure that many would, then god is more likely about to mutate into a digital god providing exactly two possible situations for the origin of which one of them never had a chance for any existence. One of the two basic paths (situation 0 or nothingness) is required to turn extremes into a finite universe (situation 1). But why there are two situations necessary instead of one ….?
We will never know, except for the digital god.
Weil Universum2201 ein Troll ist und den Text einfach nur kopiert hat.
