[MD] Oops versus God ?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --

> Quality article. Well written. Academics could learn a thing or two
> by analyzing and then following the principles of clear exposition the
> article displays.
>
> The content reminded me of the Infinite Monkey Theorem.

Of course you realize that the theory of multi-universes leaves creation to 
"chance", in the same way that the  Monkey Theorem does.  Empty the deck of 
cards on the table an infinite number of times and you're bound to get a 
royal flush.  Given an infinite number of tries, anything is possible, 
including the complete works of Shakespeare or a planetary habitat that 
supports intelligent life.  Thus, you have grist for the mill of Arlo, who 
said last May:

[Arlo]
> As I see it, "chance" stands in contrast to "pre-ordained" or 
> "pre-planned".
> The idea that a million eons before "man", a "plan" existed somewhere and
> somehow to "bring man into existence". This is the basis of "intelligent
> design". The way I see it, the MOQ is purely a metaphysics of "chance",
> there is no central consciousness that planned things out, humans are not
> part of some divine plan, nor were we made with deliberate intent.

As a footnote to this comment: Whether we were made "with deliberate intent" 
or came about by chance, everything that makes us what we are has to have an 
originating source.

> I was especially taken by Linde's speculation that "consciousness may be a
> fundamental component of the universe. much like space and time."

I've quoted Andrei Linde before, and my book includes his statement: "I 
cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. 
It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely 
inaccessible to anybody.  It's necessary for somebody to look at it.  In the 
absence of observers, our universe is dead."

> I believe that the brain, instead of creating consciousness
> as the materialists say, registers universal consciousness.
> But, that's another story.

It was also Donald Hoffman's concept, and I have you to thank for pointing 
me to him.  I don't believe in a  universal consciousness because 
individuality is a prerequisite for human autonomy and free choice.  For the 
same reason, I don't believe in a collective intellect.  Your description of 
a brain "registering universal consciousness" is similar to Pirsig's idea of 
the human species "evolving to" the Intellectual Level.

[Ian asked]:
> Platt, did you just couch a collectivist view?

[You replied]:
> No, a unitary view with individuals tapping into the universal.

Your reply doesn't convince me.  Isn't "tapping into the universal" couching 
a collectivist view?

Thanks, Platt.

--Ham