Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 16:53:40 MST
Ben G wrote:
"choices that are more in harmony with the intrinsic nature of the universe, are more likely to be actualizable."
Based on what I read in Tegmark's Sci Am article on alternate universes last year, all possibilities do, it would seem , exist. For example there is an exact clone of you somewhere within about three Hubble volumes.
Where can 'God' and 'morality' fit into a reality of this sort?
The only sane interpretations I can find among major religions are in Buddhist and other Eastern literature; here we find sohpisticated ideas about figure/ground relationships, cycles of creation and destruction, personal choice and integration into a whole that is somehow mind and more than mind. Personal responsibility, yes. But no angry bearded Nobodaddy hurling bolts at sinners.
Morality then becomes "What path do I choose from those that seem possible?" "What kind of world do I choose to create/embody/seek?" "What kind of person do I have to be to exist in that sort of world?"
If the cosmos as a whole has an ethic, it might well be "Here's stuff. You break it, you buy it."
But, as the I Ching says, no blame.
Question: do some paths inevitably end well, others not? How much choice do we actually have?
If dead and buried = 0% free will
and God-like powers = 100% free will
the we must be somewhere in between (can't fly unassisted, etc.)
and even old Nobodaddy (Wm. Blake's coinage) can't violate logic (cf. the old Catholic-school question "Faddah, can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?")
I just can't get away from the idea that we are only choosing pathways that always existed (yep, Permutation City...)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 18 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT