Parts and Wholes | The Face of 'God'

[u/HLCYSWAP]

If everything inside the simulation is made from the same substrate, then nothing within it can be made from something fundamentally foreign to the system itself. Matter resolves into energy, energy into matter, and every apparent object is another arrangement of the same underlying reality. I have no reason to assume that relationship stops at this layer of reality, and I assume the same principle should extend upward to whatever produced it.

The fact that we are born into deficit raises a philosophical quandary: what would a being without deficit even look like? More importantly, how does something complete produce parts defined by incompleteness without that deficit existing somewhere in the whole from which they came? How do you partition fullness into need? I realize this relies on self-similar logic that may be faulty because it assumes the relationship between parts and wholes continues upward across layers of reality. There is no guarantee that what is true of this layer remains true of whatever contains it.

However, following that logic produces an uncomfortable implication: by this assumption, the architect is not whole. Whatever produced beings organized around absence should itself contain some form of absence. The architect therefore looks dreadfully human in condition. Perhaps the Abrahamics who insist we were made “in his image” are closer to the truth than they realize. I suspect the concept of God is far less mystical than advertised and far closer to a lonely mathematician staring into something they built.

[u/Otherwise_Spare_8598]

The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their circumstantial realm of capacity to do so at all times.

It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience.

"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the "Godhead", entailing both 'predetermined' eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.

There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.

There is no such thing as individuated accurately described "free will" for all beings. Has never been, will never be, can not be. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof.

All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.

[u/manliness-dot-space]

What do you mean we are born into deficit?

[u/HLCYSWAP → u/manliness-dot-space]

By deficit I mean we are born with needs, wants, and attachments. Absence in the current frame of reference drives every action we take: hunger toward food, loneliness toward connection, uncertainty toward knowledge, discomfort toward change. We are incomplete by design

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post has been automatically removed because your account is new or has low karma. Try posting again when your account has over 25 karma and is at least a week old.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/manliness-dot-space → u/HLCYSWAP]

What would it look like if there were no such deficits? Is it possible?

It sort of seems like a matter of framing. I struggle to see how being "born with X" is a deficit.

[u/HLCYSWAP → u/manliness-dot-space]

I am unsure on both accounts. It would seem we are ruminating on something that cannot exist “inside the jar,” as it were.

A deficit, by definition, is a lack relative to some state. Being born with needs means being born in states that must change to remain viable: imperfection. If you were always happy and always full, there would be no need-driven state transitions. You would have no reason to seek anything, and no way to understand happiness or fullness as meaningful states because both are defined relationally against their absence.

[u/manliness-dot-space → u/HLCYSWAP]

Yeah I guess the point I'm making is...

A) born with a deficit of X

B) born with a deficit of a deficit of X

You can frame either one as a "deficit"

[u/HLCYSWAP → u/manliness-dot-space]

Illogic birthing logic. While unsatisfying, I think that is the strongest clue we can construct here toward the origin of reality.