I've just been thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know) and remembering my religious days, and one of the things that made me so anxious back then, and made adopting atheism so gratifying, what the sheer drought of information. I had so many, so many questions, and there were no satisfying answers to be found.

How do souls work? When one dies, what does bodiless existence feel like? What happens in Resurrection Day, do cripples come back as such? Do transsexuals come in the body they identify with? Is it a matter of self-image?

How does God intervene in the gaps? What will Paradise be like? How will society be organized? Will there be further education? Will human nature be radically changed to accomodate eternity? What about Hell? How does it work? What's the point of it?

And what does that verse mean? And what does that other? And what if the letter of the law, once centuries have passed and context has changed, goes against its spirit? What would God actually want me to do? Why am I supposed to guess? Why is it so important that my faith in Him be groundless and unsubstantiated? Why has He stopped giving orders directly, why has he relied on fallibe intermediaries and easily-tampered-with books?

So, abundant questions, very few, very vague answers. Important questions, too, an eternity of one's afterlife depends on them! So, I was wondering: is it possible to come up with a fictional setting, resembling the Theist-Abrahamic vision of the world, but mundane (perhaps a game? a computer simulation? a F(?)AI run society?) in which this drought of information is actually justified?

As an example of what I'm going for, Warhammer 40K's Imperium of Man gives us an example of a textbook fascist society whose every single trait is perfectly justified by the setting's rules. (See the "actually has something consistent to say about utilitarianism" subsection). 

In what kind of world would a Supreme Authority's information-management policies resemble God's, and make sense? I'm not saying "be good" or even "be fair", just "make sense". Even in a Kafka-ish, "nonsensical" way.

 

New to LessWrong?

New Comment
25 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 5:17 PM

God is, himself, in a world filled with vague, ambiguous, sometimes contradictory hints towards a divine meta-reality. He's confused, anxious, and doesn't trust his own judgment. So he's created the Abrahamic world in order to identify the people who somehow manage to arrive at the truth given a similar lack of information. One of our religions is correct--guess right and you go to Heaven to help God try to get to Double Heaven.

This reminds me of one of the stories in David Eagleman's 2009 fiction anthology Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives, "Spirals":

In the afterlife, you discover that your Creator is a species of small, dim-witted, obtuse creatures. They look vaguely human, but they are smaller and more brutish. They are singularly unintelligent. They knit their brows when they try to follow what you are saying. It will help if you speak slowly, and it sometimes helps to draw pictures. At some point their eyes will glaze over and they will nod as though they understand you, but they will have lost the thread of the conversation entirely.

A word of warning: when you wake up in the afterlife, you will be surrounded by these creatures. They will be pushing and shoving in around you, rubbernecking, howling to get a look at you, and they will all be asking you the same thing: Do you have answer? Do you have answer?

Don't be frightened. These creatures are kind and innocuous.

You will probably ask them what they are talking about. They will knit their brows, plumbing your words like a mysterious proverb. Then they will timidly repeat: Do you have answer?

Where the heck am I? you may ask.

A scribe faithfully marks down your every word for future record. Mother and daughter creatures peer out at you hopefully from observation decks.

To understand where you are, it will help to have some background.

At some point in the development of their society, these creatures began to wonder: Why are we here? What is the purpose of our existence? These turned out to be very difficult questions to answer. So difficult, in fact, that rather than attacking the questions directly, they decided it might be easier to build supercomputing machines devoted to finding the answers. So they invested the labor of tens of generations to engineer these. We are their machines.

This seemed a clever strategy to the elders of their community. However, they overlooked a problem: to build a machine smarter than you, it has to be more complex than you—and the ability to understand the machine begins to slip away.

When you wear out and stop functioning, your software is re-uploaded into their laboratory so they can probe it. This is where you awaken. And as soon as you make your first sound they crowd around you to learn one thing: Do you have answer?

They don't realize that when they dropped us into our terrarium, we didn't waste a moment: we built societies, roads, novels, catapults, telescopes, rifles, and every variety of our own machines. They have a hard time detecting this progress of ours, much less understanding it, because they simply can't follow the complexity. When you try to explain to them what has happened, they cannot keep up with your rapid and unfathomable speech, so they set about their dim-witted nodding. It makes them sad, and the most insightful among these creatures can sometimes be seen weeping in the corners, because they know their project has failed. They believe we have deduced the answer but are too advanced to communicate it at their level.

They don't guess that we have no answers for them. They don't guess that our main priority is to answer these questions for ourselves. They don't guess that we are unable, and that we build machines of increasing sophistication to address our own mysteries. You try to explain this to the creatures, but it is fruitless: not only because they don't understand you, but also because you realize how little you understand about our machines.

[-][anonymous]12y-40

Do you have answer?

Er, 42?

EDIT: @Downvotes: Perhaps you're under the impression that I'm reciting a meme, or making a lame joke. Or perhaps you're simply not familiar with The Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Let me explain: the situation described in the post above appears to be remarkably analogous to what happened in Hitchiker's, when a civilization built a supercomputer that was orders of orders of magnitude smarter than them, to answer the Ultimate Question for them, and sarcastically answered "42", then when pressed told them that it was exactly as stumped as they were.. I'll never forget that scene, it made quite an impact on me, and, honestly, I thought merely mentioning the answer would be explanation enough. But I suppose you've seen enough bad and inappropriate uses of it as a joke that a pertinent use such as mine would come as a surprise.

Although if you want me to mindlessly repeat a stupid joke you can have one here, or here (let us cultivate our garden). Which actually aren't so much stupid jokes as complete dismissals of the Question. Don't bother looking for a pre-set meaning for your existence, and don't bother making one as you go along either: just try to enjoy your short time here the best you can. If you feel angsty and worried, it just means you aren't busy enough and have too much free time on your hands. Finding a Grand Cause to work for is nice and all, but surviving day-to-day is perfectly okay too.

Gary Drescher's Good and Real quotes that bit of The Meaning of Life in the final chapter.

This is now the subject of an smbc comic.

[-][anonymous]12y50

That sounded like something right out of a Jorge Luis Borges novel...

But where does the recursion stop? Can we hypothesize that it's Turtles All The Way Down?

[-][anonymous]12y-20

I'll take an offtopic digression to talk about authors I love very much, which your comment reminded me of.

That FUAFI notion you just quoted, according to Wikipedia, is a Platonic approach to layered realities, in a very notoriously Christian work of fiction. Nietzsche wrote some very interesting things on the love story between Christianity and Platonism... Most amusingly, in his segment "'Reason' in Philosophy" he arguably comes off as an especially passionate and vitriolic proto-rationalist. It might be an amusing exercise to compare Nietzsche's "Philosophizing with a Hammer" to Hunter S. Thompson brand of "gonzo journalism". The comicbook expy of the latter, Spider Jerusalem, is also very interesting from a LW POV, partly because of the trademark Weridtopia he lives in, partly because of his passionate commitment to spreading the truth about a system he felt was decadent and corrupt, something he shares with both those two historical characters, and perhaps a few more people. With one noticeable difference: unlike them, we like to think we're being objective, and that we've got the science to prove it.

The bottommost turtle is named Mack.

[-][anonymous]12y00

Okay, that was a bad joke.

Aww. Seriously?

It seems likely that God would create multiple realities, populated by different sorts of people and/or with different True Religions, to feed a diverse set of people into a shared heaven. So the recursive realities would have a pyramid or lattice structure. If God has limited knowledge of the realities he's created, there could even be cycles.

[-][anonymous]12y00

We have cycled through the realms of mere brilliance at top speed and plunged head-first into the unfathomable depths of recursive genius. It's a trap: like being in orbit, one is trapped in a jump from which one cannot land, on account of constantly missing the ground.

In plain English, my mind is blown. If we go into Godel Escher Bach territory I might have a lot of trouble following. Really, when I wrote my request, I was expecting something a lot more mundane. Kind of like the society in 1984. With my apologies to fellow Muslims everywhere, you'd be amazed how much the Qur'an sounds like a lot of propaganda posters glued together once you replace "Allah" with "Big Brother" and "Lord" with "Leader". I suppose we could combine "hands-off totalitarian dictatorship" (paradoxical, I know) with "recursive realities", couldn't we?

[-][anonymous]12y50

I voted this down. While I think the question is somewhat interesting, I don't think it's germane to LessWrong's discourse.

I also dislike the writing's form. Too many questions at the beginning, too many parentheses, very unequal paragraph sizes, etc. It's uncomfortable to read. If you can clean some of that up, then I think it might be suitable for an open thread.

[-][anonymous]12y60

You English-speakers and your rigid style guidelines... thanks for the advice, though.

I don't think it's germane to LessWrong's discourse.

Actually... Also this

Although I'm genuinely asking for help to develop this hypothetical fictional setting, and my main reason for doing this here is because I think LW attracts the kind of mind that would have the most ease in attacking such a question.

[-][anonymous]12y40

You're welcome! Thanks for making the suggested changes.

Upon a read of your stylistically improved post, I think I better understand what you're aiming for. I withdraw my objection and my downvote.

God's utility function places free choice of belief at an insanely high value, such that any interference at all by god massively diminishes the utility of the world. As such, the religious evidence we do have, caused by past interference, is the minimum level necessary to make it possible that people can choose to believe in God. [This would imply that a large proportion of religious doctrine is supposition and extrapolation not the direct word of God, but we assume that already.]

draught

Do you mean drought? Different things.

[-][anonymous]12y70

I meant drought. Thank you. Damn spellcheckers, they won't save you from the rouge angles of satin.

Pretty much all the answer will be a variation of this:

Omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence-- Get rid of (at least) one of these in your idea of God.

[-][anonymous]12y50

I am no AI geek so please don't downvote the crap out of me if what I say here is inaccurate. I've tried to work this out to the best of my knowledge, as someone who runs computer simulations routinely.

So, about those, let's just change them to be actually workable. Suppose we're taking the programmer controls a simulation analogy. If they are good enough at coding, they are "omnipotent" in a practical sense, in that they can manipulate reality at will.... but within limits. Of what they can fhink of, of what can be written in the programme....

If they program the entire simulation to be calculated from beginning to end given an original set of parameters, they are "outside time and space" in that they are outside the coordinates and variables internal to the simulation. They are thus "eternal" and "omnipresent". They remain "omnipotent" if, once the simulation is done, they can jump at any point in time and arbitrarily change the variables with no regard for the simulation's internal causality rules. The simulation just continues from there. They can even arbitrarily impose special rules for finite "times" and "spaces".

The simulation also remains "causeless" from within its own rules: it just "started" at some point, and so did time, and there is not "before the beginning" that makes sense from within the simulation. There is also no way for a user to explain to the elements living in a simulation what their world is exactly like because of the complete lack of compatible reference: at best there will be approximate metaphors and double illusion of transparency.

As for Benevolence, suppose they optimize the simulation (including the punctual interventions and the "special rules" spacetime periods) according to an algorythm that is not understandable to the "sims", because it's based on variables that they themselves do not know, yet it is calculated for them to achieve the maximum value of whatever that "Good" thing is.

So, the programmer is "omnipotent", "omniscient" and "benevolent", just... not in the "ideal", paradox-inducing version of those concepts. The user has their limits. But they're still working at an entirely different level of existence than that which the "sims" inhabit.

Now, let's take this hypothesis: how in the world does it make sense, in this situation, to take the YHWH approach of sending prophets to a tiny corner of the land and so on and so forth?

[-][anonymous]12y00

Well, not really, since it doesn't make sense of the world Abrahamics live in. It's practically Deist. But thanks for linking to it: I remember reading that as a child, long, long ago, and it really left a strong impression, back then.