>>11915029(2/2)
>What do you believe is the nature of reality?I think one way to look at this would be to ask: what are the different probabilities assigned to the different possible causal chain structures? 1 level vs. 2 - 5 vs. near-infinite, etc. I'm not really sure what to assign for this, myself, though.
Another way to look at it would be to ask more concretely: what is reality truly, fundamentally composed of, at its core, and at its root level? I think that's what you're really asking, there. IMO, this is a complete mystery to us, and might forever be one, but maybe we'll someday figure it out somehow. I think maybe one of the currently-circulating theories could be true, and maybe a future theory could be true, and maybe we could possibly never actually come up with the real description even as a theory or idea, if it's truly bizarre enough.
>This is not a philosophical question: if god is real, what is he scientifically?I posit that even if there are one or more conscious beings in our causal chain, the root of the causal chain is a non-conscious force ("nature"). Even if conscious beings in our chain themselves have other conscious beings above them, I think at the origin there is just nature.
So, in this case, if they exist, I think gods are just conscious entities like us which grew powerful and intelligent enough to create more conscious entities. And that's it. I think they're not inherently "magical" or beyond all comprehension. They'd be beyond comprehension and magical relative to our universe, but relative to all of reality, they're basically just like us in most ways. If we create other conscious beings, those beings will think of us as gods in the same way.
This resolves the infinite regress of "well who created God, then?": even if there are gods, I think the most likely case is that the "one true god" is just ordinary nature. And if there aren't gods, it's still just nature. So "consciousness from non-consciousness", fundamentally.
