Over a decade ago now, I wrote the ending to the computer game Minecraft (before its official launch in November 2011). It’s a short narrative that, in those days, scrolled slowly up the screen for about nine minutes, after you had killed the Ender Dragon.
Japers! Does this mean God is making a comeback? Or some form of intelligence as prior to matter? An intelligence which loves dogs, and maybe even humans?
This is amazing. I’ve been trying to do much of the same over the years; undergrad in physics, MS in computer science. Will love to read what you come up with here. More than happy to swap notes if you’re interested in comparing maps with a fellow traveler.
Wow, this was incredibly well written, and I really enjoyed it! It’s a different perspective than what i’m used to, but its more human than “current science,” it’s got a personality to it. This got me thinking about my own interpretations of the universe and what conclusions your work will draw in the future. For instance, as I read through I became more inclined to believe that the universe is an actual organism of an incomprehensible scale; perhaps extending and participating in life on a different dimension than we can observe. Like the universe is one human body and the solar system is a microfilament within a singe cell on its pinky toenail. Perhaps the universe isn’t “living” and “breathing” as we and other organisms are, but I agree-- life isn’t created as spontaneously as we interpret it to be. I think in order to change the approach from these current views, the “meaning of life” (or rather, the definition of it) also has to change.
(I came from your post about the end poem, which I really, really enjoyed-- and I have virtually no background or experience in science outside of a high school physics classroom and my own interpretations. I am super interested in what you have to say, and I can’t to read on!!)
I was pursuing a similar approach to the question of the nature of the universe years ago, mostly focused on physics (fun fact: if you make the pct of dark energy the head, the pct of dark matter the tail, and the pct of matter the eye, the universe makes a very nice looking Yin Yang).
Eventually I tried a different tact, wondering if it had described itself with an Easter Egg hidden in our lore.
Which quickly led me to The Gospel of Thomas ("the good news of the twin") which described how we were in a copy of a universe in the image of an earlier humanity explicitly for the purposes of self-discovery, self-determination, and to have the inalienable birthright of an afterlife that escaped our predecessors.
Its later followers, the Naassenes, even thought the creator of this world was itself brought forth by the original illustrious humanity, and was interpreting the sower parable in the context of Lucretius's "seeds of things."
When you say that the universe was writing through you in composing the End Poem, it may be that you were right. I get the sense its being fairly talkative. Hopefully you get the chance to channel it more with the new book.
Though interdisciplinary approaches that reject assumptions of methodologcal naturalism and reductionslism may have strange bedfellows, and it may be not everyone wants to hear what the universe has to say.
Japers! Does this mean God is making a comeback? Or some form of intelligence as prior to matter? An intelligence which loves dogs, and maybe even humans?
Love this, for so many reasons.
This is amazing. I’ve been trying to do much of the same over the years; undergrad in physics, MS in computer science. Will love to read what you come up with here. More than happy to swap notes if you’re interested in comparing maps with a fellow traveler.
Wow, this was incredibly well written, and I really enjoyed it! It’s a different perspective than what i’m used to, but its more human than “current science,” it’s got a personality to it. This got me thinking about my own interpretations of the universe and what conclusions your work will draw in the future. For instance, as I read through I became more inclined to believe that the universe is an actual organism of an incomprehensible scale; perhaps extending and participating in life on a different dimension than we can observe. Like the universe is one human body and the solar system is a microfilament within a singe cell on its pinky toenail. Perhaps the universe isn’t “living” and “breathing” as we and other organisms are, but I agree-- life isn’t created as spontaneously as we interpret it to be. I think in order to change the approach from these current views, the “meaning of life” (or rather, the definition of it) also has to change.
(I came from your post about the end poem, which I really, really enjoyed-- and I have virtually no background or experience in science outside of a high school physics classroom and my own interpretations. I am super interested in what you have to say, and I can’t to read on!!)
Have a wonderful day :)
I was pursuing a similar approach to the question of the nature of the universe years ago, mostly focused on physics (fun fact: if you make the pct of dark energy the head, the pct of dark matter the tail, and the pct of matter the eye, the universe makes a very nice looking Yin Yang).
Eventually I tried a different tact, wondering if it had described itself with an Easter Egg hidden in our lore.
Which quickly led me to The Gospel of Thomas ("the good news of the twin") which described how we were in a copy of a universe in the image of an earlier humanity explicitly for the purposes of self-discovery, self-determination, and to have the inalienable birthright of an afterlife that escaped our predecessors.
Its later followers, the Naassenes, even thought the creator of this world was itself brought forth by the original illustrious humanity, and was interpreting the sower parable in the context of Lucretius's "seeds of things."
When you say that the universe was writing through you in composing the End Poem, it may be that you were right. I get the sense its being fairly talkative. Hopefully you get the chance to channel it more with the new book.
Though interdisciplinary approaches that reject assumptions of methodologcal naturalism and reductionslism may have strange bedfellows, and it may be not everyone wants to hear what the universe has to say.