A concept of God

Another Concept of God


I should preface that I don’t think having a belief in God is anything deserving of a special medal. Many people believe in God, the problem is usually what they do with that belief.


And this is only a mental exercise on the concept of boundraries. Hope you enjoy it.

Premise1: As far as I can tell, all theories that involve origins eventually lead back to a starting point of Nothingness. This includes Big bang, Creator(s), parallel worlds, infinite universe, etc.


You can’t get Something from Nothing, but evidently "before" Something there was Nothing.


Nothingness: this is what "exists instead" (since it is outside of time) of the Something else. True Nothing is void of any type of substance, dimension, time, boundaries, etc. There can only be one Nothing (see below).


Premise2: Even if you feel that you are the sum of all that is and everything else is part of your imagination, you at least do exist by the rule of your own observation. Therefore, Nothingness evidently was replaced by Something.


The Concept of Boundaries:  Having more than one something requires Boundaries to define their relationship. Boundaries require rules superior to the thing they seperate. A substance cannot divide itself, but it can be divided by a greater rule. Nothing cannot provide for Boundaries but derivatives can. Boundaries allow for contrast/limits and include time, physical laws, dimensions, etc.


Nothingness replaced entirely by One of Something: Nothingness cannot have boundaries, therefore if it is occupied by Something, that something occupies all of it. This prevents multiple Nothings, Somethings, expanding/shrinking Somethings and Something that have not quite occupied all of Nothing.


Something is not subject to time, dimension, boundaries, limits of complexity, etc. But within Something, those things can exist as derivitives.


Some people believe the Something is the universe. But for this to be true, it must be static and infinite. However, it presently appears to be expanding and otherwise changing (entrophy, etc), which tends to invalidate it as the Something.


Complexity of Something: Something has infinite complexity and that complexity is unchanging. Just like in my other articles, the "complexity" I refer to is irreducible complexity.

Distribution of Information within Something: When complex systems interact they produce permutations. All information elements, combinations and permutations fully exist within the complexity of the Something. No new permutations can be added to the complexity of Something since it already contains all possibilities.


Derived Universes: within the Something, a constrained zone of complexity can be formed. This constraint would be self-imposed by the Something and could be overridden at any time. Compare this to a Boundary which cannot be overridden without appealing to a higher class of some thing. Boundaries can keep a thing from interacting with another thing, no matter how much it wanted to on its own. Since the Something is the only Something and it replaced Nothing, it cannot appeal to a higher thing and therefore is unable to appeal to the formation or abolition of Boundaries. Any allowable constraint or division therefore would be self imposed and could be changed at the Something’s own will. Being Infinite, any constrained zone could assume any quality including a Derived Universe. This type of Universe is a system of derived rules, boundaries and information.


The size of the derived universe can be changed at the will of the Something since it has defined boundaries. It can be expanding, contracting, etc. Since it derives its complexity from a subset of the Something, it complexity is fixed for a given universe size. Although elements and rules may interact within the derived universe, information cannot be added or subtracted without the Something changing the size of the universe (size as in derived complexity). Expansion and contraction of the universe occurs within the existence of the Something. For a given size, all combinations within the universe are simply different expressions of the same information set “borrowed” from the Something.


If the size is being increased, the universal expression is changed.


Restraints on Simple Systems: For more complex expressions, the universe must be more complex. If it only contains simple expressions, then a complex expression is not possible until the size is increased.


Premise 3: The Something is always more complex than any subset of itself, including the derived universe. Said in another way, the derived can never become more complex than the Something it is a subset of. The difference in the quantity of complexity between the Something and the derived is infinite.


If expressions such as literature, love and philosophy are more common in a larger more complex derived universe than in a smaller less complex derived universe, then those expressions are even more likely (and in an even more advanced state) in the larger Something.


If the Something does not have the more complex expressions, then the derived universe must have even simpler expressions.



I found another site that has an even more succinct concept:


By Peter Gransee

Orginally posted 11/22/2006 PM

Last edited at 9:03 pm 6/13/2009


One part of Gödel's incompleteness theorems is that a sufficiently strong formal system can't prove its own consistency. How can a thing reliably divide itself? Some might say that cells do it all the time but the division was there in the whispers of it's DNA long before the first generation achieved cohesion.


“He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Col 1:17)