Our First Mistake

atoasttodragons

Satan, Object Permanence, and Simulations

I think I’ve said it once or twice on this blog that I don’t think we really live in a “box without walls.”

I’d like to explain that a little better, because over the last few months I’ve discovered better vocabulary to express what I really mean. I mean, really, a “box without walls?” What the heck does that mean? And how does it relate to Reality?

Well, before I get to that, I want to make a few comments about logic, or, rather, types of logic.

Types of Logic

I want to talk about the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic. Of course, with the brain rot I have, I don’t think I can define either one off the top of my head. All I know is that “deductive logic” is always rigorous and certain and incapable of being wrong. Whereas, in the case of “inductive logic” there is always a chance, perhaps a very small chance, but a chance nonetheless, that the statement is false.

Deductive Logic

A typical example of deductive logic is the following argument:

  1. All humans are mortal.
  2. Socrates is a human.
  3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Ooh, ahh, … back to my college days and my introduction to logic course of years ago. Anyway, statements 1) and 2) are called premises. Statement A) is the conclusion. And the thing about deductive logic is that if statements 1) and 2) are true, statement A) necessarily follows. It is absolutely certain and unarguable.

Inductive Logic

Compare Deductive Logic to the following inductive argument:

  1. The sun rose yesterday.
  2. The sun rose today.
  3. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

Again, statements 1) and 2) are premises, whereas statement A) is the conclusion. In this case, A) is not a certain conclusion. It may be highly probable, but it’s not certain. Why? Because there are possible events that can prevent A) from being true. Although none of these events need be particularly likely, they could happen:

  1. A black hole sweeps through the solar system and sucks the sun out of existence.
  2.  An alien race blows up the sun.
  3. The sun spontaneously teleports to the other side of the galaxy.

Yeah, I know those are all ridiculous, but that’s not the point. The point is that in an inductive argument there are situations where the conclusion doesn’t occur even though the premises are true. That is NOT possible for a deductive argument … unless you decide to violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, at which point, communication becomes hopeless gibberish.

Okay, on to the actual point of this post.

Object Permanence

In psychology there is a theory called “Object Permanence” which refers to the moment of realization a child experiences when it realizes that the objects that it perceives surrounding it persist even when the child is not viewing the object in question. Basically, it is the child’s realization that it exists in an external reality populated by other people, objects, and things.

There’s that old Zen riddle, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” I think the implication of the notion/theory of Object Permanence is that, “Yes, the tree does make a sound. But no one hears it.”

For the first 25 years of my life, I would have agreed with that conclusion. Of course, from age 19-ish to 25-ish, I would have admitted (courtesy of my training in analytical philosophy) that the alternative might be possible, but I wouldn’t have known how to prove it either way.

Satan

Then, of course, I had my encounter with Satan right before I turned 25. That kind of changed everything. I can’t say that it changed everything immediately other than I came to the conclusion that the universe (Satan) is sentient and evil. Additionally, I came to the conclusion that that understanding of reality (Object Permanence – although, having never studied psychology, I lacked that label at the time) was, in fact, wrong.

I still can’t “prove it” in a scientific manner, but I no longer think that external reality is as immutably concrete and present as the theory of object permanence implies. As I’ve said previously, I don’t think we live in a “box without walls.”

I think reality appears to us pretty much however Satan feels inclined to show it to us. If he wants to show us a beautiful sunset on the horizon, we see a beautiful sunset on the horizon. Up to this point in time, I think it has been to his advantage to get us to believe that object permanence is the actual state of affairs.

But is it?

Personally, I don’t think Object Permanence is correct. Also, I want to point out that arriving at the notion of Object Permanence is a result of the child using inductive logic NOT deductive logic. So, in terms of the logic employed, there is a possibility that it is not the actual truthful representation of reality.

And, now, on to another weird, but related theory.

Are We Living in A Simulation?

There seems to be some debate among modern-day scientists and philosophers about whether or not we live in a universe that is a simulation. It’s very Matrix-y. Anyway, I’m not sure “simulation” is the correct word. But I think, I would use the word “simulation” kind of like an analogy for the universe as my Satan-theory would describe it.

I believe there is the true original Reality called Heaven. And, courtesy of Satan’s rebellion, we’ve all wound up in this sub-Reality we call the universe which is, pretty much, Satan’s pantheistic body. He’s the designer and controller in the universe.

The Limits of My Knowledge and Understanding

Anyway, I was going to go into this long, definitive exploration of how the simulation hypothesis kind of amalgamates with my Satan-is-the-universe hypothesis, but I read a couple articles and came to the conclusion that I don’t know enough about the simulation arguments. Whereas the object permanence is kind of something we’ve all had a kind of pseudo-understanding of for years – I mean, the “tree falls in the forest” thing is almost universal.

Regardless, I think the Theory of Object Permanence is, at some level, linked to the Simulation Theory and both, in turn, may have some link back to the Satan is the Universe Theory. Unfortunately, I’m not well-versed enough in either of the two former theories to make any real connections that can be tested scientifically or anything else.

Conclusion

Well, let me make one connection. I think the Theory of Object Permanence is wrong. It is our “first mistake.” And I think the Simulation Theory will eventually indicate as much. Whether that supports my “Satan is the universe” theory ,,, only time will tell.

Leave a comment