CAN GODS BECOME BORED?

Is the world quantifiable?

I would say that a misunderstanding arises when one person speaks at the relationship level and another means the factual level.

Because it also could be asked:

In relation to what is the world quantifiable?

But to give an answer to the first question:
I would say "yes" and "no". And that is it. Nothing more to ad:)

So, the trap is not there anymore. But the next is awaiting.

Despite all attempts to do quantification and the visible achievements of quantification,

what is actually the "world"?

Does world mean all things that currently exist?

And if I mean objects, then I would have to ask: Are all currently meant objects quantifiable?

If I look at the course of events and start with a prehistoric earth with prehistoric people, I would think that this world had far fewer objects than today. For the time being, I am only referring to products. The sheer overwhelming number of products of the present suggests that from the previously few products a further and further subdivision into subproducts took place and these in turn were divided into further products, which were divided again and again. Until we get to today. So you would say: Oh yes! And oh boy, how the world is quantified! To an almost incomprehensible degree. Because the number of things that arise from things is truly impressive! Mass production! Variety of products!

For me personally, the question also implies:

Should the world be quantifiable?

My answer to that: well, since it already is, I would have to consider that perhaps we should lower the pace. The products that arise from products that create new products have long since reached an absurd level of existence (division) for me and I've really had enough of it.

Now one could ask: has the quality of the products also increased with their quantity?
This is far more difficult to judge because it contains a big subjective element: myself.

But I make it easy for myself and say: I am not talking about individual products, I am talking about all of them. The multiplicity of the products meant that the multiplicity of methods and thus specialisations also grew with it. So we have created a relationship between products and people. In simple terms, one could say: the more the products split, the more people separate. This is imperative logic. Without the many products, there would not be the many specializations in manufacturing, the processes and the professions that go with them. Which in turn are divided into subdivisions; a still ongoing process.

Why are different professions a problem?

Because of language. The more specialized a person gets, the more specific his language is used. Was it the natural languages in the past - a French not being able to talk to an Indian - the alternation in professionally used terms and vocabulary comes now on top.

I would only exempt the multitude of professions, since much is now done by machines. I assume that there are not quite as many professions as products. I might be wrong, but I'm not gonna dive into that.

In any case, I see a new problem here: the relationship between people and machines. More about that later.

At the moment I am still evaluating the fact that I find the multitude of products problematic. I think there is some agreement among those who are faced with an overwhelming number of products in their environment. Why? Not only because a selection is difficult, but also because we know that mass products and the acts of mass production have an impact on us. Physical and psychological effects. Pollution and pointlessness because we can't use as much as we produce. This in turn has an effect on interpersonal relationships. In fact, we all chew on solutions that we simply cannot think of as individuals. This seems too difficult for a single human mind.

Although it seems logical to deduce that we do not want to propose individual solutions but collective ones, the question arises as to the meaning of this solution. Because that would mean that we would continue to rely on the multiplicity rather than on reducing the multiplicity. Can you multiply more with less?

In order to consume the many things and opportunities technology provides us with it is logic that we as organic human beings are indeed not in the state of being to do that.

So, "being" is the term we deal with.

From a mechanistic point of view - in which we still think since the Renessaince - to catch up with technology (mobility and computer tech) we think of two options:

1. Augmenting the organic human body into a man-machine being (cyborgs, cybernetic entities)
2. Creating artificial intelligence and artificial life in order to connect human brain activity to the total number of humans on earth through a computer brain - a language translator which translates natural language into code and spits out the synthesis of it.

Once we have succeeded in doing so - which is interesting to look at for when would the final state actually be reached? - the question is still there: What are we really going to do with the products and services we like to consume, receive and give?

Because new opportunities always create further new opportunities. Once being augmented to a certain state of being, the new abilities of us augmented humans would drive us even further to use what is offered. Then it would be total meaningless to avoid the usage of the next promising thing. We can see that already today: We are able to take a plane from one continent to the other. Why should this being avoided, you might ask. Maybe it should be asked: By how many people it should be avoided in order to gain balance between technological objects and organic life?

Right now, I am unable to think that augmentation and super intelligence would lead to a better life for pure organic beings on this earth. After all, if already the human being itself strives towards being partly organic and partly artificial then other objects must be altered as well. We are in the middle of this process, actually. It is not laying ahead of us, we are (al)ready in the loop.

Include yourself into the equation, not out of it

So I am saying: Wait a minute. Humankind itself cannot just separate itself from plant- and wildlife. As organic beings ourselves we cannot alter the self and then the problem is solved for the rest of organic life. To mimic nature there is a whole lot of more to understand. You can't just mimic a biosphere like the planetary existence with it's earthly atmosphere and magnetic field. You'd have to understand all of this complexity. In fact, you'd have to understand existence itself. Not only from mans perspective, but the whole thing, which is being called "Universe" as far as I am concerned.

And: why "mimicking" nature? As we are natural entities ourselves, aren't we? Isn't it like making a copy of yourself and wanting this exact copy be a better person, a more beautiful and wise one? People sometimes express that they want to become a "better version" of themselves.
So I conclude that there is something wrong with this version.

My next question would be: Once I am this augmented super-being connected to the almighty super network translator and all things I dreamt of were coming true. Even mortality would be defeated.

Would there anything be left in wanting to still "be"? I mean, if all is done. What would be left to live for?

Okay. You are not believing that this ever will be possible. But pretend for a while that this would be achieved.
Imagine the very moment, this happens: immortality. What do you think? (Having solved the moment of transition)

Can Gods become bored?

Caring would become utterly meaningless, wouldn't it? An immortal entity would care for nothing. Why should it? It's immortal, after all. Where is the point in even living? If nothing can kill you, why should you be interested in life?
You can only be interested in life because of death. And because of birth.
When birthing and dying would no longer occur the interest in this process would eventually vanish. Like those people who were the last ones experiencing children being born and parents going dead.

How long would it take to let them forget that? Hundred years? Five hundred? Then thousand?
An entity which would be immortal: Would it dissolve into nothingness like an ether-thing? Would it become a supermachine, and doing super-things? But what for? I mean, it would be useless to become even more super, no? Having arrived there: Would there be an interest forming itself in becoming less super?

Let's pretend, the immortal human lives for a million years in his immortality. Long, this immortal has forgotten about birth and death. What do you think, when would it be curious about it's former existence? When would the point be encountered it would begin to suffer of boredom? When would it long for drama?

Why do you think, supernovas arise?

When you say "fixed", you mean a state of being where some thing is fixed to a certain point. Without a point of reference you cannot get to what you refer to. Do you think that all individuals on earth are having the same encounter on this process?

So, then you would maybe say: No, immortality shouldn't be it.

But a longer life: How is that?

Then my question would be: Exactly how long? What is the ideal lifespan for you? And do you think, all other people on earth would share the same idea about how long a life should be?

Maybe you noticed what I am pointing at: There won't be an absolute consensus between people looking at how life on earth should be. What there is and also will be with a supercomputer or augmented people is just the same as now and the same it was thousand years ago and forty thousand years ago (approximatly the time "modern" man was "born").
A never ending dance between good and bad, fight or embrace, wake and sleep, hunger and satisfaction. Push and pull. Drama and boredom. Want and don't want. 1 and 0.

The future is here. It happens right now. Why aren't you actually satisfied with it?

I'd say: because you are bound to your physical body and your mind which fears death.

Space between knowing and not knowing: Uncertainty

My question would be then: Instead of overcoming age or death. What actually would you like to overcome?
Isn't it the fear of death?

Or better: The UNCERTAINTY of not knowing?

(But if you would know without a doubt: would you then even get up in the morning?)

We have no image for immortality. It's at least for me the most confusing thing I can think of. To think of immortality I tend to imagine free flowing consciousnesses - some astral entities in the eternal universe - becoming eventually "hungry" at some point in "wanting" to occupy an organic body. Not in a conscious sense but more in the sense as things striving for other things which attract them.

From what I've heard and understood so far, there is a certain mental illumination coming up that objects attract each other. Even between inorganic life-forms we observed that things tend to form. They "inform" themselves as very simple objects as well as very complex objects. I tend to believe in a form of "law of attraction".

Law of attraction

So when I go back to the immortal which had arisen out of humans and long left earth it will be eventually attracted towards some thing. Some destroying or some creating force it will be. This immortal would "face" a thing towards which it maybe only an infant. If it's the other way around and this immortal would attract other infants towards itself it might not be interested and carelessly move further.

If that is an ideal and is just imagined with a much larger timespan and "higher" existence I ask myself: Is my life not already the same ideal only in another form and timespace?

---

Photo by Alexander Andrews on Unsplash