Thread by @guidoV4

There could be another "God"-hypothesis which at least doesn't completely contradict reality besides the deistic hypothesis of an observing but not interacting deity and the hypothesis of an "Azathoth"-like Boltzmann-brain: a hypothesis I would call "Dissolving God"-hypothesis.

This hypothesis assumes that their once was an "Azathoth"-like Boltzmann-Brain who unlike in the classic assumption of "Azathoth" actually "woke up" and became aware of it's lonely existence and couldn't deal with this fact but was also afraid of completely ending its existence

therefore deciding to instead dissolve it's whole existence into multiple (more or less) separate "observers" of a "fake" reality or you could also say a "Dreamworld" like in the classic "Azathoth"-like Boltzmann-brain-hypothesis which would represent our universe in this case.

These "observers" however wouldn't merely observe the reality they are living in but actually also "conclude" what it is through the mean of the "conclusions" from their observations meaning our reality would be formed by what most observers "concluded" what our reality is.

Some might now ask "But if we actually create our reality through concluding what it is then why are there no Gods like the abrahamic god or gods from polytheistic religions we also once concluded to exist for most of human history?"

however "observers" in this hypothesis wouldn't just include humans but all lifeforms currently existing in the universe and at the end it's easier for "observers" to f.e. come to the straight forward "conclusion" that our universe simply follows fixed rules they need to adapt to

than it is for them to come to the conclusion that our universe is actually controlled by one or more otherworldly entities existing outside of our universe or meticulously controlling every thing this universe does.

I even think we humans might actually be the only "observers" or only some of a few "observers" currently existing among potentially trillions of "observers" in the universe capable of coming to insane convoluted "conclusions" of such all-controlling deities

meaning our conclusions would at least currently be far outside of the mean conclusions of most "observers" currently existing in the universe (although this could admittedly change in the future if more and more species of "observers" like us evolve in the future).

Here however we could find a potential path to actually at least hypothetically but admittedly not practically test the hypothesis of reality forming by the mean "conclusions" of all "observers" currently existing in the universe (but not to test the "Dissolving God"-hypothesis).

This path would involve "fooling" most "observers" in the universe to come to the "conclusion" that a fact currently mostly "concluded" to be true actually isn't true.

This fact however would need to be something all "observers" currently existing in the universe understand be it unconsciously or consciously meaning (you could say luckily) it would at least currently not be possible to "fool" something like Roko's Basilisk into existence

as most current "observers" probably wouldn't even understand concepts like this in the first place as we humans are currently potentially the only or only one of a few currently existing species of "observers" capable of understanding such concepts.

An example for a fact however all current "observers" unconsciously understand could be entropy as the currently "concluded" rules demand the existence of it for all "observers" to be able to import- and export energy from and to the outside of their physical systems to survive

meaning as something probably understood by all "observers" entropy could be one potential attack-vector to test this hypothesis. We would "just" need to "fool" most "observers" in the universe to "conclude" that entropy actually doesn't exist.

Here it is however very important to distinguish between "being 'fooled' to 'conclude' something" and "believing in something"

as "believing" is at the end merely hoping but not really knowing something is true while "being 'fooled' to 'conclude' something" would at the end need "observers" actually being absolutely certain that the thing they are "fooled" to "conclude" is actually real

and this would at the end probably also need very convincing "fake evidence" repeatedly given to all observers so that they are not able anymore to "conclude" otherwise.

In the case of entropy it would need very convincing "fake evidence" leading "observers" to "conclude" that entropy is actually not real and especially in this case also that "observers" don't need to import or export energy to survive.

If after "fooling" most "observers" in the universe into "concluding" that entropy isn't real entropy still exists we would at least know that natural laws are indeed actually independent from "observers" (& this would probably mean the "Dissolving God"-hypothesis is also wrong).

Admittedly though it doesn't look very likely that we might ever be able to conduct such an experiment as this universe is huge and as there might currently be trillions of lifeforms, meaning "observers", existing all over the universe

and if the experiment is indeed successful we would likely never know with certainty that this positive result is indeed the result of most "observers" in the universe "concluding" entropy isn't real

as such a result could alternatively also be explained by natural laws changing by themselves without the involvement of "observers" meaning such an experiment would only deliver a clear result if it indeed falsifies this hypothesis but not if the result isn't a falsification

though I think trying to "fool" entropy out of existence might actually be in the interest of all "observers" currently existing in the universe as it might truly enable us all to live forever if it is indeed possible to "fool" entropy out of existence

and if it is not than we would at least know that "observers" don't have any influence on the nature of our reality and could then plan accordingly. So I think, at least if this experiment turns out to be conductible after all, it's worth to be conducted.

@threadreaderapp unroll please