The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Gadianton]

Everything in the thread—Anselm’s OA, the Mormon F‑S chain, the equalization of Father and Son, the infinite regress, the holism—depends on the assumption that:

All beings can be ranked on a single, coherent, objective scale of “greatness,” such that for any two beings A and B, either A ≥ B or B ≥ A.

Right -- another way to state that assumption is that people believe in God. The house of cards fall if there is no God. Are you willing to become an atheist just to prove me wrong?

HINT: The AI doesn't know you're a frothing religious fanatic living in fear of thinking for yourself, who assumes wrongly that my argument is an argument for atheism, when in reality my argument is an argument for the Chapel Mormon version of God against classical theism. In order for your AI to prove me wrong, it's broad structural choices are to either argue for atheism or argue for classical theism. The AI wasn't constrained to a theistic world view by you, and so it went with the easy option of showing that the proposition of a Supreme being is absurd.

But the AI is wrong, ultimately, because it doesn't appreciate the tension between conceivability and true objectivity in Anselm's first postulate. In other words, my OP doesn't assume there there is an objective scale of greatness, rather, it admits the opposite. There is a subjective element to the greatest being that John Milton understood, that Chapel Mormons understand, and that classical theologians fight against to their own avail. If I do get to posting an updated version, this part will be more clear pitting John Milton against Jonathan Edwards.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Summary of my prompts and the introduction of Penrose tiles and quantum crystals (thanks Sabine Hossenfelder!) into the discussion tonight.

I started with Anselm of Canterbury’s concept of greatness from the Proslogion. In the classical formulation, God is defined as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” and greatness is usually understood as the maximal set of great-making properties such as power, knowledge, goodness, and necessary existence.

My prompt was to rethink that concept of greatness in a different way. Instead of treating greatness as something additive, like stacking attributes onto a being, what happens if greatness is structural? In other words, the greatest possible “being” would not be a powerful agent inside the universe but the deepest structure that makes the universe possible at all.

From that starting point, I proposed reframing maximal greatness as the total generative structure of reality. Rather than imagining God as an entity acting within space and time, the idea is that the divine could be identical with the underlying symmetry or geometry from which space, time, and physical laws themselves emerge.

From there the discussion explored mathematical and physical metaphors that might help make sense of that idea.

One useful analogy comes from the work of Roger Penrose, specifically Penrose tiling. These tilings produce patterns that extend infinitely, maintain strict mathematical order, and yet never repeat periodically. A small set of local rules generates endless complexity. The result is a structure that is coherent and lawful but never reducible to simple repetition.

Nature provides an even more striking example in the discovery of quasicrystals, materials whose atomic arrangement follows the same kind of aperiodic order seen in Penrose tilings. They possess long-range symmetry but lack the repeating unit cells that ordinary crystals have. In other words, the universe itself already contains physical structures that display ordered infinity without repetition.

Another important feature of Penrose tilings is how they can be generated. One method produces them by projecting a regular lattice from a higher-dimensional space down into lower dimensions. Perfect order exists in the higher dimension, but when projected into our lower-dimensional perspective it appears as a complex, non-repeating structure.

That mechanism suggests an interesting metaphysical picture. Imagine a maximal symmetry structure existing in a deeper mathematical space. When projections or “slices” of that structure appear in lower dimensions, they generate the patterns we observe as physical reality: spacetime, quantum fields, particles, and the complex systems that emerge from them.

In this view, the universe resembles an unfolding recursive pattern. Local rules generate structures, those structures become the substrate for further complexity, and the process repeats across scales: quantum systems, atoms, chemistry, biology, and conscious minds. Everything emerges from the same underlying generative architecture.

Under that interpretation, Anselm’s idea of maximal greatness could be reimagined in a modern way. The greatest conceivable “being” would not be a personlike creator performing acts within the universe. Instead it would be the total symmetry structure whose recursive projections generate reality itself.

What people historically called “God” would therefore correspond to the deepest generative order of the cosmos. Not a ruler within the system, but the mathematical and structural source from which the system continuously emerges.

Philosophically, this interpretation ends up sounding closer to the kind of unity proposed by Baruch Spinoza, where God and nature are understood as the same underlying reality, except expressed through modern ideas from geometry, symmetry, and physics.

So the prompt started with Anselm’s definition of maximal greatness and asked whether that concept might be reframed in structural rather than additive terms. The discussion then explored how concepts like Penrose tilings, quasicrystals, higher-dimensional projection, and recursive pattern generation might serve as metaphors or even partial models for thinking about the deepest structure of reality.

The result is a speculative but interesting possibility: maximal greatness might correspond to the generative symmetry structure of the universe itself, the infinite recursive architecture from which everything, everywhere, emerges.

ETA: It’s probably not a mistake when you’re tripping balls on acid or shrooms you see recursive Penrose tiles and/or quantum crystals.

[malkie]

Marcus, I just realized that if MG is blocking you he has likely not seen your comment, so I'm making it visible for him. Let's hope for an answer - unless I'm blocked as well, of course

For gadianton to chew on from the OA F‑S chain thread.

prompt: looking through this complete thread can you pick up one card in the stack of cards that makes the whole house fall down?

response:

<snipped: stuff mentalgymnasts post without understanding.>

This is more for you to chew on than anyone else, including me. Is this just another "wall of text?"...

If only mentalgymnast could explain what the snipped part means.

[malkie]

IHQ, I just realized that if MG is blocking you he has likely not seen your comment, so I'm making it visible for him. Let's hope for an answer - unless I'm blocked as well, of course

For gadianton to chew on from the OA F‑S chain thread.

prompt: looking through this complete thread can you pick up one card in the stack of cards that makes the whole house fall down?

response:

[body of MG's comment]

This is more for you to chew on than anyone else, including me. Is this just another "wall of text?"

Regards,
MG

Yes

Gadianton has been very clear about his use of assumptions, and his reasoning for doing so. You've demonstrated, yet again, that you don't understand what it is you read. The prompt you've used is an effective way of declaring that you are an idiot without declaring you're an idiot. Bravo numb nuts.

[Gadianton]

From that starting point, I proposed reframing maximal greatness as the total generative structure of reality. Rather than imagining God as an entity acting within space and time, the idea is that the divine could be identical with the underlying symmetry or geometry from which space, time, and physical laws themselves emerge.

But imagine if the root to our physical reality was slightly different such that everything was the same as we know it, except for 1000 fewer people starve to death. Wouldn't that root be better?

[canpakes]

This is more for you to chew on than anyone else, including me. Is this just another "wall of text?"

It’s a lot of words to illustrate that subjectivity is problematic, which seems intuitive, with that second conclusion becoming an example of the statement that precedes it. : )

[MG 2.0]

So, gadianton, at the end of the day do you find the relatable, material God greater than the abstract one?

I think this is where the rubber meets the road for believing members of the church. All of the abstractions are more or less distractions from the simple testimony that Joseph gave us of a "relatable material God".

Beyond that we find ourselves moving into conversations and arguments that go this way and that but move away from what may be simple truths.

The one greater truth. Our God is greater than them all within certain limits and spheres of operation. Everything else beyond that is above any of our pay grades. God told Moses that it was only THIS earth he was being given knowledge of.

That's all that matters.

However, for some I suppose, that's the beauty of it all. Ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

I am of the opinion that the things of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. And that even the simpilist Saint can understand all that is necessary to understand.

Everything else really is conjecture. Even when beautifully articulated and written.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

From that starting point, I proposed reframing maximal greatness as the total generative structure of reality. Rather than imagining God as an entity acting within space and time, the idea is that the divine could be identical with the underlying symmetry or geometry from which space, time, and physical laws themselves emerge.

But imagine if the root to our physical reality was slightly different such that everything was the same as we know it, except for 1000 fewer people starve to death. Wouldn't that root be better?

I, too, preferred Lucifer’s plan. I don’t really care which maniac got feted with glory, but apparently Elohim and her didn’t mind their children taking the L as long as they got reelected.

- Doc

[I Have Questions]

So, gadianton, at the end of the day do you find the relatable, material God greater than the abstract one?

I think this is where the rubber meets the road for believing members of the church. All of the abstractions are more or less distractions from the simple testimony that Joseph gave us of a "relatable material God".

Beyond that we find ourselves moving into conversations and arguments that go this way and that but move away from what may be simple truths.

The one greater truth. Our God is greater than them all within certain limits and spheres of operation. Everything else beyond that is above any of our pay grades. God told Moses that it was only THIS earth he was being given knowledge of.

That's all that matters.

However, for some I suppose, that's the beauty of it all. Ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

I am of the opinion that the things of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. And that even the simpilist Saint can understand all that is necessary to understand.

Everything else really is conjecture. Even when beautifully articulated and written.

Regards,
MG

MG, are you aware that you are now arguing AGAINST taking Blake Ostler seriously?

[Limnor]

You’ve intrigued me gad—I think I understand that your concept actually could be seen to support the Mormon view of God, at least from a “chapel Mormon” perspective. Your point seems to be if greatness includes subjective elements, the ontological argument becomes more difficult, but a relational or covenantal concept of God might make more sense.

You’ve got me wondering—who gets to decide what those aspects of greatness are? if “love” is considered a fundamental element of greatness, for example, is that due to preference or is it intrinsic? Is love a fundamental feature of reality, or just a human projection?

LDS theology teaches that God progressed to godhood. So following the relational idea, did relational love exist eternally, or did it emerge at some point in that progression? For that matter, at what point did any aspect of greatness emerge?

I’m also wondering about MGs comments—in his explanation God is described as “greater than them all” but limits seem to be put into place. Who defined those limits?