God is real

1. Some background Reality contains all and only that which is real. This is tautologically self-evident; if there were something real enough to make it false, then it would be included in reality. The reality concept is also self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality or external causality. According to the principle of syndiffeonesis, any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies they are reductively the same. If their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality which supports their difference and are to that extent similar. This negates any notion of “multiple” realities; if the difference between two realities were real - if they were not the same reality - they would both occupy a more basic joint reality providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Because reality contains only that which is real, it must make a real (internal) distinction between real and unreal. This means that reality must conform to two-valued logic, for if it didn’t, reality would disintegrate due to corruption of the informational boundaries which define it. 2. NothingnessTraditionally, the concept of nothingness has been interpreted in light of ex nihilo nihil fit, the idea that “out of nothing nothing comes”. This has lead many to suspect that the universe has simply existed for all time (as if an infinite causal regress occurring within the spacetime manifold could explain away the manifold itself...or existence for that matter). However, this would amount to something indeed. For if “out of nothing nothing comes”, constraints must exist to enforce this requirement. In order for logic to be violated, there must be a distinction between X and ~X, and such a distinction can only be maintained in existence. Therefore, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint..that is, pure freedom. The construction of the universe can be viewed as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship (but more on that later). 3. On false dichotomiesDeterminacy and indeterminacy...at first glance, there seems to be no middle ground. Either events have a causal precedent or they don’t, and if they don’t, then the future would seem to be utterly independent of the past. Either we use causality to connect events, or we settle for a random scattering of independent dots without pattern or meaning. But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy. Self-determinacy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy...a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system [reality]. Accordingly, reality must adopt a reflexive form in which it can “self itself” for self-defined existence, with the selection function identical to that which is selected. Since a self-contained, causally closed universe does not have the luxury of external guidance, it needs to generate an intrinsic self-selection criterion (i.e. a reason for its existence) in order to do this. One might at first be tempted to object that there is no reason to believe that the universe does not simply "exist", and thus that self-selection is unnecessary. However, this is not a valid position. First, it involves a more or less subtle appeal to something external to the universe, namely a prior/external informational medium or "syntax" of existence; if such a syntax were sufficiently relevant to this reality, then it would be analytically included in reality (as defined up to perceptual relevance). Second, active self-selection is indeed necessary, for existence is not merely a state but a process; the universe must internally distinguish that which it is from that which it is not, and passivity is ruled out because it would again imply the involvement of a complementary active principle of external origin. If there were no real (internal) distinction between what reality is and isn’t, reality could not differentiate itself from nothingness. Still further, one might object that “the existence of the universe is given and therefore in no need of explanation." The phrase “is given” is incomplete; it has hidden "loose ends" corresponding to that by which existence is given, the means by which it is given, and the reason for which it is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, then they are inside reality. On the other hand, omitting this phrase (is given) results in something like "the existence of the universe is inexplicable". However, this amounts to the assertion that the universe has no identifiable basis or medium of existence, not even itself - i.e., that no explanatory function can be defined on the explanandum, and that the universe is somehow prohibited from serving as its own source, means, or reason. Since there is, by definition, no reason to believe an explanation of inexplicability, since there is no reason to believe in magic, it would seem we have no choice but to treat the universe a casually self-contained system (it is, after all, the only logical option). 4. Telic recursion Ordinary feedback, describing the evolution of mechanical systems, is cyclical or recursive. The system and its components repeatedly call on internal structures, routines and actuation mechanisms in order to acquire input, generate corresponding internal information, internally communicate and process this information, and evolve to appropriate states in light of input and programming. However, where the object is to describe the evolution of a system from a state in which there is no information or programming at all, a new kind of feedback is required: telic feedback.The currency of telic feedback is a quantifiable self-selection parameter, generalized utility, a generalized property of law and state in the maximization of which they undergo mutual refinement (note that generalized utility is self-descriptive or autologous, intrinsically and retroactively defined within the system).Through telic feedback, a system retroactively self-configures by reflexively applying a "generalized utility function" to its internal existential potential or possible futures. In effect, the system brings itself into existence as a means of atemporal communication between its past and future whereby law and state, syntax and informational content, generate and refine each other across time to maximize total systemic self-utility. This defines a situation in which the true temporal identity of the system is a distributed point of temporal equilibrium that is both between and inclusive of past and future, thus repudiating any notion of “now-centeredness”. In this sense, the system is timeless or atemporal [the alternative would imply non-causal closure].A system that evolves by means of telic recursion - and ultimately, every system must either be, or be embedded in, such a system as a condition of existence - is not merely computational, but protocomputational. That is, its primary level of processing configures its secondary (computational and informational) level of processing by telic recursion. Telic recursion can be regarded as the self-determinative mechanism of not only cosmogony, but a natural, scientific form of teleology.5. Additional principlesSince reality cannot (intrinsically) emerge from infinite ontological potential with the use of blunt mechanisms - since a domain in which the conditions of existence could be passively distinguished would require an explanation of its own - reality must reflexively define itself to be infinitely intelligent, for this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection (self-selection amounts to identifying and solving all problems relevant to reality). Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God, Who coincides with the universe itself, a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves, God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large. Indeed, without a guiding entity whose Self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, the universe could not coherently self-configure in pursuit of its self-defined self-selection criterion, the undertaking on which all of existence is predicated. And for obvious reasons, God’s actions perfectly coincide with objective (reality’s) morality, making Him omnibenevolent. 6. The problem of sufferingOne of the perennial problems facing the God concept has been the problem of suffering. How can the idea of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God be squared with the idea that there exists suffering in the world? This would seem to imply that either God doesn’t care, or cares, but lacks the means to assist. But if we look at the issue from the perspective of God, a little reflection should reveal that God is not bound by time, for time is properly contained within God. Since reality is self-contained, God must (timelessly) generate and retrieve information on the intrinsic utility content of various possible forms that it might take. This amounts to self-generative freedom, providing reality with a "self-simulative scratchpad" on which to compare the aggregate utility of multiple self-configurations for self-optimization purposes. In other words, the universe is the mind of God. Out of characters, will cite sources and tie up loose ends next round.