How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

[Darkstorn]

My comment was intended to show that I am very much on-topic: the question the OP poses reflects conditioned views of reality. I am trying to show that there exists an unconditioned view.

By that account you could repeat your claims in any other thread and make the claim that you're on-topic because all the other threads reflect conditioned views of reality, and you are trying to show that there exists an unconditioned view.

Which is exactly the point i was trying to make here.

Another point is that you have no way of determining whether or not you are capable of experiencing this unconditioned view. Your sureness would at best lead me to believe that there's delusion involved instead.

Now you're just trying to trap me into the same discussion about your idea of reality. I only accused you of being off-topic, and i feel your reply is an attempt to hide that fact. And it's still off-topic.

You keep saying that, but fail to identify exactly what that idea actually IS, and you fail because there is no such idea. It is a non-idea, which you don't know how to deal with.

That's not my point. If you're supposedly able to experience "unconditioned views of reality" then it's not exactly my job to prove you wrong; It's your job to prove yourself right first. By that i mean, you need to convince people that you know what you're talking about.

Your entire stance just looks like arrogance coupled with delusion. You hold yourself in such a high regard that you yourself are now imagining that you have access to an unconditioned reality. Without having demonstrated it in any way.

How exactly are you going to be able to demonstrate that on an internet forum in the first place? In a thread that's not even about it?

Apparently, you are not reading my content. The way things are is not my idea of the way things are.

No, but all YOU have is YOUR idea of the way things are.

But you don't get it because you still see things via your idea of how they are, namely 'objective reality', which you think is the way things are. In addition, one cannot hold a subjective view where no self exists. The view I am referring to is one of no self-view. Try to understand: If one has a personal view, then obviously, the opposite is one that is impersonal. That means a universal view. There is no other choice. You tell me.[

You do realize that arguing about semantics will not bring you any closer to experiencing "unconditioned reality?" In fact that whole paragraph is filled with illogical conditions. Lots of "one cannot" and one "universal view." Even "there is no other choice."

You seem to have very little understanding of what unconditional means.

Objective reality is a literary term. You understand its meaning. You should be understanding what i was trying to say here. But you are purposefully not understanding because i used a word you didn't like. And your explanation is just a word salad of conditions you put there without even realizing.

I say that will not remove my point. You arguing about semantics will not remove the point i was making. No matter how hard you try. You simply say a lot, but a lot of it is empty of meaning.

I never claimed that the unconditioned view of reality which I am speaking of is objective.

It either is objective, or it is subjective.

'Objective' is a conditioned view, as it is a product of the conceptual mind.

That entire sentence is a conditioned view as it is a product of the conceptual mind.

The unconditioned view is transcendent of both the objective and the subjective.

So it transcends human discourse? In the context of a human discussion, things are either objective or subjective. It's a literary term rather than a descriptor of phenomena. Your sentence there adheres to this very condition.

Your sentence there has both the object and a subject.

And funnily enough: Your claim there doesn't transcend the objective or the subjective. In fact, it is very subjective.

It is the merging of the subject/object split that the mind has created. I explained that. Did you not understand?

*sigh*

Looks like it's not me who has problems with understanding.

Do you understand that the Universe cannot be an object of observation of an independent observer, as the 'observer' is fully integrated with that same Universe? There is no such thing as 'objective reality'. It's just an idea.

No **** Sherlock. Notice that i haven't made claims that there is an objective reality to begin with, you just decided to pick on my usage of the word and take it out of context.

I was using it as an example that your unsupported claims about reality and state of things are an idea of "objective reality," one YOU are guilty of. Again, it's a literary term. And as long as you're hoping to have an equal discourse with humans, then we better accept the rules of language. And in terms of language, almost all of your claims are subjective. So are mine for that matter.

The question cannot be addressed correctly until the premises it is based upon are understood. The question exists simply because of those premises.

So, a question asking what certain Creationists(which you aren't even apparently a part of) think of randomness cannot be answered until you've peddled your mantra enough for people to accept your idea of the way things are?

Like i said, you're being off topic. Glad you agree.

Right. So if you want to understand why randomness and chaos do or don't fit in with the Xtian concept of ID, one must understand what the premises of the Xtian concept of ID are. The only way you can do that is to approach it with an unconditioned mind.

I'll wager we already understand those concepts without you trying to steal this thread. Give us some credit, guy, you are not the Emperor of Truth.

And you have still failed to demonstrate your unconditioned mind. Every single one of your sentences is bound by their conditions.

"The only way you can do that is to approach it with an unconditioned mind" - is a condition.

Now I insist that you show me exactly where this bias you are assigning to me exists.

I was trying to make the point that you're a biased observer of your own actions, by definition. You missed this point. Which leads me to believe that you didn't understand the language you were replying to adequately.

You cannot be the judge of yourself. For one; You have already judged yourself to be able to experience unconditioned reality. But that's delusion. Your entire posts are filled with illogical conditions.

I have now explained several times that I am pointing to an unconditional view which leads one to see that order and chaos are not diametrically opposed. Bias is the product of a conditioned view. So where is this 'bias' you are saying is 'my mantra; my subjective view'?

Here is a clue to help you:

"Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself"

You have explained it several times. All i'm asking: Why are you doing it here? You're stealing this thread for your own purposes, and you're merely repeating the same stuff you've done on other such examples of threads you have stolen for your personal gain:

A Universe from Nothing?

^^ You stole that thread. And it's 100% identical in content to what you're now saying here. You are literally destroying the original point of this thread and trying to make it into about YOU.

/E: Arrrgh, if the format of this is still messed up after 5-6 edits, then nothing i can do to fix it. Godnotgod: Your usage of both color and italics breaks the forum software in such a way that it takes a LOT more effort to answer you than should be necessary. Please, think of the suffering you cause by this... Pointless ritual.

 

[osgart]

Any designed existence should have randomness, and not something more rigid and inflexible, and deterministic.

Chaos doesn't fit into design, it's just a bad side effect of the existence.

I tend to think the designers of existence are manipulating reality, and have to live with the substandard materiality and physical nature of existence. They are bound by it's limits.

In my view their is an omnipresent field force in nature that is constantly taking in information from the relationships of everything to everything else. This field is the paint brush of reality. Something innumerable and vastly intelligent works outside the bounds of the universe. And the universe runs like a software program. The field is the non physical software of the universe.

By trial and error we are created.

 

[Darkstorn]

Any designed existence should have randomness, and not something more rigid and inflexible, and deterministic.

In my view their is an omnipresent field force in nature that is constantly taking in information from the relationships of everything to everything else. This field is the paint brush of reality. Something innumerable and vastly intelligent works outside the bounds of the universe. And the universe runs like a software program. The field is the non physical software of the universe.

That doesn't sound very random though.

In fact, it still sounds like determinism, but with a cause.

 

[godnotgod]

By that account you could repeat your claims in any other thread and make the claim that you're on-topic because all the other threads reflect conditioned views of reality, and you are trying to show that there exists an unconditioned view.

Which is exactly the point i was trying to make here.

Another point is that you have no way of determining whether or not you are capable of experiencing this unconditioned view. Your sureness would at best lead me to believe that there's delusion involved instead.

Now you're just trying to trap me into the same discussion about your idea of reality. I only accused you of being off-topic, and i feel your reply is an attempt to hide that fact. And it's still off-topic.

Your second-guessing and suspicious mental maneuvers are comical.

You are like so many others, who cannot fathom that a view exists outside of 'yours and mine', and 'we'll just have to agree to disagree', kind of mediocrity.

Come, now, darkie. Use your head. Delusion requires thought. An unconditioned view is without thought. Therefore, via logic, an unconditioned view cannot be a delusive one. Only one requiring thought can be delusive.

'My idea of reality'? And what exactly is it? Explain. Again, you don't know because there is none. I keep telling you: I entertain no particular view of reality, except one that sees things as they are, which is no particular view at all. It is not only neither subjective or objective, but is transcendent of both, in which the subject/object split has merged into a single reality. Campeche?

That's not my point. If you're supposedly able to experience "unconditioned views of reality" then it's not exactly my job to prove you wrong; It's your job to prove yourself right first. By that i mean, you need to convince people that you know what you're talking about.

Your entire stance just looks like arrogance coupled with delusion. You hold yourself in such a high regard that you yourself are now imagining that you have access to an unconditioned reality. Without having demonstrated it in any way.

How exactly are you going to be able to demonstrate that on an internet forum in the first place? In a thread that's not even about it?

I have no intent to demonstrate any such thing. But I can demonstrate that the question the OP poses is based upon conditioned views, and because it is, it means an unconditioned view is the default view, that state of conscious awareness that is present prior to any conditioning process.

Why are you making such a stink about this? To see things as they are via an unconditioned view does not involve arrogance or delusion. Fact is, everyone has access to unconditioned mind, but we continue to entertain conditioned views throughout life. The unconditioned view is the default state of all sentient beings. Conditioning is what happens to us after that. To awaken from this kind of waking sleep is to return to the default state. That is all, and is as simple as that.

No, but all YOU have is YOUR idea of the way things are.

Oh? And what might that idea be? You have yet to explain after repeated requests. I don't think you have a clue, do you?

You do realize that arguing about semantics will not bring you any closer to experiencing "unconditioned reality?" In fact that whole paragraph is filled with illogical conditions. Lots of "one cannot" and one "universal view." Even "there is no other choice."

You seem to have very little understanding of what unconditional means.

Objective reality is a literary term. You understand its meaning. You should be understanding what i was trying to say here. But you are purposefully not understanding because i used a word you didn't like. And your explanation is just a word salad of conditions you put there without even realizing.

I say that will not remove my point. You arguing about semantics will not remove the point i was making. No matter how hard you try. You simply say a lot, but a lot of it is empty of meaning.

I did not say 'unconditional'; I said 'unconditioned'.

I neither like nor dislike the term 'objective reality' It is just a concept of the thinking mind, that's all. You want to make it into some kind of absolute flawless truth. It's just a conditioned way of looking at reality. It's a setup, in exactly the same way that religious views are a setup.

I really don't see that you have a valid point, because you still see things from the POV of the conditioned mind. You're stuck and are going round and round like a bug on the equator of a billiard ball. S**t or get off the pot.

It either is objective, or it is subjective.

How can that be, if the unconditioned view is unconditioned? Objective and subjective involve limits and definitions. The unconditioned view does not involve parameters such as science imposes, nor does it involve the self, which would mean a personal view, which is a conditioned view. ID is without a doubt a conditioned view. The question the OP poses is also a conditioned view. Only the mind that is unconditioned can squarely address this question.

That entire sentence is a conditioned view as it is a product of the conceptual mind.

Now you're just clutching at straws wthout knowing what you're saying. One must be free of conditioning in order to see that objectivity and subjectivity are conditioned views. The unconditioned view is free of all concepts. Now get a glimpse, and use your head before you post. You have been given wide berth, and are beginning to get a bit sloppy with your erroneous logic.

So it transcends human discourse?

Yes, always. It is a state of consciousness without words; without thought. It sees, but does not think. Therefore, it is beyond all concepts, such as 'objective' or 'subjective'.

In the context of a human discussion, things are either objective or subjective. It's a literary term rather than a descriptor of phenomena. Your sentence there adheres to this very condition.

Your sentence there has both the object and a subject.

And funnily enough: Your claim there doesn't transcend the objective or the subjective. In fact, it is very subjective.

Things are either objective or subjective only within the mind, which is the agent responsible for creating such concepts. You do agree that they are only concepts, don't you?

My claim cannot be subjective, since it does not involve a personal self. But I already told you that, didn't I? There is no personal agent making the claim; there is only the making of the claim itself, based upon unconditioned seeing that both objective and subjective are conditioned views. IOW, there is no 'observer of the observation' called 'I', which in turn creates a personal subjective view. There is only observation itself. This is a semantic issue. For example, we sometimes say: 'It is raining.', when there is no such 'It' that rains. Likewise, there is no such 'whirler' of the whirlling water in a whirlpool; neither is there a whirlpool; there is only whirling water.

*sigh*

Looks like it's not me who has problems with understanding.

So you don't understand that the mind creates a subject/object split called 'objective' and 'subjective'. That's OK. You just need to investigate a bit deeper to find that this is actually the case in your own mind. And yes, it is a rather eye-opening and mind expanding experience to realize that. But any real student of the nature of reality must get beyond this point before real progress can be made toward realization of an unconditioned view of reality.

No **** Sherlock. Notice that i haven't made claims that there is an objective reality to begin with, you just decided to pick on my usage of the word and take it out of context.

I was using it as an example that your unsupported claims about reality and state of things are an idea of "objective reality," one YOU are guilty of. Again, it's a literary term. And as long as you're hoping to have an equal discourse with humans, then we better accept the rules of language. And in terms of language, almost all of your claims are subjective. So are mine for that matter.

I don't buy this. Here is the discussion between us from an earlier post:

ME: Seeing things as they are is not about 'my thing'. It is about the way they actually are, and not about how the sculpted and conditioned views of science or religion says they are. It is about seeing Reality with an unconditioned view. To see it this way is to see it just the way it is.

YOU: And yet for all this bluster, all you have is your idea of the way things are.


ME: What's wrong with that?

YOU: For one: It leads you to the delusion that your subjective view of things is actually objective reality.

....which implies that 'objective reality' is non-delusive, and being non-delusive is an accurate view. It is a limited, conditioned view, defined by the parameters which set it up as being 'objective'.

More to follow.....

 

[sealchan]

All design that we know of as humans comes about as an effort to simplify and separate out from a noisy (random) background. Only recently might we suppose that some efforts at creating open, dynamic systems truly welcome and incorporate chaos and noise. To suppose that there is a designer behind the order and chaos (which we now know is really just another form of order that is highly sensitive to initial conditions) is to make a huge leap (of faith) beyond human experience. I don't see any strong rational arguments behind a universe designer.

Best conversation I have seen was a seriously for fun one hosted by the American Museum of Natural History and lead by Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

2016 Asimov Memorial Debate

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Given that we have a propensity to recognize patterns and see symmetry in nature, it leads to IMO, erroneous conclusions that such things are intentionally designed. Concepts and beliefs come about because we do see patterns and symmetry in a state of stability, therefore people come to the conclusion that it is somehow manufactured or created by a higher power or supernatural intelligence.

Very rarely have I ever seen creationist address chaos and randomness that is common place in nature. So I ask it here.

How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

Ask the guy who programmed the game Minecraft, unless by your above rationale, you believe the game must have spontaneously come into being for no particular reason!?

Randomness provides variation, which processed properly by designed algorithms, can produce lots of interesting results.

randomness alone cannot

 

[godnotgod]

Ask the guy who programmed the game Minecraft, unless by your above rationale, you believe the game must have spontaneously come into being for no particular reason!?

Randomness provides variation, which processed properly by designed algorithms, can produce lots of interesting results.

randomness alone cannot

Ask the guy who programmed the game Minecraft, unless by your above rationale, you believe the game must have spontaneously come into being for no particular reason!?

Randomness provides variation, which processed properly by designed algorithms, can produce lots of interesting results.

randomness alone cannot

Are you saying that intelligence is required?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you saying that intelligence is required?

Pretty much, yes

 

[godnotgod]

Pretty much, yes

I am compelled to agree. But I take it a step further. What you and I are seeing and experiencing as 'The Universe' is Pure Intelligence manifesting Itself as such, and you and I and everything else are none other than That. There is no subject/object as conceived by the thinking mind.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am compelled to agree. But I take it a step further. What you and I are seeing and experiencing as 'The Universe' is Pure Intelligence manifesting Itself as such, and you and I and everything else are none other than That. There is no subject/object as conceived by the thinking mind.

I think that's one way to put it. We have already established that everything we perceive as solid, is an illusion of sorts, it all boils down to information, which in turn I think requires a specific purpose, intent, for that information- things that can only exist in a conscious mind. Certainly that's the only way we know of that information is produced

So ultimately there is no creation without creativity, it's the only way to solve the paradox of an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect

 

[metis]

So ultimately there is no creation without creativity, it's the only way to solve the paradox of an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect

Unless cause & effect goes back into infinity, which is what an increasing number of cosmologists think is likely.

 

[sealchan]

Ask the guy who programmed the game Minecraft, unless by your above rationale, you believe the game must have spontaneously come into being for no particular reason!?

Randomness provides variation, which processed properly by designed algorithms, can produce lots of interesting results.

randomness alone cannot

Let's imagine a reality that is composed of an infinite variety of parts in some space interacting through time. Those interactions are typically uninteresting but in some rare cases the interaction lasts longer than a negligible amount of time. An even rarer occurrence is that one interaction leads to another...

At some point an outright miracle (a statistical eventuality given infinite space, time, variability) occurs and a part is able to replicate itself through interactions. Now there are a little tiny bit more of those parts. In the infinite expanse of time where no one is impatiently waiting, another replication occurs. A series of interactions of an almost incredibly small statistical likelihood oh so gradually accumulates a distinct preference for certain things which then persist and grow in relative numbers. These things, born out of a sea of other more or less similar things become a thing in and of themselves as they break the monotony of noise by being self-replicating and expanding their numbers.

Pretty soon (geologically speaking) there is an acceleration in their growth as some even higher level mechanism kicks in that improves the survivability of these parts in a system that self-maintains an environment for their more secure perseverance. Again, no one has become impatient. Gradually several such pockets of interesting, systemic, dynamic order grow out of the endless expanse of random chaos. These pockets (universes) develop a wide variety of complexities and even some that seem to have the ability to reflect upon itself.

One day in a corner of one of these innumerable worlds some miniscule corner of order develops that looks up and out at a Universe as big as the distance light can travel within it and wonders how all this order came about. "Who or what created this amazing Universe?" it asks.

We know the answer of course and the answer is...

a. Randomness
b. Chaos
c. Statistics
d. God
e. Unknown

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let's imagine a reality that is composed of an infinite variety of parts in some space interacting through time. Those interactions are typically uninteresting but in some rare cases the interaction lasts longer than a negligible amount of time. An even rarer occurrence is that one interaction leads to another...

At some point an outright miracle (a statistical eventuality given infinite space, time, variability) occurs and a part is able to replicate itself through interactions. Now there are a little tiny bit more of those parts. In the infinite expanse of time where no one is impatiently waiting, another replication occurs. A series of interactions of an almost incredibly small statistical likelihood oh so gradually accumulates a distinct preference for certain things which then persist and grow in relative numbers. These things, born out of a sea of other more or less similar things become a thing in and of themselves as they break the monotony of noise by being self-replicating and expanding their numbers.

Pretty soon (geologically speaking) there is an acceleration in their growth as some even higher level mechanism kicks in that improves the survivability of these parts in a system that self-maintains an environment for their more secure perseverance. Again, no one has become impatient. Gradually several such pockets of interesting, systemic, dynamic order grow out of the endless expanse of random chaos. These pockets (universes) develop a wide variety of complexities and even some that seem to have the ability to reflect upon itself.

One day in a corner of one of these innumerable worlds some miniscule corner of order develops that looks up and out at a Universe as big as the distance light can travel within it and wonders how all this order came about. "Who or what created this amazing Universe?" it asks.

We know the answer of course and the answer is...

a. Randomness
b. Chaos
c. Statistics
d. God
e. Unknown

my money would be firmly on D..

because any infinite probability machine capable of eventually creating this reality by sheer luck.. would also be bound to eventually create God..

In fact in this analogy, in just this one reality, it has already created intelligent designers who are bent on reverse engineering their own universe, and have a penchant for creating their own virtual realities...

So... unless equipped with a safety mechanism, preventing anything that could ever be called God- gate crashing this spontaneous creation party- the flying spaghetti multiverse is statistically bound to shoot itself in the foot

 

[godnotgod]

I think that's one way to put it. We have already established that everything we perceive as solid, is an illusion of sorts, it all boils down to information, which in turn I think requires a specific purpose, intent, for that information- things that can only exist in a conscious mind. Certainly that's the only way we know of that information is produced

So ultimately there is no creation without creativity, it's the only way to solve the paradox of an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect

Unless Causation, like materiality, is also an illusion. If everything in The Universe arises and subsides interdependently, it may only appear as Causation, esp. when the concept of Space-Time is superimposed over The Universe.

As for purpose and intent, when we simply look into the face of this world, what is immediately apparent? Prolific variety. The seeming infinitude of stars, for example, has no apparent rhyme or reason for such profusion. And the sheer variety just on our Earth is mind-boggling in terms of color, pattern, form, texture, utility, etc. Accepting that the default state of The Universe is information, and that information requires conscious intelligence for it's processing, then the only conclusion I can reach for the existence of such great variety and profusion which seem to make no apparent utilitarian 'sense', is the idea of play,* or as you put it, creativity, which, in the mind of an artist, is the purpose and intent itself, Which leads to a final consideration, and that is the idea of spontaneity, or 'the controlled accident', if you will. To create a universe via a rigid will and purpose would be one without the creativity and beauty we see everywhere.

But if this world really is a Grand Illusion, and you are correct: science is coming up empty-handed to find that last elusive solid 'particle' it has been seeking for such a long time**, then perhaps instead of looking for the answers in the illusion, we need to look behind the illusion for it's source. And if the illusion is all about form, color, smell, taste, touch, and movement (ie 'causation'), then could it be that the Source for this illusion has no form, color, smell, solidity, or movement. That the true nature of all things is that it does NOT change; that it does NOT come and go

*The Hindu term for illusion is maya, and for play is lila, two characteristics of The Universe they have been suggesting to be the case for over 4000 years.

**Now Quantum Physicists are looking at the field from which the particle is being created instead, and suggesting that all particles in the Universe are, in reality, standing waves. All mass is virtual mass, created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields.

 

[sealchan]

my money would be firmly on D..

because any infinite probability machine capable of eventually creating this reality by sheer luck.. would also be bound to eventually create God..

In fact in this analogy, in just this one reality, it has already created intelligent designers who are bent on reverse engineering their own universe, and have a penchant for creating their own virtual realities...

So... unless equipped with a safety mechanism, preventing anything that could ever be called God- gate crashing this spontaneous creation party- the flying spaghetti multiverse is statistically bound to shoot itself in the foot

I guess I'm not following you here...are you saying that in the sense that a Universe is a self-replicating system that God is that statistically emergent system self-replication and that any given Universe is the creation of that kind of God?

I like that idea but I suspect that is not what you meant.

 

[sealchan]

Unless Causation, like materiality, is also an illusion. If everything in The Universe arises and subsides interdependently, it may only appear as Causation, esp. when the concept of Space-Time is superimposed over The Universe.

As for purpose and intent, when we simply look into the face of this world, what is immediately apparent? Prolific variety. The seeming infinitude of stars, for example, has no apparent rhyme or reason for such profusion. And the sheer variety just on our Earth is mind-boggling in terms of color, pattern, and utility. Accepting that the default state of The Universe is information, and that information requires conscious intelligence for it's processing, then the only conclusion I can reach for the existence of such great variety and profusion which seem to make no apparent utilitarian 'sense', is the idea of play,* or as you put it, creativity, which, in the mind of an artist, is the purpose and intent itself, Which leads to a final consideration, and that is the idea of spontaneity, or 'the controlled accident', if you will. To create a universe via a rigid will and purpose would be one without the creativity and beauty we see everywhere.

But if this world really is a Grand Illusion, and you are correct: science is coming up empty-handed to find that last elusive solid 'particle' it has been seeking for such a long time**, then perhaps instead of looking for the answers in the illusion, we need to look behind the illusion for it's source. And if the illusion is all about form, color, smell, taste, touch, and movement (ie 'causation'), then could it be that the Source for this illusion has no form, color, smell, solidity, or movement. That the true nature of all things is that it does NOT change; that it does NOT come and go

*The Hindu term for illusion is maya, and for play is lila, two characteristics of The Universe they have been suggesting to be the case for over 4000 years.

**Now Quantum Physicists are looking at the field from which the particle is being created instead, and suggesting that all particles in the Universe are, in reality, standing waves. All mass is virtual mass, created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields.

The source is a self-replicating complex, adaptive system (aka God). A Universe is one in an unknown number of possible universes in which this play has been enacted with a particular set of players. Maya is simply the recognition that the players in this universe are wearing costumes and are really avatars for a potential beyond the manifest forms of things in this Universe.

 

[godnotgod]

The source is a self-replicating complex, adaptive system (aka God). A Universe is one in an unknown number of possible universes in which this play has been enacted with a particular set of players. Maya is simply the recognition that the players in this universe are wearing costumes and are really avatars for a potential beyond the manifest forms of things in this Universe.

I am using the term 'Universe' to indicate Everything, including all possible multi-unvierses, as per the following definition:

"The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy."

Universe - Wikipedia

IOW, 'The Universe' is not just A universe; but Everything, and because it is Everything, it is not just an absolute, but THE Absolute, as there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

IOW, The Universe is not something separate and apart from The Absolute. However, most men do not see it as The Absolute due to the veiling power that is called maya. They see it as something other than The Absolute; they see it as:

"...changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake The Changeless (ie The Absolute) except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
The Equations of Maya

Once the conditioning filters of Time, Space, and Causation are removed, we then see The Universe for what it is: The Absolute:

"Since it (ie 'The Absolute') is not in Time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in Space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in Space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it."
The Equations of Maya

The 'manifest forms' you refer to ARE The Universe, not IN The Universe. Why do I say that? Simply because The Universe is made up of those very forms, and is not a vessel for those forms (contrary to the implication of the Wikipedia definition, above). IOW, The Absolute is playing itself as all the manifest forms we call 'The Universe'. That is lila, or play. The Universe is, in fact, none other than The Absolute itself.