Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
This is going to be a thought experiment and honestly I'm not sure what my final conclusion will be.
So, in accordance to the thread title, I would like to explain the difference between a synverse and nature.
According to how I define a synverse, a synverse is any point in which creation occurs. Its etymology is "syn-" meaning, "to create" and "-verse", which means, a point in spacetime. Therefore, combining both together means a synverse is created spacetime. Obviously, the easiest way to describe a synverse is the fundamental laws of our own Universe, constantly expanding, constantly filling up with more negative mass and entropy.
So, then, if I'm involved in what a synverse is, what does the word 'nature' mean, then? Left's get a dictionary out here.
It looks like nature in many ways is synonymous with the word Universe.
However, a point just came up to my head and I'd like to share it. The way nature or Universe is to science is the way The Synverse is to Exaltism. The Universe is measured in certain ways as nature always is, but my attempt to deify nature has led me to use different terminology than nature to describe God.
Remember, God is mainly ten principles. Totality, Essentiality, Eternity, Ubiquity, Potency, Utility, Generosity, Sagacity, Sovereignty and Unity. Once humans achieve everlasting unity, we will work on the Kardashev Scale, becoming and consuming more energy than ever before.
The Universe by itself is a synverse. And everything in the Universe is moving, as the entire flat dimension of our plane is forever changing, although, small matter floating around out there is moving much more slowly than things revolving around stars and planets.
And I must note: a synverse and The Synverse are two completely separate things. A synverse simply refers to any point of spacetime that change occurs. The Synverse is the point in which an infinite amount of change is possible, thus, making it God. Anything that can change infinitely can ultimately fluctuate between more or less divinity. God is essentially energy, so those things that can change indefinitely also has an infinite amount of some sort of energy.
Energy then becomes the utilities that we use. Like electricity and water inside a house. The use of utilities allows enhanced generosity. Generous acts lead men to become wise. Wise men develop sovereignty. Sovereign nations unify together. Without energy, or potency, none of this would be possible, because all that can be observed has some amount of energy behind it.
So, as science measures nature, my idea of Exaltism measures a synverse, and in return helps define what divinity is in that synverse. The current physical theory is that there are atoms made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Those are made of six elementary quarks. Quarks are made up of strings. Strings are forever moving, becoming the 1's and 0's of every day life, slowly allowing the changes we see today.
But Exaltism is not interested in strings, quarks and atomic particles, but rather, the utility those thing offer, because utility is the most basic form of human divinity. Without humans sharpening their tools, learning husbandry in certain wildlife and developing useful products, the rest of our divinity would have none of its luster or strength. According to the definitions of nature, nature does not include human-made inventions. Yet, the very concept of a synverse relies very heavily on it.
It would be more appropriate to say that a synverse is partially nature: it's totality, essentiality, time, space and energy, and part human-created: including utilities, generosity, wisdom, sovereignty and unity. So, synverses are both nature and that which we create ourselves, from the energy of nature. Remember, the Kardashev Scale is measured not by our utility but how much energy we use on a yearly cycle. It keeps increasing, and thus, our ability to use utilities as part of that energy is also increasing as well.
I feel like all I'm really trying to do is out-pantheist a pantheist. Pantheists say nature is God. I'm trying to say that nature is God, but everything that humans are and will become is also God as well. That not just being is God, but also action as well, and all change is, is an action between two beings.
I sense that I'm developing a new language to describe an otherworldly idea that is foreign to most people. If you search for Synverse on Google you will find results for a telephone company, not for the idea of God. And no, I don't think God is a telephone company, although not so ironically the company Synverse has created their own synverse through their product.
I have been meaning to create a quiz which could measure the divinity of things, and by that, define how much something is and relates to their own synverse. One of the questions could be: how much can you lift? But how I measure how much divinity is in a synverse is extremely difficult to measure given the fact that much of this data is relative to each other. An ant can't lift much, but it can lift five times the amount it weighs!
The concept of synverses and The Synverse is very similar to nature. But there are parts of nature that are still very foreign to us. The fact that science somehow describes the Universal creation came from 'nothing' just means that with our current compacity we cannot measure the thing that did create the Universe. Given the fact that the Universe is flat, I have a feeling that two curved multiverses collided with each other and birthed this Universe from that, or there was a giant black hole from another spacetime that developed as our Universe. Maybe there's sub-verses where black holes are in our Universe.
While it is very difficult to measure the amount of divinity that any one particular person has, it's obvious which people hold on to much of it. Jesus is an example of someone who literally changed the world with his teachings and parables. He exemplifies human divinity by every means possible. If he was simply an invented figure, they did a really good job creating the myth.
But I use the term synverses and The Synverse in an attempt to describe things that can change, because those things that can change have the ability to alter how much divinity they have. Science, nature, the physical world and the Universe are ultimately measured differently than my idea of a synverse. Synverses are measured though how much positive change has happened as result from that thing or being. Science cares not about divinity and divine qualities.
So, this was my essay explaining how I see God. To wrap it up: The Synverse, that being, the Syntheos and Synverse of The Omniverse, is God, but, smaller, more limited synverses, always have the ability to change and alter its impact on nature and human societies. So, in the end, all I'm doing really is expanding the idea of nature to include all changes.
So what isn't a synverse? Something that isn't a synverse would include concepts that cannot be demonstrated in this Universe. The Universe itself is a limited synverse that had imaginary numbers and paradoxes that don't exist in it. The Omniverse, however, has all of these things and more. But, The Omniverse isn't The Synverse, because while it holds all five natural characteristics of divinity in spades, it holds virtually none of the human-developed divine ideas that I just shared.
Once humans, or rather, life, becomes the Syntheos of The Omniverse, The Omniverse will have a soul avatar itself and develop anthropomorphic traits within itself. The Omega Point of maximum complicity will be reached and The Omniverse will become The Synverse, and ultimate Synverse and ultimate Syntheos will be one and the same.
The Synverse doesn't exist, not quite yet, but synverses, with an under-cased s, exist everywhere around us. Change is the proponent of these divine concepts, those that change themselves can always in turn make themselves better in some way. I just laid a blueprint of what those things should be.
So this was my essay on the difference between a synverse and nature. I hope you enjoyed it!
So, in accordance to the thread title, I would like to explain the difference between a synverse and nature.
According to how I define a synverse, a synverse is any point in which creation occurs. Its etymology is "syn-" meaning, "to create" and "-verse", which means, a point in spacetime. Therefore, combining both together means a synverse is created spacetime. Obviously, the easiest way to describe a synverse is the fundamental laws of our own Universe, constantly expanding, constantly filling up with more negative mass and entropy.
So, then, if I'm involved in what a synverse is, what does the word 'nature' mean, then? Left's get a dictionary out here.
It looks like nature in many ways is synonymous with the word Universe.
However, a point just came up to my head and I'd like to share it. The way nature or Universe is to science is the way The Synverse is to Exaltism. The Universe is measured in certain ways as nature always is, but my attempt to deify nature has led me to use different terminology than nature to describe God.
Remember, God is mainly ten principles. Totality, Essentiality, Eternity, Ubiquity, Potency, Utility, Generosity, Sagacity, Sovereignty and Unity. Once humans achieve everlasting unity, we will work on the Kardashev Scale, becoming and consuming more energy than ever before.
The Universe by itself is a synverse. And everything in the Universe is moving, as the entire flat dimension of our plane is forever changing, although, small matter floating around out there is moving much more slowly than things revolving around stars and planets.
And I must note: a synverse and The Synverse are two completely separate things. A synverse simply refers to any point of spacetime that change occurs. The Synverse is the point in which an infinite amount of change is possible, thus, making it God. Anything that can change infinitely can ultimately fluctuate between more or less divinity. God is essentially energy, so those things that can change indefinitely also has an infinite amount of some sort of energy.
Energy then becomes the utilities that we use. Like electricity and water inside a house. The use of utilities allows enhanced generosity. Generous acts lead men to become wise. Wise men develop sovereignty. Sovereign nations unify together. Without energy, or potency, none of this would be possible, because all that can be observed has some amount of energy behind it.
So, as science measures nature, my idea of Exaltism measures a synverse, and in return helps define what divinity is in that synverse. The current physical theory is that there are atoms made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Those are made of six elementary quarks. Quarks are made up of strings. Strings are forever moving, becoming the 1's and 0's of every day life, slowly allowing the changes we see today.
But Exaltism is not interested in strings, quarks and atomic particles, but rather, the utility those thing offer, because utility is the most basic form of human divinity. Without humans sharpening their tools, learning husbandry in certain wildlife and developing useful products, the rest of our divinity would have none of its luster or strength. According to the definitions of nature, nature does not include human-made inventions. Yet, the very concept of a synverse relies very heavily on it.
It would be more appropriate to say that a synverse is partially nature: it's totality, essentiality, time, space and energy, and part human-created: including utilities, generosity, wisdom, sovereignty and unity. So, synverses are both nature and that which we create ourselves, from the energy of nature. Remember, the Kardashev Scale is measured not by our utility but how much energy we use on a yearly cycle. It keeps increasing, and thus, our ability to use utilities as part of that energy is also increasing as well.
I feel like all I'm really trying to do is out-pantheist a pantheist. Pantheists say nature is God. I'm trying to say that nature is God, but everything that humans are and will become is also God as well. That not just being is God, but also action as well, and all change is, is an action between two beings.
I sense that I'm developing a new language to describe an otherworldly idea that is foreign to most people. If you search for Synverse on Google you will find results for a telephone company, not for the idea of God. And no, I don't think God is a telephone company, although not so ironically the company Synverse has created their own synverse through their product.
I have been meaning to create a quiz which could measure the divinity of things, and by that, define how much something is and relates to their own synverse. One of the questions could be: how much can you lift? But how I measure how much divinity is in a synverse is extremely difficult to measure given the fact that much of this data is relative to each other. An ant can't lift much, but it can lift five times the amount it weighs!
The concept of synverses and The Synverse is very similar to nature. But there are parts of nature that are still very foreign to us. The fact that science somehow describes the Universal creation came from 'nothing' just means that with our current compacity we cannot measure the thing that did create the Universe. Given the fact that the Universe is flat, I have a feeling that two curved multiverses collided with each other and birthed this Universe from that, or there was a giant black hole from another spacetime that developed as our Universe. Maybe there's sub-verses where black holes are in our Universe.
While it is very difficult to measure the amount of divinity that any one particular person has, it's obvious which people hold on to much of it. Jesus is an example of someone who literally changed the world with his teachings and parables. He exemplifies human divinity by every means possible. If he was simply an invented figure, they did a really good job creating the myth.
But I use the term synverses and The Synverse in an attempt to describe things that can change, because those things that can change have the ability to alter how much divinity they have. Science, nature, the physical world and the Universe are ultimately measured differently than my idea of a synverse. Synverses are measured though how much positive change has happened as result from that thing or being. Science cares not about divinity and divine qualities.
So, this was my essay explaining how I see God. To wrap it up: The Synverse, that being, the Syntheos and Synverse of The Omniverse, is God, but, smaller, more limited synverses, always have the ability to change and alter its impact on nature and human societies. So, in the end, all I'm doing really is expanding the idea of nature to include all changes.
So what isn't a synverse? Something that isn't a synverse would include concepts that cannot be demonstrated in this Universe. The Universe itself is a limited synverse that had imaginary numbers and paradoxes that don't exist in it. The Omniverse, however, has all of these things and more. But, The Omniverse isn't The Synverse, because while it holds all five natural characteristics of divinity in spades, it holds virtually none of the human-developed divine ideas that I just shared.
Once humans, or rather, life, becomes the Syntheos of The Omniverse, The Omniverse will have a soul avatar itself and develop anthropomorphic traits within itself. The Omega Point of maximum complicity will be reached and The Omniverse will become The Synverse, and ultimate Synverse and ultimate Syntheos will be one and the same.
The Synverse doesn't exist, not quite yet, but synverses, with an under-cased s, exist everywhere around us. Change is the proponent of these divine concepts, those that change themselves can always in turn make themselves better in some way. I just laid a blueprint of what those things should be.
So this was my essay on the difference between a synverse and nature. I hope you enjoyed it!
Last edited:
