New Member
Mar 23, 2023
Hi, here is a collection of thoughts regarding the purpose of existence and possible existence of God(s):

1. Selection Process Theory: Is this universe/reality in which we exist a selection process? In the field of AI, the way it works (oversimplified version) is that human programs a complex BOT that is able to create a huge number of simpler BOTs, and the complex BOT test these simpler BOTs to see which ones perform the best at a specific task, after which these best performers are then selected as the blueprints for the creation of the next generation of simpler BOTS, which are then tested again and the cycle repeats until the simpler BOTS becomes expert at doing that specific task. Some world religions also propose a selection process, although (some) of the qualities that is being selected for seems rather dubious in my view.

2. I don't know if God(s) exist at all, or how God(s) would manifest themselves, I don't know if a rule could be a form of manifestation of God(s), but I'm inclined to believe that if God(s) exist, then they must have rules. (Because existence with an intelligent form of order/structure requires rules)

I don't know if there are intelligent life forms beyond Earth, but I am inclined to believe that any intelligent life form, once they possess the technology to trigger mass extinction, must go through a selection in order to survive as a species. (Although it seems an open question whether 1. the selection for the traits that likely guarantees survival had already taken place prior to even obtaining the WMDs, 2. Has sufficient quantity of that trait been selected already (prior to obtaining the WMDs) and therefore is currently present in that species so that mass extinction likely won't occur.)

The issue is what doctrine is capable to avoid mass extinction, and on what standard must that doctrine be applied in order to do so.

I am inclined to believe that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is insufficient to avoid mass extinction. (Insufficient in the sense that there is a non-zero probability that it could fail as long as WMDs exist, I could be persuaded by the idea that the doctrine offer at least some deterrent effect against the intentional use of WMDs, although that might be offset by the additional risks of accidental discharge). Evidence suggests that individuals are not deterred by death if their standards of justice demands it, exemplified by the suicide bombers dieing for their beliefs, and the hijackers who flew planes into buildings, and martyrs who sacrificed for their beliefs since time immemorial. Evidence suggests that individuals are willing to trigger massive amounts of death to others if that suits their own goals. So far, no ruler ever had to contend with the possibility of triggering mass extinction - the possibility of death of themselves, their adversaries and all future generations for all time, but the need to resolve that question seems to be a matter of time.

I should add that the mutually assured destruction doctrine (an exchange between two nuclear armed powers) is likely not the only point of failure that could result in mass extinction, if a nuclear state attacks a non-nuclear a state with a sufficient quantity of WMDs, it might trigger a nuclear winter that compounds with concurrent crisis thereby triggering mass extinction.
So if the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is insufficient, what is?