CoinCube is positing that
Ethical Monotheism is the absolute truth that maximizes freedom and knowledge formation consistent with driving humanity to higher entropy levels. As I understand it, the essence of Ethical Monotheism is that morality must be absolute, thus it requires a supranatural (i.e. external to the bounds of our existence) basis, i.e. a God.
Unfortunately I can't (yet) find any rational support for this thesis.
The key is morality. For example, the argument is made that we would not value humanity if we did not have an absolute God telling us to. I find this to be ludicrous and I don't understand how any smart person could come such a conclusion. Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society.
The righteous points in the Bible are simply what smart men would realize are necessarily to have well functioning society. It doesn't require any God. The "judgments" against our sins are simply natural outcomes of not understanding the principles of a well functioning society.
The God part is necessary to get the people to follow who would otherwise defect from the principles of a well functioning society. But dumb people following blindly is top-down mind control and thus is not maximizing freedom and knowledge formation.
I am leaning towards Ethical Monotheism is counter-productive.However, there is a theory that women are naturally prone to hypergamy and would naturally choose a
False Life Plan (<-- click the link) if they were not mind controlled:
It further argues that information (degrees-of-freedom) cannot be infinite or it would not converge to become knowledge.
The conflation of infinite and unbounded is a fundamental error.
Knowledge and Power by George Gilder
...Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”...
...Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge.
The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise...
Information is distinguished from noise by the
mutual information (what I had sometimes informally referred to as "resonance"). If every outcome is independent (i.e. maximum entropy/disorder/equiprobable randomness), then there is no mutual information. Thus, information requires some order. Entropy is unbounded, but it can't be infinite else existence would not be perceived because every outcome would be entirely independent sharing no mutual information with each other.
I looked into the genius Freeman Dyson's view on religion and he seems to be approaching from the position of wanting to feel he is connected to whole of society:
Freeman Dyson thinks science and religion aren’t at odds: “I think it’s only a small fraction of people who think that. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others . . . I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he’s going about it. I don’t deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He’s convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists . . . they don’t want to be atheists. I’m strongly against him on that question. It’s simply not true what he’s saying, and it’s not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There’s absolutely nothing that stops you from being both . . . Dawkins has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them”.
“For me, “ Dyson says, (much as Santayana had observed before him), “religion is much more about a community of people than about belief. It’s fine literature and music. As far as I can tell, people who belong to my church don’t necessarily believe anything. Certainly we don’t talk about that much. I suppose I’m a better Jew than I am a Christian. Jewish religion is much more a matter of community than it is of belief, and I think that’s true of us Christians to a great extent, too . . . they [my parents] were practicing Christians, but not believing Christians . . . a practicing Christian is somebody who lives a Christian life and likes to worship in common with a lot of other people and considers the church as a community to which to belong, but you don’t inquire closely as to what the others believe. Of course, some people take belief very seriously, and others don’t. My conception of God is not weakened by my not knowing whether the physical universe is open or closed, finite or infinite, simple or multiple. God for me is a mystery, and will remain a mystery after we know the answers to these questions . . . I cannot imagine that he is greatly impressed by our juvenile efforts to read his mind . . . I don’t remember the context out of which this remark arose. Maybe I was thinking of the fight between Galileo and the Aristotelian philosophers of his day. The Aristoteleans wanted to keep the heavens separate from the earth so there would be room for God in the sky. Galileo said the moon was a world like the earth with mountains and seas. Translated into modern language, Galileo was saying that the size and shape of the universe are not telling us anything about God.”
Cosmology and the Divinity Blankie
“It [biology, physics and quantum mechanics] impacts upon our understanding of theology,” Dyson has said, “ What I was pointing out is that human theology is based on our own value system – above all our knowledge of good and evil as we experience it. Take an autistic child. I took the case of Jessica Park, who is a friend of mine who happens to be autistic. If she had a theology, it would be quite different because she cannot understand other people suffering. She has no conception of other people’s existence in the way we have. It’s a radically different world that she lives in. You can tell by the fact that she can’t understand the difference between ‘I’ and ‘you’. She uses the words indiscriminately. So the idea of a suffering savior would have no meaning for her at all. If she had a theology, it wouldn’t involve sin. One thing that is characteristic of autistic people is that they cannot tell a lie. Jessica never tells a lie because to tell a deliberate lie, you have to have the idea of deceiving somebody. That’s something she couldn’t imagine. Since there is no sin, there can be no fall from grace and no redemption. The example of Jessica shows us how our own view of the world might be equally skewed. There may be many essential features of the world to which we are blind, just as she is blind to other people’s thoughts and feelings. So our theology also reflects our possibly skewed view of the world.”
I think I am disagreeing with Dyson on the following point, because the discussion I've been having with CoinCube is employing the science of entropy (which I think is fundamental) to theorize about human nature and society (and its relationship to knowledge formation and the Second Law of Thermodynamics):
What Dyson has said is that it’s impossible to observe both the scientific and the religious aspects of human nature at the same time. “For me,” he says, “science is just a box of tricks, and I enjoy playing with them. It’s a form of exercise. It has nothing to do with philosophy, certainly even less to do with religion. It’s essentially just a skill that I happen to have learned. Some people think about science much more solemnly. For me, science has nothing much to do with deep thoughts.”
I found this quote of Dyson which based on my writings and the work I aiming to do with crypto-currency appears to be incorrect:
*Technological progress does more harm than good unless accompanied by ethical progress. The free market by itself will not produce technologies access-friendly to the poor.
