Yes, the universe has mechanical properties, but calling the universe a mechanism is like calling an orange an apple because they’re both similarly shaped. I have a hard time seeing the ocean as a machine. Or even a mind, as a machine, with all is capacity to forget and remember
Conversation
it’s own “parts.” Machines don’t lose parts when they forget, but minds do (lose bits of information).
2
3
A system composed of pieces, operating together, according to a set of rules, could be called a “machine”.
We don’t know all the rules or all the pieces of the Universe machine though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1
1
A machine needs to be put together by someone external to it; it doesn’t form itself from the inside-out like our universe does.
Thinking about the universe as a machine is rooted in the biblical myth of creation, which most touters of the mechanical view tend to ridicule.
1
1
Actually, no. Quantum physics seems to indicate we’re in a “virtual” reality, and if it’s virtual, there’s a “layer up” and that indicates something created this layer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just because the judgmental daddy god of monotheistic fame is BS doesn’t mean there’s no creator.
2
Does it really indicate that there is a creator? Isn’t that just projecting a pattern of causality onto a fractal organism?
Spend a ton of time researching the simulation hypothesis, the observer experiments in quantum physics, and non-duality, and then compare what you find to the idea of a creator-less Universe, and let me know what you think.