Hey, sometimes Bob has to translate what I'm saying - maybe I should move to Australia! What's funny about this, though, is that you really just rephrased what Hamby and Nigel were saying.

To see if I really do have an Eloise decoder, I'll translate, and you can tell me which parts I got wrong: the mechanisms of the universe that would bring us to what we call "intelligence" are already present in all matter, coupled with the tendency toward life (demonstrable by the very existence of life). The fact that other creatures exhibit behaviour we would call intelligent is just our vanity showing.

Aussies and Canadians tend to think alike, or so I've heard, anyway -- it's probably that, hey?

Well, I'll say I agree with them, in any case. The main difference I'd suggest is that they're saying intelligence is selectable in the vein of sensory equipment, where I'm kind of going out further on the limb to hypothesise that it's selectable in the sense that it just is sensory equipment, not so much an emergent level of "new" processes.

Dang now I need a Willness decoder. I kid.. . Yeah, the basic point is captured in the phrase 'present in all matter'. I find the "emergent level" extraneous and inherently bogged down in a model of the universe which is just plain defunct.

Surely, though, the first time anything we'd currently describe as "intelligence" was present in nature, that was a new process. The fact that it was based upon the already existing potential for such a process (again, demonstrably present in a material universe) is just a different way of looking at the early history of biological development. The potential for the eventual development of biological sensory equipment in the universe is undeniable, but the process can be described as "selection" without risk of equivocating the point. Before intelligence, you would have the potential for sensory equipment, before that, the potential for the development of cells, and before that, the potential for the development of lipids, and so on. All this points to a kind of "fuzzy determinism", which I think is a perfectly valid way to express they way things have worked, but I don't think it negates expressing that process in terms of selection.

But what part of the model really irks you? It seems as though you're objecting to nothing more than a classification. Identifying intelligence as an emergent property is more of a convenient way of discussing it as a noun than it is a way of defining it rigorously. Where's your objection?

Okay, right - we're on the same page. But matter does not always exhibit the pattern that we define as "intelligence". It only does so (or, to put it your way, we only perceive it as so) when matter comes together in a life form. So that property of matter must only be a kind of potential. Even in the most objective terms, regardless of perception, a collection of molecules in a living system acts differently than those in a non-living system, so it's not like we'd be wrong in identifying the pattern, we just don't know exactly what's happening.

The specific point where we have a mystery, of course, is the exact place where what we would identify as life would fit in. If life makes a pattern, and we define intelligence as the ability to process patterns ... vanity is built-in!

Okay, that's what I figured, because I think it's tangential to the argument.

Yeah that's the ticket, Nigel. Furthermore, though, I'm equally suggesting that the evidential "information-processing" phenomenon may simply and logically arise as an effect of the material being on four dimensions of space-time.

Yes, that is really really close, though I don't entirely agree with saying any one gate is 'useless' in isolation.

I'd agree, at least in the classical sense of time, as a "process" requires movement through time.

From other things you've said, this conception of time is insufficient to understand what you mean by "an effect of the material being on four dimensions of space-time." Specifically, there's this quote:

I am having trouble grasping exactly what you mean here. This could be due to my own classical blinders, though, and my meagre understanding of relativity. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the birds exhibited informational processes about future events due to the future actually existing. If this is incorrect, please ignore the drivel that follows.

I have two comments (or perhaps requests for clarification) about that, one from physics and one from general observation:

Both entropy and quantum wave function collapse are time-asymmetric. This indicates the arrow of time is a very real attribute, and our perception of time passing in a single, forward direction is an accurate perception of reality. Although relativity is time-symmetric, QM is not. Of course, I could be way off on this. I haven't thought about this specific issue much.

Second, "mental time travel" is quite often wrong. If there were real information exchange from the future to the present, it seems that our model of the future in our minds (and in the minds of birds) would be more accurate. Also, if there were information exchange from the future to the present, it seems that all the jays would hide their food caching activity from others, and not just the jays who had previously robbed others' caches. The creation of a mental model of the future based on the past seems to fit the facts better than a mental model of the future based on the future.

Anyway, those are my immediate reactions. There's a lot to think about here, so I'm feeling rather ignorant at the moment. I'll have to consider this a bit more.

Yeah the entropy arrow is time-asymmetric so that is a fair counterpoint. The main problem with relying on entropy to reason a-priori time-invariance in this case is that entropy ignores gravity -- it has to though, it is essentially impossible to isolate a thermodynamic system from the effects of gravity and without a quantum theory of gravity we can't very well deduce a thermodynamic law unless we ignore gravitational influences.  In conclusion although thermodynamic asymmetry is important and worth noting, we can't rely on this arrow to dictate to us anything regarding the nature of mass-gravity interaction.

On the other point, Wave-function collapse is a postulate which is eternally at loggerheads with relativity anyway, there's no real argument in that part.

As I noted above, only some competing hypotheses in QM have implications of time-asymmetry.

Only a Quantum field theory will actually resolve to relativity. Simply, relativising the Schrodinger equation fails relativistic invariance (it implies superluminal velocity).

I think Kevin alluded to this question, too, and it's a good one. Most of the answer would require us to delve fairly deep into quantum theories, but there are some simpler things I can say about it first.

The easiest reply is to remember that if life has a 'future sense' it needs to be located in the organism and the configurations to which it is attuned need to be identified -- like eyes detect past configurations through the recieving of light wavelengths, ears detect the frequency of local kinetic energies etc. The accuracy of the sense wlll depend on these things as well as on the genetic/development factors which underlie perceptive accuracy as with other senses.  In other words, accuracy depends firstly on what energy form puts consciousness in touch with the information and how clearly consciousness recieves it. Without considering the development of the sense, we can't fairly speculate on it's accuracy, expectations which we might base on the performance of our known senses may be too high.

Good tough question, Thanks. I think if I tried to answer in detail I'll be barraged with accusations of making too many assumptions so I'll just get straight to saying it only requires one assumption -- A no-collapse interpretation of the quantum wave-function.

Really? I know there are plenty of mysteries about gravity, especially on the small scale. At the large scale, I understand it emerges fairly naturally from General Relativity. Although there may still be some dissidents, I understand it is generally accepted that it's effects propagate at the speed of light. Although its speed has yet to measured directly, things like the measured orbital decay of binary pulsars seem to be consistent with light speed, within the assumptions of general relativity, and definitely not consistent with very high or 'infinite' speed.

It seems to me that a 'speed' of gravity the same as light brings it entirely within the same causal time constraints as other physical influences.

Do you have any references for a contrary view?

That makes no sense to me...

Can you elaborate? Perhaps this should be another thread.

I still think you are completely 'wacko' on 'perception of the future', especially as argued from Relativity and/or gravity ....

Okay, we're definitely on the same page, then. Because from that framework, "meaning" requires a judgement, and so does "pattern". Matter is governed by rules that apparently produce human beings at some point in time (regardless of the flexibility of that time).  The only relevant pattern is the rules, from which all things in a universe must "pattern" their behaviour.

That is, given a set of rules, there is an emergence of behaviour illustrating the limitations imposed by those rules. This is shown quickly by "Life" (the computer simulation) being discussed in Kevin's thread here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16436

Even a simple simulation like that lends credence to the idea of rules making patterns by their very nature.

Are we yet approaching the difference in our philosophies that gets you a "Theist" tag, where I have none? I still don't understand why the rules of the universe need be elevated to the status of deity. Unless, of course, you're making a kind of extended ironic joke ... ? I mean, we don't know how many universes there have been (if we consider serial universes) or whether or not we have parallel universes (which just adds more speculation) so the possible array of universes available to us eliminates concern about "fine tuning". Where is the need for a god-conception in there?

Great video, I was inspired to watch the whole third chapter of the series.

Possibly. Consider the ramifications of these sorts of revelation on the ordinary notion of sentience, again. In the sense that complex phenomena can be shown to be configurations of simple units constrained to just a few rules we can say that sentience itself is no more or less than just the universe doing its thing, but the reduction of life's "specialness" is the least of where I'm at on the big questions.

It's revealing, I do agree, that complexity emerges naturally from simple units over time, as in the "Life Game" however that particular model takes for granted an independent variable of time and time isn't independent, so any speculative conclusion which leaves that assumption intact is inherently flawed.

To get to atheism from my stance, and on this particular question, as I see it I would need to be taking the convenient relegation of time to the independent variable for granted as a reflection of the real world, and I just can't.

Actually, I don't think that's far from the truth, Will. As I see it the reality of theism vs atheism is very ironic.

It arises naturally, like in the case, mentioned in the next part of the doco Kevin posted, of multiverses. It follows naturally that the conditions for life in other universes might be super-optimal, producing life that would look like to us, and perhaps even interact with us, as though it were a God or a God race. This isn't my particular conception, though, it's just an example of the possibilities that arise logically when we attempt to comprehend the universe.

Surely we can agree that's the same thing. If time is the 4th dimension, for example, we're just talking about the 4th dimension of a vector. I don't think that's a stretch. But do you have an alternate hypothesis of gravity wherein its speed is different than the speed of light?

Hey Will, I did mean to reply before now but I have a really good excuse. I spent the last four days in hospital with my nephew who was in a car accident on the weekend. It was a serious one, he has a nasty break which involves his tibial plateau and a fractured skull, to make matters worse he developed compartment syndrome and had to have a double fasciotomy. His mother (my sister who was driving the car) was collared on a spinal board in another hospital 600 km away while he was going through all this... bureaucracy at it's finest as usual... and so I think the rest is self-evident, my little one needed me more.

On the bright side, I have nothing but praise for the doctors and surgeons that have attended him, they are truly exemplary. I'll probably post the whole story some other time... now, I'll have another look at those questions of yours.

Time is asserted as independent quite simply as the evolution of the data is a function of time as an independent variable. And, for example, you can have massive formations extending to infinities in this model, assuming that is to be taken as mass then a time differential follows the orders of magnitude. A constant unit of time cannot encompass such a reality.

To be clear, that's an example from the documentary which I hijacked, it's not very close to the god I profess belief in. 

For what it's worth I agree with your reasoning, but I am a theist, the god I am professing is not a possible God-like creature in another universe on which I am speculating, I would be so bold as to say my conception is more profound than that.

Yeah, me too. Holy shit. That's terrible. Your nephew is lucky to have you there. Our light conversation can certainly wait!

Anyway, I hope everyone has a chance to get better. Those things are so sad.

Thanks for the thought, Nigel. The good news is my sister (Lana) was cleared of any serious spinal injury and is with him now. There were four more kids in the car, ages 7mnths to 6 years (yeah she has lots of kids), and they were all found to have minor injuries too so we've been incredibly fortunate, it was her eldest (Jason, 12) who copped the worst, it stands to some reason since he was in the front passenger seat.  So anyhow, Lana is going to spend tonight with her little ones so I'll be at the hospital with Jason again, he's recovering well and is starting to get get sick of being confined to bed already, things are looking up.

But I don't know anywhere that it is represented like that, at least in scientific circles. The time value of a 4-dimensional space is just a coordinate. On very large and very small scales, you can see the flexibility of such coordinates, including time. You'll have to tell me what model you're talking about, and what "independent time evolution" is. 

Sorry, what simulations, and what formations? I think I've missed something, or we discussed it long enough ago that I've forgotten.

While I don't know the equation you mean, it's not a stretch to say that math has a hard time totally encapsulating reality.

... but since that consciousness is a result of the same rules of the game that govern the action of time, then it's just an extension of the rules that gives us consciousness in lock-step with that nature of time.

Not following you. You have a small-g god, the conception of which is profound, and it may or may not be the thing responsible for ... something. I need more clues.

Oh, I'm with you that time is completely attached to mass. Let's assume for the rest of the discussion that when I say "it's just a fourth dimension", I mean a description of anything involves mass-time. When I say "lockstep with the nature of time" I mean that the two are inseparable. So I think we're agreeing. (Again.) "Some mass is conscious" I'm fine with, but I'm not sure what your conception of time has to do with your small-g god that is somehow responsible for events.

I already agree with you that we're outside of Newton's physics. No need to reiterate that strictly linear time is limited - I understand. What I don't understand is what your model of time (whatever it may be) has to do with your god. I don't care if time goes backwards in this model, frankly, I just want to know what the connection is.

Our perception is limited to time travelling in one direction, certainly. So it's pragmatic to present objects as having positive mass and travelling through positive time. But (as above) I'm not sure how this leads to anything that would be described as "godly".

Sorry I missed this before, Nigel. To answer your question, no, the god is not the mind or information processing functions as opposed to the physical universe itself, quite simply this opposition doesn't exist in my beliefs, I have dismissed the concept of an emergent level altogether. I don't believe in a mind and a brain, I believe ultimately that a brain is a configuration of the physical which effects mundane physical results of mundane physical processes. The brain and its reality (such as the properties of space time) co-form a level of interaction which is unique to itself.

In terms of a brain's reality, a brain is very interactive with it's surroundings, it is uniquely sentient, aware and responsive -- but this is only unique in these terms; in terms, for example, of which the parameters are the time and space occupied by a brain in its lifetime, the brain is not actually in any way distinctly sentient, aware and responsive among the things of the universe it is simply so on different terms than that of the other things.

I feel 'imprecise' isn't sufficient to describe the tangle of inconsistencies we come into when defining self, personally. But at the same time, you're right, aside from the consequences the essential problem with the definition is that it lacks precision.

Yeah, sort of. What I mean mores the point that, according to a strict asymmetrical time arrow, the matter which makes up something has a different identity depending on which time coordinate you define it at, defining at point a gives you identity a, defining at point b gives you identity ab. A causal arrow defines ab at point a and at point b (with a slight reconfiguration of state of said matter between point a and b). 

To reconcile the time information with the causal information we must assume either that a has "created" b (trust the time arrow and dismiss the causal arrow), or that ab is the consistent identity at all cordinates (allow the time arrow to also reverse).

Good point, of course. This falls outside the very simplistic framework I am giving you, but then I think you already know that.

Yes, and I'm inclined to believe that our language conventions regarding time and self are flawed consequent to contradictions in our understanding -- speaking of which I once promised Hamby that I would hold a whole conversation one day here using only language consistent with a more precise definition of self, you're welcome to join in.

Yes this is true, furthermore to look at your whole identity over a lifetime you'd see the world through cows and lettuce a fair bit as well, I'm sure.

Yeah, there's actually a bit more consequence to it at this point which I haven't quite gotten into yet. Suffice it for now that the future part of "I" is precisely an extension of the present part, so as to say the definition of the future part is inherent in the properties of the present part. 

As a matter of fact, yes, I do want to extend it back that far. Like you've said, that is where intrinsic momentum appears to have originated, we have our inrinsic momentum in common with the conditions at the big bang -- that seems relevant to me.

That's exactly what I am saying, Will. There is too much leaned upon the assumption of three dimensional objects moving through the universe, granted alternatives are few and generally difficult to grasp, but ultimately this notion will be abandoned because it's untrue. There is no way to actually "move through" the universe in purely spatial terms. Furthermore, upon including the reality of time it becomes apparent that there's no way to "move through" the universe at all, in fact. What happens is more like universal reconfiguration at each coordinate of four dimensions, according, as I mentioned before, to some formula defining the intrinsic energy state of neighbouring configurations.

No you're understanding quite well, Will. It's just a little disconcerting as a concept at first.

You're very close here but moreover each time-state coordinate is in some manner a god of its own universe in the sense that its complete self extends across time to the beginning of the universe, and it's not just an object's potential which is present in the big bang, I know its easy to believe it's just that and return to old assumptions but that would be dismissing the fact that time is as continuous as space -- all time is present at the beginning of a universe, hence the object is literally present, also, forging it's own existence.

I've put "created" in quotes because in the kind of universe I'm suggesting our typical idea of creation doesn't really exist at all. And yes I do mean to say that every time-space coordinate shapes it's surroundings to fit itself -- in certain terms.

There's also the possibility that the model of causality we're applying here isn't valid. I've actually (strangely) posited this to Paisley, who has yet to get back to me, because I think I may have blown his mind. Or he's busy - y'know, whatever. The idea is kind of entertainment more than serious, but I suppose it could be taken seriously: there is no cause. What I mean is the propagation of all events from the quantum level - which themselves have no cause - and then considering the entirety of space-time to be without cause.

The reason I say I find this entertaining (and why it's relevant to our discussion) is that it eliminates the consideration of classical causality altogether in favour of statistical causality.

I also have a hard time finding the necessity for a "creation" in each point in a continuous time (whether going forwards or backwards). We may be discussing identity in a vague way. Could we talk about a tennis ball instead of a person? That might make it easier. So this tennis ball at time A having a different identity at B seems unnecessary to me in terms of this model. Why should we consider the two tennis balls to be different? Maybe that will help me to understand.

I think the only possibility would be to use the Attic Greek Aorist tense, which is flexibly applicable to past, present and future. You'd really have to invent a new tense, or use only the present mixed with present participles. It would most likely be poetic, but not very informative. For instance, telling someone that there's no milk in the fridge would have to roll out all the previous states of lacking milk in the fridge contrasted to those when milk was in the fridge. You could provide a statistical probability (very low) that given the previous lack of milk in the fridge, that the current milkless state of the fridge would be probable.

That's fairly annoying, and (oh, the irony) wastes both space and time.

That's pretty straightforward, though. What consequence are you holding back? You seem to be talking about the same semi-determinism that I am.

And what I'm telling you is that there aren't that many people who consider that classical model to be completely serious. Yes, for the purposes of launching rockets and building bridges we use that model, but in terms of theoretical physics, time is just a dimension in an n-space, and by extension, time is as banal as the length of something, and just as profound. But there's nothing to abandon when everybody's on board. I don't know anyone doing the math who would disagree with you on this.

That's completely reasonable, except that I'm not sure I see the need for "universal reconfiguration" when forces originating in a big bang would be semi-deterministic. To my view, you have a continuously operating readjustment from the energy state of the big bang to present. If you want to pick any mass in that range of coordinates along the t-axis, you could hypothetically observe the snapshot of forces acting upon that mass, and reasonably map that mass's "light cone" of coordinates. The identity that I've given that mass is arbitrary and irrelevant to the forces acting upon it down to the quantum level. Where in this continuum does the necessity for a seperate being (or even separated states) emerge?

What else is present in the big bang other than an object's potential? (I mean, as far as the object is concerned.)

I think we still understand each other, except that I don't follow the need for any "forging" outside of an initial state at the big bang. That might be the necessity I'm missing.

This seems to be the salient point, but it's eluding me. Each point in space-time certainly has different effects on its surroundings, as it is part of another point's surroundings. Here, of course, we find ourselves in the realm of relativity.  But I don't know what else is going on here that you're considering as part of the system. You've described what seems to be the relationship between coordinates in a relativistic context, so I don't know what you've added to that.

Fair enough, I won't argue with that, actually it's easy to use that to draw a consistency between quantum and macro levels of reality, although causality as we perceive it in macro reality is not common to observations at the quantum level, it can be construed as a form of probabilistic correlation between events, hence a variety or class of quantum phenomenon.   

Agreed, clearly , but there is surely some truth to our ordinary observations as well, classical causality works, somehow, so it's acceptable to assume it will generalise to a fair estimate of a more correct model.

I agree, I should stop using that word "creation", it's not nearly the right word, is it?

I'm not sure there is a word that actually describes the idea more realistically, though. I'm talking about states sharing a template of identity -- a fractal concept. I guess you could say a time-space coordinate encodes its universe, where the code is an inherent property of the identity.

Good idea -- the ball described at point a with a time arrow is A because AB does not interact with it in these terms, and it lacks a crucial property that would identify it with AB, at point b the ball is AB stretched along the time dimension this extension is not considered present at point a. On the other hand a causal arrow defines AB as potential in A, the part B exists in A as a form of energy, say for example the ball has been thrown, it's position at b is part of the description of the ball at point a in some form.

Well it would appear to waste time as long as it's not the conventional manner of communication, sure. But it's also true that our lingusitic culture has a surprisingly great influence on our human experience of the universe -- there is some variety of value in bucking the trend.

I am ultimately espousing a semi-determinism, as you've gathered, but the particular consequence of this notion in a singular universe is perfect determinism, a static, albeit greater than we suppose, string-like identity across all time-space.

Yep, I've noticed you saying this. Just to be clear my main contention is directed at classical assumptions that do pop up even now in many scientific interpretations. Of course I agree with what you are saying that there are actually few in the scientific community who would consider ordinary perceptive notions of time space seriously as safe assumptions, but there is much in the way of changing that which has become somewhat culturally entrenched in our society, not the least of all being the fact that we are still a bit vague on the details of the alternative. So for the profundity of these ideas to diffuse into all areas will take time, but it will also take effort on the part of those who have spent enough time immersed in theoretical physics to exercise a little vigilance in speaking correction to the myths. 

Continuously operating readjustment. I would like to have coined that one, yes I like that better.

Precisely, nowhere, and this is adjunct to my point. We should eliminate assumptions which lead to positing separations of identity; we should reverse the time arrow.

The object is present. It may make more sense to you if I was to say the Big Bang is present here -- we percieve it directly whereas the coordinate of our perception is such that it is affected. You could say time lays over the information, so that we decode it through layers, and/or considering another aspect of time you could liken the time-space coordinate of your immediate senses as having an horizon, so as curvature in the substance of time stands between your coordinate and that of a neighbouring event in your universe -- this idea is also encapsulated by the concept of a light cone.

No contest from me there, really. I mean, as I said, to take causality as bearing some explanatory weight is acceptable, but it ain't necessarily so. With that I agree.

Well we've really leapt a major hurdle here. We're agreeing on the philosophical status of identity quite well which is good because it leads to the "God part" fairly directly and simply. Identity is the basis of the concept of sentience; identity fails, and the attached concept of sentience fails with it -- leading back to the original point I flagged in this thread - the banality of intelligence in such a universe.

What makes it difficult to percieve a God in a 'one universe' is the expectations attached to the notion of the God being sentient, aware, efficacious. As much as those expectations are built on the premise that intelligence, consciousness and affect exist as prescribed by three dimensional identities (in three or four dimensions), is the expectation that a God can only display these qualities under this prescription. And in short, a rock cannot, a universe cannot, correct?

The point is, however, that the prescription has failed, no entity actually conforms to this prescription. So we need an alternative prescription, one which follows the logic of what we have agreed more faithfully. In that logic, boundaries and limits to identity collapse and the effect to which we attribute the phenomenon of intelligence falls out naturally and mundanely via an actual perceptible and present existence of events (with some quantum field qualification here) across the time dimension.

So there is only one identity and it conforms to any expectation we can have regarding sentience (it is a flying spaghetti monster with feeling limbs in every corner of the 4d universe) - thus the identity, which exists, is God.

Yep, that's right.

Because the limits of our existence fail under the proposed logic. Our identity doesn't merely stretch through time to our birth but beyond it.

Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant string like to imply an analogy of identity that has extension in time.

Oops, I meant, ALSO reverse the time arrow. Time should extend both ways or we separate states arbitrarily.

Yeah, that.

Yes, you didn't expect me to? Wouldn't the fact that I am working to the resolution - intelligence is a mundane phenom. of 4 dimensional mass - dictate that I somehow draw all I have said about the dimensionality of the universe back to the definition of intelligence?

And we're back to assuming that vain notion of intelligence as the definition again... as long as that's what intelligence is, okay... but.... all the preceding notes I have made are in the pursuit of establishing that given 4 interactive dimensions of mass, intelligence is as a direct sense, as opposed to an abstract extension level of information processing.

Consider with me, please, that as electromagnetism mediates the phenomenon of senses with which we have familiarised ourselves, gravity mediates the sense which is intelligence. It's a shortcut to the point rather than a naked assertion, I promise.

Yes, I agree. It's that the sentience - the intelligence, the consciousness and the effect - which we attribute human beingness with - to so much exclusion - is veritably as much an attribute of the universe over time which makes it not so confusing to call it God - "God" is a better definition for the universe than "human being" (with it's attached implications) is for ourselves.

Well, we've got to not get hung up on the preliminary implications of a singular universe, or even that of an ensemble of universes as I think these are really only part-way meaningful matters; they don't really help to clarify the accord with observation that can be demonstrated. but one could say yes, each breath incorporates something of a god unto itself.

double post.

Okay, so it's an attitude thing. You don't so much believe in God as you do in human self-overestimation. 

From the four forces, I'm still not sure why electromagnetism is associated with senses and gravity with intelligence. That seems arbitrary to me, because I'm not seeing the connection.

I'm missing something, here. The universe is "just like" God? Why can't the universe be just like the universe? Really, what we've been discussing is the nature of the physical universe. In fact, I'd say it was a conversation exclusively about the nature of the universe. We don't need to bring God into it at all.

Acknowledging the resemblance to what? Some common conception of vaguely defined mystical something-or-other? I still don't get why a reference to a deity is even necessary with your point of view, unless it's specifically to prove a point to someone who already believes in a deity. In that case, though, I still wouldn't call you a theist, because it seems like you believe in the universe, not in a god.