Seriously????
This stuff didn’t get pulled from my ass.
The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to use.
Types 0, IV, and V Kardashev rating: The most straightforward extension of the scale to even more hypothetical Type IV beings who can control or use the entire universe or Type V who control collections of universes. This would also include Type 0 civilizations, who do not rank on the Kardashev scale. The power output of the visible universe is within a few orders of magnitude of 1045 W. Such a civilization approaches or surpasses the limits of speculation based on current scientific understanding, and may not be possible.
Zoltán Galántai has argued that such a civilization could not be detected, as its activities would be indistinguishable from the workings of nature (there being nothing to compare them to).
In his book Parallel Worlds, Michio Kaku has discussed a Type IV civilization that could harness "extragalactic" energy sources such as dark energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Extensions_to_the_original_scale
And where do such civilizations arise from?
The technological singularity (also, simply, the singularity) is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence (ASI) will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
But now you are no longer talking about God, that supernatural creature which dwells outside of the universe altogether and made LIGHT on command, before he created the universe itself. That's not Terra-forming, that's Universe-forming.
If you consider propositions like a technological singularity, where you can experience exponential advancement in capability, then the eventuality of an entity with the capacity to manipulate environments on a universal scale becomes a possibility.
If I said random it's wrong. Rather than linear determinism, the term I was thinking of is "deterministic chaos"
I personally view chaos as the inability to completely account for integral behavior.
No, because there were no cakes. There was only some goo, a random bunch of compound chemicals, many thousands of them.
But it was still essentially a recipe, that given enough refinement, like any other recipe, would eventually yield a consistent result.
Aaah, but there is evidence that would support the notion of a multiverse. That's why it was proposed in the first place. Evidence that pointed to a possible multi-verse. At one time we thought there were just two dimensions, but observation suggested the existence of a third dimension. Still later we attached time to the fabric of space. This is all very mathematical.
There isn’t any actual evidence to support the existence of other universes besides our own. All multiverse propositions are a matter of speculation. Personally, I‘m inclined to to expect the existence of multiverses based on the progressive structural order of our observable universe, where we see a range of identifiable collections of matter in the form of planetary systems, solar systems, galaxies, and finally a universe.
Alas Mars is in the exact state it should be from the mathematics of its position within the solar system. If it were wet, then there might be cause for question. But it isn't. A dry Mars is not evidence of a God. It is evidence of mathematical entropy.
My Mars example was to demonstrate that what appears to be natural, could in fact be artificial, which implies that like creations can potentially result from natural or artificial means. The only way to distinguish between the two would be to have knowledge and understanding of the causal agents.
So your God now has retreated to before the BB? You do not dispute the hypothesis of the BB, I hope.
It’s not my God, it’s only a proposal of God that I would assume to conform to the same deterministic laws that govern reality as a whole.
Precisely, there is nothing non-mathematical in the universe. Which means it needs no external direction, mathematics direct themselves, remember, they are deterministic. All that is required is energy.
Outside of a given universe does not imply outside of reality. If the potential exists for reality to determine the creation of a universe either by artificial means(intelligence) or naturally(non-intelligence), then it happens accordingly within the whole of reality.
OK, I am in total agreement. But that does not allow for a willful God who can act against the mathematics. Divine anger and punishment, other than natural calamities are unscientific and can not be expected to replace the infinite elegance of mathematics.
To the extent that willful is used to describe behavior in a deterministic setting, a powerful entity(God) could be determined to willfully behave in any conceivable manner.
I agree, personally we experience reality subjectively. However our instruments record reality objectively and that is often quite different from what we subjectively experience. After all, our emotional experiences are mere electro-chemical holographic representation in our brains. All we do is making best guesses of what we experience as reality (Anil Seth). Science relies on the recorded evidence, not the speculative experiential evidence.
But objective records can only lead you to conclusions that are limited by subjective understanding, eventually every interpretation of the record leads to some form of speculation.