Why Not Infinity, Anthropocentric Fallacy of Fundamental Intentionality, & Anthropomorphic Gravity
One of the most critical metaphysical questions is whether reality itself is the fundamental "brute fact" or if it is embedded within a larger recursive structure. If our reality is self-contained, then I'd argue that positing a God to explain it introduces an unnecessary step. However, if reality is part of a deeper system, then there is no reason to assume that such a system terminates at an intentional, divine entity.
The idea that something does not require intentionality sounds counterintuitive—but, as I mention in my other works, reality does not owe you an intuitive explanation. Your intuition tells you that the Earth is stationary because you "feel" like it's stationary—but this intuition is incorrect because the reality is that the Earth is spinning at around 1,000 mph, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph. Humans evolved to detect relative motion—things moving around us, rather than our own movement through space. The idea that the future already exists seems counterintuitive, but your memories shape your reality and perception linearly, hence why you feel as though time is sequential and flowing forward. In reality, Einstein's theory of relativity suggests that past, present, and future all coexist within a four-dimensional spacetime fabric—a concept known as the block universe. The flow of time is merely an illusion, a byproduct of the way human consciousness and memory process events in a linear sequence. Your brain constructs a continuous narrative, anchoring you to the present while treating the past as memory and the future as undefined. However, just as different observers in motion experience time differently, relativity undermines the notion of an absolute "now," implying that the future, like the past, already exists, even if you cannot perceive it as such.
So, we go back to the question of intentionality—I align with the view that intentionality is a reflection of our anthropocentric bias and how humans desire emotional certainty. There are a few questions worth asking in this context. In my other works, I often speak about how the concept of 'meaning' and 'purpose' is deeply flawed and often treated as an abstract, irreducible phenomenon. Humans evolved to seek patterns and explanations, yet there is no fundamental reason why reality requires a cause. The idea that existence itself is a brute fact should not be dismissed outright, as much of modern research aligns with the notion that our reality is self-sustaining, nor is there contradictory evidence. Some modern theories, such as string theory and the many-worlds interpretation, suggest that all possible realities could exist, pointing toward an infinite recursive system rather than a singular terminating layer.
I don't fully align with the Many Worlds Interpretation in the sense that I do not think quantum measurement is linked to there being infinite realities. However, I do think that the idea of infinite realities is a strong possibility—that reality is infinite, and the set of all possible realities exists simultaneously, as Tegmark states in his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. Many philosophers tend to automatically dismiss this possibility, because the concept of infinity "doesn't sit right"—they often say "Well, there has to be a starting point" with certainty—and people often accept that and agree without any real justification beyond folk intuition.
I don't oppose the theoretical possibility of a fundamental force or algorithm that governs reality, since there are theoretical gaps in our understanding of gravity, spacetime and quantum mechanics—but, if we accept a final cause, why is that stopping point not simply a more fundamental law that governs reality? Why the need for intentionality? Why couldn't the fundamental force be gravity and spacetime itself? It's interesting how people don't anthropomorphise gravity and spacetime. It's because these forces exist independent of human existence and independent of our meaning structures. Unlike Gods in religious traditions, which are often imbued with intentionality, morality, and a concern for human affairs, gravity and spacetime operate indifferently to human perception, desires, or survival. If a black hole were to consume Earth tomorrow, it would happen—not because of some divine will, but because of the blind, deterministic laws governing reality.
Gravity is fundamental to existence itself, the very foundation upon which our reality is structured. It is omnipresent—existing everywhere in reality; omnipotent—shaping the course of your life as much as it shapes the stars, dictating the passage of time itself—without it, there would be no past, no present, no future; omniscient—in the sense that, within the deterministic framework of general relativity, the future is already encoded in spacetime—gravity "knows" what will happen before it happens. If gravity and spacetime did not exist, neither would you, nor would existence itself be possible. You would not even be reading this, because there would be no physical reality to allow it. And yet, despite being the closest approximation to a God in the traditional sense—governing all things with absolute power and precision—humans do not ascribe it consciousness or intent, because they do not conform to our anthropocentric biases. Humans want something deeper, something with some intentionality as a way to reduce emotional uncertainty and provide existential comfort—to seek meaning in forces that align with their meaning structures (e.g. human morality, cultural narratives), but gravity and spacetime do not concern themselves with meaning; they simply are.