Diotallevi

This Monday the Twenty-third of October in the Year of Our Lord 2006, back from a CS session I have failed to write the third day of creation in.

The Demiurge writes Diotallevi as a man and a dolphin

Naming things
As humans do to the creation... they say that things were named as soon they were created. But are they really named as what we think they're named? I thought naming things were essentially a very human way to go. Alright then, I name my first man Diotallevi.

Ok so they say, with "they" being the faceless editors of Wikipedia, that they've found out that dolphins use names too. I would say that isn't very unlikely, and I'd like to put faith in what they say too, and dolphins are a quite cute sort of whale. Now what am I saying.

I've been quite convinced that God names things in quite a different way than the rest of us. Does he use a language? His own language as doctrinally suggested, or a greater thing of a metalanguage that English can only vaguely name as a "language"? In any case it's rather questionable that reason is an omnipotent -- aargh.

I've got now a bright spark that might lead this inquiry astray. What if the first man Diotallevi was a dolphin? What if dolphins were the master race in Penthia instead of us humans? What if now I can't decide whether Diotallevi is a human or dolphin? Could he be an uncertain both?

Quantum uncertainty
Anyway, before I decide whether Diotallevi is a man or a dolphin, I could continue writing his existence as if it doesn't matter whether Diotallevi is a man or a dolphin, and then decide in a later time. Before his species is revealed, he is both. In other words, if I write that he is a man, then he was always a man; if I write that he's a dolphin then he was a dolphin all his life. This has an uncanny similarity to Schroedinger's Cat. If it is observed that the cat is dead it is dead; if it is observed that it is alive, it is alive; if it is not observed, then it is both dead and alive in a ghostly superposition of states. So they say.

Capricity and Benevolence
I'm sorry, but I think this creation's a bit of a botch-up.
And he saw that it was a botch-up
And I think we all should be glad that we live in a universe created with logic and not pure capricity like mine. Alright, maybe Douglas Adams didn't think so, but that's his problem.

Would it be that God really can do anything he wants, and he chose not to do certain things, like writing us into men-dolphins or women-dolphinelles? Well I certainly could as I just did, but I could have chosen not to do so. I could have chosen not to do so as a matter of benevolence.

A precondition for benevolence towards creation is a complete understanding towards creation, which I lack. I am not at all convinced even that two passages can describe the entitety of things in my present universe. There wasn't any familiarity between me and gnathostomes, for example, or chanterelles. I just had to write a gnathostome or a chanterelle for them to flourish on Penthia, without me having to tell the story of each gnathostome or chanterelle in individual. Note that the life stories of every living thing on Earth can theoretically be written in any number of days by a potent enough writer (not necessarily human), that which I am not.

(Back)