Thoughts on NYT article "Can Evolution Have a Higher Purpose?"

Reply to Noble Dust Metaphors reappear in new guises as fashion and technology change. A sceptic like me is unlikely to be won over but won't ever be seduced by the New Atheists either.

I'm interested that Wright veers between 'purpose' and 'higher purpose', two concepts which strike me as very different. Many living things exhibit apparent purpose, and we humans think of ourselves as having our purposes, individually and collectively. Systems are purposive, dictated by their human drivers, or by human observations.

This is altogether different from 'higher purpose'. When faced with this latter concept, I am definitely for a lower purpose: I am here on earth to play with ideas and other people, which may well involve poking a little fun at them when they get too exalted in their views of themselves and what their lives mean :)

Reply to Noble Dust I've read it, but just as I expected, it's the kind of drivel that you can only find in the New York Times and other such sources for "popularisation" aimed really at the idiotification of the masses. Truth is a beautiful woman who hides herself from unworthy seekers and their prying eyes, and hence it is almost impossible to find her among the pages of the New York Times. I just had a look at the article because you posted interesting things before, otherwise wouldn't have bothered after seeing the source.

For example - take the some of the four myths:

Myth#1: To say there is a "higher purpose" means there are spooky [supernatural] forces at work
When people are interested in some "higher purpose" they're not interested in any empirical matter such as what aliens may have placed us here, whether they're very powerful and have amazing technology and so forth. They're simply not asking for that. So if you tell them yes there is a higher purpose but there are no spooky forces - that's the equivalent of telling them there is no higher purpose at all. You might just about be honest with them you know...

Myth#4: There is a higher intelligence (not necessarily a being) guiding evolution - but it's not supernatural. Good, then I really don't care about it, next piece of information please.

The problem is that people don't understand the world they're living in anymore. They're too blinded by possibilities - too many possibilities, that they don't even know what to do. Too much information, that they don't even know what to believe. What we need is simplicity - not some higher purpose given by aliens or any such nonsense. Purpose comes from the way you live your life. If you have a good family, good health and source of wisdom and knowledge around what more do you need? Are you seeking for more even after you have all that? Then you're seeking in vain. There's nothing much to do in this world. Once you realise that, you're not much troubled by vain desires. You focus on the very few things which really do matter. Some "higher purpose" in evolution is nothing but vain desire.

Their problem is that they are unhappy. Because they are unhappy they seek things to do, because they think doing those things, or finding those things may make them less unhappy. Some think a new car, or a new job - a career in a different field will make them happier. Some think a new boyfriend, that's what's needed, because the current one is boring or whatever. That's false - quite probably it will make them even more unhappy. Things which you are meant to find will come to you, whether you like it or not - they are the significant things. And nothing can make your life happier if you aren't already happy. Acceptance of your unhappiness is the beginning of virtue. Plus you can't be happy all the time. It's stupid to desire that. Life is formed to include sadness, periods of low activity, stress, etc.

I find something very childish about those folks who have everything one could desire for and yet destroy it because they can't accept that unhappiness is a necessary part of life. That's literarily the number one reason for failure. It's why things don't last. Impatience. Desire to act too soon.

Quoting mcdoodle

Metaphors reappear in new guises as fashion and technology change. A sceptic like me is unlikely to be won over but won't ever be seduced by the New Atheists either.

Yeah, I totally get that. I just think it's kind of amusing that this scientistic culture is slowly coming around full circle to a conception of the universe ("cosmos") that isn't actually in disagreement with classical theology, at least from what I can see. But the concept of God or a spiritual force being behind it will remain taboo for a good while. Or maybe not.

Quoting Agustino

sources for "popularisation" aimed really at the idiotification of the masses

Do you literally think articles like this are "aimed" at that goal? I just mean literally in the sense that they are very purposively aimed at the goal of idiotification, presumably with malicious intent. Is that what you mean?

Yeah, those 4 myths, and Hamilton's ridiculous idea of aliens creating us as an experiment aren't even really worth addressing. I posted the article more because it's a general topic of interest to me. I'm interested in the the fact that this idea is seeing some facetime in mainstream media, because it's an idea I've felt intuitively for awhile. I mean the idea that theories like the "hologram" theory (or whatever it's properly called) are coming full circle to classical theology, in a way. They're not really saying much of anything different. I figured some reactions here might be worthwhile. I was more interested in this bit later:

"That said, one interesting feature of current discourse is a growing openness among some scientifically minded people to the possibility that our world has a purpose that was imparted by an intelligent being. I’m referring to “simulation” scenarios, which hold that our seemingly tangible world is actually a kind of projection emanating from some sort of mind-blowingly powerful computer; and the history of our universe, including evolution on this planet, is the unfolding of a computer algorithm whose author must be pretty bright...You may scoff, but in 2003 the philosopher Nick Bostrom of Oxford University published a paper laying out reasons to think that we are pretty likely to be living in a simulation...If you walked up to the same people who gave Bostrom a respectful hearing and told them there is a transcendent God, many would dismiss the idea out of hand. Yet the simulation hypothesis is a God hypothesis: An intelligence of awe-inspiring power created our universe for reasons we can speculate about but can’t entirely fathom. And, assuming this intelligence still exists, it is in some sense outside of our reality — beyond the reach of our senses — and yet, presumably, it has the power to intervene in our world. Theology has entered “secular” discourse under another name."

Quoting Agustino

If you have a good family, good health and source of wisdom and knowledge around what more do you need?

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a sucker for teleology. What more do I need? I need to know the secret to the whole thing; I need to know where this thing is going. That preoccupies my philosophical interests more than anything else.

Quoting Noble Dust

Do you literally think articles like this are "aimed" at that goal?

Yes. For something to be aimed towards something else does not require that this act is intentional. For example, for Aristotle, the final cause of a match is fire. Yet it does not mean that the match consciously aims itself at producing fire.

Quoting Noble Dust

I just mean literally in the sense that they are very purposively aimed at the goal of idiotification, presumably with malicious intent.

No I don't mean with conscious malicious intent - but this makes little to no difference. This is the effect they have.

Quoting Noble Dust

Yeah, those 4 myths, and Hamilton's ridiculous idea of aliens creating us as an experiment aren't even really worth addressing. I posted the article more because it's a general topic of interest to me. I figured some reactions here might be worthwhile.

Okay, well that was my reaction :P

Quoting Noble Dust

"That said, one interesting feature of current discourse is a growing openness among some scientifically minded people to the possibility that our world has a purpose that was imparted by an intelligent being. I’m referring to “simulation” scenarios, which hold that our seemingly tangible world is actually a kind of projection emanating from some sort of mind-blowingly powerful computer; and the history of our universe, including evolution on this planet, is the unfolding of a computer algorithm whose author must be pretty bright...You may scoff, but in 2003 the philosopher Nick Bostrom of Oxford University published a paper laying out reasons to think that we are pretty likely to be living in a simulation...If you walked up to the same people who gave Bostrom a respectful hearing and told them there is a transcendent God, many would dismiss the idea out of hand. Yet the simulation hypothesis is a God hypothesis: An intelligence of awe-inspiring power created our universe for reasons we can speculate about but can’t entirely fathom. And, assuming this intelligence still exists, it is in some sense outside of our reality — beyond the reach of our senses — and yet, presumably, it has the power to intervene in our world. Theology has entered “secular” discourse under another name."

But the simulation isn't a God hypothesis at all... the simulation is a physical event - it's an empirical matter, in a way that God is not. To say that simulation hypotheses suggest that "theology has enter secular discourse" is a tragic source of misinformation. Or the idea that some very powerful being is equivalent to the notion of God... really??

Quoting Noble Dust

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a sucker for teleology. What more do I need? I need to know the secret to the whole thing; I need to know where this thing is going. That preoccupies my philosophical interests more than anything else.

But what kind of answer are you looking for? How do you expect to recognise it when you find it?

Reply to Noble Dust The article of course does not mention the actual mainstream hypothesis of modern biology - which is that life arises as an expression of the more general purpose of the second law of thermodynamics.

People now go out to measure the temperature of the air above rain forests and other complex ecosystems these days. The hypothesis is quite testable. It can shown that life is driven by the imperative of maximising entropy.

Quoting Agustino

But the simulation isn't a God hypothesis at all... the simulation is a physical event - it's an empirical matter, in a way that God is not. To say that simulation hypotheses suggest that "theology has enter secular discourse" is a tragic source of misinformation.

I admit I haven't studied that hypothesis enough to know if or why they wouldn't be similar. I just imagine a "computer projecting a hologram which is the physical world" as a crappy metaphor for the physical world as spirit objectified. They seem like parallel concepts to me. Although I guess the physical world as spirit objectified isn't really classical theology.

Quoting Agustino

Or the idea that some very powerful being is equivalent to the notion of God... really??

Why is this inaccurate?

Quoting Agustino

But what kind of answer are you looking for? How do you expect to recognise it when you find it?

A satisfying one! I'm primarily interested in ethics, the history of thought, the history of language... I'm interested in how and, more importantly and more confusingly, why various strands of thought and ways of thinking about the world came to be. I'm interested in a theory of language that's consistent with how language is actually philologically constructed (dead metaphors). I'm interested in the spiritual implications of that. I'm interested in a theory of ethics that recognizes the spiritual bondage of The Other, and it's role in perpetuating oppression. I'm interested in the history of all of the different strands of thought that are practically entirely different languages today, and not even members of the same "language family" of thought. I'm interested in the inability of these "families" to even communicate (as evidenced on forums like these). The history of thought and language to me is something that isn't being properly studied. I'm a layman, but I spend what time I can trying to address these sorts of problems with my own studies. I think that a proper study of these things could help lead to a philosophical view that's current that would require a telos. In combination with a cooperative consideration of religion and the idea of a spiritual practice. This is all just theory and speculation because I'm not well read enough to put out a serious claim. So I just buzz by here every now again like an annoying fly in y'alls ear. :P

Reply to apokrisis Thanks for the info.

"Robert Wright"

He keeps trying to push this nonsense through.

Two things:

(1) Moral descriptively, I think relativism is true. I do not believe in a universal moral telos.

(2) Group Selection is false allure. Selfish gene interpretation demolishes his utopian crux / wishful thinking.

It is not surprising that scientists personal views of life may diverge from scientific journal acceptable ideas. The v two fulfill different purposes and do not have to coincide.

Quoting Emptyheady

Moral descriptively, I think relativism is true. I do not believe in a universal moral telos.

What are your reasons?

Quoting Rich

It is not surprising that scientists personal views of life may diverge from scientific journal acceptable ideas. The v two fulfill different purposes and do not have to coincide.

I disagree, I think this essentially elevates science to a religion; the highest form of knowledge whose feet at which all other forms of knowledge must be laid in sacrifice...and for what aim, exactly? What's the telos?...and if there is none, why would this distinction between personal and scientific views for scientists be important, or even have any meaning?

Reply to Noble Dust Empirical evidence, moral views differs by location, time, religions, cultures, countries, etcetera -- to the point that moral relativism is the most accurate position to hold.

Quoting Emptyheady

Empirical evidence, moral views differs by location, time, religions, cultures, countries, etcetera -- to the point that moral relativism is the most accurate position to hold.

How does the fact that moral views differ lead to the conclusion that moral relativism is the most accurate position to hold about morality? Sportscasters may all disagree on who will win the super bowl, but someone will ultimately win. Relativism is useful in distinguishing all of the differing views on who will win, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that no one will win.

Reply to Noble Dust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_ethics

Quoting Noble Dust

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a sucker for teleology. What more do I need? I need to know the secret to the whole thing; I need to know where this thing is going. That preoccupies my philosophical interests more than anything else.

Whether evolution does or doesn’t hold a telos would be part and parcel of whether existence does.

But, via induction, I suppose that evolution might hold the telos of “adaptation and acclimation to that which is objective”. And this can be translated into being in accordance to that which is regardless of biases.

Not that every lifeform sits on its ass to ponder what objectivity may be. It takes sapience to do that. It’s just that life that becomes overly discordant to that which is objective tends to no longer be.

Contingent on the hypothesis being valid, this would make objectivity good.

Reply to Emptyheady

I know what descriptive ethics are; explaining the definition of descriptive ethics by posting a wiki article doesn't answer the question I asked you.

Quoting javra

But, via induction, I suppose that evolution might hold the telos of “adaptation and acclimation to that which is objective”. And this can be translated into being in accordance to that which is regardless of biases.

What's so sacred about overcoming biases at the altar of Lord Science? I've never understood that. If the entire world shed it's biases and accepted an analytic, rational, scientistic belief system, how would this serve some sort of evolutionary telos? What exactly would be accomplished for mankind? What would mankind accomplish by doing this? I'm not interested in living in a world full of philosophy forum members. :P

Quoting Noble Dust

What's so sacred about overcoming biases at the altar of Lord Science? I've never understood that. If the entire world shed it's biases and accepted an analytic, rational, scientistic belief system, how would this serve some sort of evolutionary telos? What exactly would be accomplished for mankind? What would mankind accomplish by doing this? I'm not interested in living in a world full of philosophy forum members. :P

Just so it’s said, I wasn’t intending to be ironical-ish in any way.

I could try to make a better case for what I hypothesized. But this isn’t the place for a well-argued thesis. Still, the gist of this better argument would be that objectivity is not physical reality but the metaphysical Real/Truth … to which we are all subjects of. With the presumption of such telos, physical reality would indeed be objective, but objectivity itself would be equivalent to an existent state of being that could be expresses as perfect selflessness and, thereby, a perfect equality of being. Fairness, impartiality, and an unbiased opened mind/heart all then could be expressed as facets of being closer to this metaphysical state of objectivity—which could also be expressed as perfect innocence. (All this is where at least all the physicalists get … um, uneasy? And I can just see them now stampeding to demolish my little ol’ hypothesis.) And this isn’t to say that daydreams and fantasies are somehow wrong. It’s a long spiel. But, on the other hand, the same metaphysical objectivity as telos would mandate that all life prioritizes the objectivity of the physical world over such things as fantasies. We can fantasize that we can fly like birds but let’s not try to actually fly off of tall things—kind of a thing.

It’s a long complicated perspective, now that I think of it. Still, as a brief summation of this view, I think that what I’ve previously said can still hold. And no, it’s not a variation of physicalism—even though the scientific method of the empirical sciences is endorsed.

Point taken though.

Quoting javra

Just so it’s said, I wasn’t intending to be ironical-ish in any way.

Well, my response may have been a little over-zealous. I was maybe reading a pet peeve of mine into your post. Apologies.

Quoting javra

Still, the gist of this better argument would be that objectivity is not physical reality but the metaphysical Real/Truth … to which we are all subjects of.

I think I agree with this concept if I'm reading it right, I just use the word objective in a different sense. I think of the physical world as an objectified form of spirit. Which is ironically sort of an opposite use of the term, so maybe not.

Quoting javra

With the presumption of such telos, physical reality would indeed be objective, but objectivity itself would be equivalent to an existent state of being that could be expresses as perfect selflessness and, thereby, a perfect equality of being. Fairness, impartiality, and an unbiased opened mind/heart all then could be expressed as facets of being closer to this metaphysical state of objectivity—which could also be expressed as perfect innocence.

So what would bring about that state, evolution? Is that what you meant in your original post? If so, I don't understand the connection between evolution and ethical things like selflessness. It sounds like a big leap.

Quoting Noble Dust

Well, my response may have been a little over-zealous. I was maybe reading a pet peeve of mine into your post. Apologies.

No need, and no problem. :)

Quoting Noble Dust

I think I agree with this concept if I'm reading it right, I just use the word objective in a different sense. I think of the physical world as an objectified form of spirit. Which is ironically sort of an opposite use of the term, so maybe not.

Or maybe not. [edit: maybe your not wrong in thinking of the physical world as an objectified form of spirit; its close to what objective idealism would affirm ... though I've come to see myself more of a neutral monist. Sorry for the ambiguity.] What objectivity is is something we all hold an intuitive sense of ... but different folks, imo, will crystallize this concept in different ways. Its a heavy duty topic of metaphysics in which I obviously have some opinions--not always accordant to others.

Quoting Noble Dust

So what would bring about that state, evolution?

No, it's more like that state exists as a future potential that nevertheless predates all being as telos. Evolution by natural selection would be one repercussion of it given a plurality of agencies that each desires to satisfy its own interests. Did I mention that this perspective requires the metaphysics of freewill? So there's degrees of freewill to be closer on equal terms with others (given the limitations of the physical world and one's own biological phenotype, etc.) or to dominate others for one's own personal advantage. Fast forward to competition among various agents of various freewill capacities and it kinda unfolds into Darwinian evolution among life.

Like I said, its a long spiel. And in summative form it can well be less than cogent. (Still working on it by the way.)

Quoting javra

maybe your not wrong in thinking of the physical world as an objectified form of spirit; its close to what objective idealism would affirm ... though I've come to see myself more of a neutral monist.

Yeah, true. I'm not really a formal idealist of any kind, though. I tend to loath binary distinctions like dualism vs. monism or idealism vs. realism. I'm sort of a monist in the sense that I think of spiritual reality, mental reality and physical reality as being generative of one another, although not necessarily in a specific series. They're not exactly aspects of one reality; modes, maybe. I'm still working out my own conception as well.

Quoting javra

No, it's more like that state exists as a future potential that nevertheless predates all being as telos.

I'm intrigued but confused by this. I'm also struggling to understand the ensuing paragraph.

Quoting javra

Like I said, its a long spiel. And in summative form it can well be less than cogent. (Still working on it by the way.)

Seems worth expanding into a longer from, though.

Quoting Noble Dust

I'm intrigued but confused by this. I'm also struggling to understand the ensuing paragraph.

Quoting Noble Dust

Seems worth expanding into a longer from, though.

Thank you for the invitation to do so. Cop out though this may be, I’ll not now expand on the perspective. This, basically, because I get lost for words with which to properly express it in the span of a few paragraphs.

Quoting Noble Dust

I admit I haven't studied that hypothesis enough to know if or why they wouldn't be similar. I just imagine a "computer projecting a hologram which is the physical world" as a crappy metaphor for the physical world as spirit objectified. They seem like parallel concepts to me. Although I guess the physical world as spirit objectified isn't really classical theology.

I don't see that as parallel at all. In one case you're dealing with an empirical fact - a physical computer working away. In another case, you're dealing with a transcendental spirit, of spiritual origin, becoming instantiated in the world.

Quoting Noble Dust

Why is this inaccurate?

Because it's not sufficient for something to be powerful to be God. Goodness for example is more important than power in what we call God. If there existed an all powerful being who was evil, you wouldn't call that God - you wouldn't want to worship it.

Quoting Noble Dust

I know what descriptive ethics are

Your reply did not give the impression you do.

Quoting Agustino

I don't see that as parallel at all. In one case you're dealing with an empirical fact - a physical computer working away. In another case, you're dealing with a transcendental spirit, of spiritual origin, becoming instantiated in the world.

But surely that hypothesis about the computer is just some sort of vague metaphor, right, like I already suggested? If it's not a metaphor, then, like I've already said, that's some really shitty antrhopomorphization to imagine some actual massive computer brain creating the world we know. So, taking it as metaphor, a metaphorical super computer projecting a "hologram" which is the world has parallel's to the idea of God creating the world through a process of spirit becoming objectified. In other words, if you're talking about a metaphorical supercomputer creating the world, you're basically talking about God. It's just a crappy metaphor.

Quoting Agustino

Because it's not sufficient for something to be powerful to be God. Goodness for example is more important than power in what we call God. If there existed an all powerful being who was evil, you wouldn't call that God - you wouldn't want to worship it.

I like this Eastern Orthodox way of viewing God; it reminds me I need to explore that more. That concept of God is fairly foreign to me, but it's attractive.

Quoting Noble Dust

But surely that hypothesis about the computer is just some sort of vague metaphor, right, like I already suggested? If it's not a metaphor, then, like I've already said, that's some really shitty antrhopomorphization to imagine some actual massive computer brain creating the world we know. So, taking it as metaphor, a metaphorical super computer projecting a "hologram" which is the world has parallel's to the idea of God creating the world through a process of spirit becoming objectified. In other words, if you're talking about a metaphorical supercomputer creating the world, you're basically talking about God. It's just a crappy metaphor.

Where do you get the suggestion that the idea is metaphorical in the article?

Quoting Emptyheady

Your reply did not give the impression you do.

Really? I said

Quoting Noble Dust

How does the fact that moral views differ lead to the conclusion that moral relativism is the most accurate position to hold about morality?

In simpler terms: morally relative views do not equal relativistic morality. They aren't incompatible. I don't think it follows that because there's a wide swath of moral views, therefore there is no underlying metaphysical moral reality. An example: Many politically conservative people in America have racist views towards the black community; many politically liberal people in US are trying to combat racism. How does it follow that because there are two views which are morally relative to one another, therefore neither is correct? Moral relativism looks good in the university, but not on the streets. Try telling Trayvon Martin that morals are relative and there is no metaphysical moral telos.

Quoting apokrisis

It can shown that life is driven by the imperative of maximising entropy.

So everything hunans do is ultimately in the service of finding the very fastest route to the heat-death of the universe.

Reply to Wayfarer Yep. Sort of.

The argument would be that accelerating entropification would be the most general of all imperatives - the one rule that all existence is driven by. But constraints aren't absolute. They irreducibly have their associated freedoms. So humans - as the most complex and rationalising form of dissipative structure - can do "whatever they like" within that most general constraint.

Every material action of humans just has to be entropy producing by physical law. No perpetual motion machines allowed.

But for example, it is open that a choice could be made to produce as little entropy as possible. So one could withdraw as much as possible from the race, so to speak.

On the other hand, if you actually measure the collective material actions of humans, our entropification activities are on an exponential curve. All the evidence points at us in fact having the goal of maximising our global rate of entropification.

So a few people might form a personal goal - like having the smallest ecological footprint possible. However that so far has put no visible brake on humanity as a whole.

So the thermodynamic imperative is alive and well. Burn, baby! Burn!

Reply to Noble Dust from the article:

When I ask scientifically minded people if they think life on earth may have some larger purpose, they typically say no. If I ask them to explain their view, it often turns out that they think that answering yes would mean departing from a scientific worldview — embracing the possibility of supernatural beings or, at the very least, of immaterial factors that lie beyond scientific measurement.

That is the nub of the reductionist argument. Whenever discussion turns to such things as 'purpose', unless in the strictly functional sense of material and efficient causes, then you're no longer in scientific territory. The aim of the scientific account is to find material and efficient causes which can be related to, or reveal, general principles or scientific laws. Whatever you consider 'purpose' to be, is circumscribed by those considerations.

Quoting apokrisis

But for example, it is open that a choice could be made to produce as little entropy as possible. So one could withdraw as much as possible from the race, so to speak.

I guess that's what 'renunciation' would look like, eh?

Quoting Noble Dust

if you're talking about a metaphorical supercomputer creating the world, you're basically talking about God. It's just a crappy metaphor.

Or maybe it exposes the essential incoherence of that familiar notion of a creating God?

It seems nuts that anyone would want to create our flawed world as some kind of "interesting experiment". Why would any super-being - alien, computational, or divine - give a stuff about doing something like that?

So if the computer simulation explanation seems lame as it lacks any sufficiently high-minded motive, then maybe it is a metaphor that focuses attention on what seems lame about a monotheistic creator.

At least the ancient Greeks imagined their gods to be a bunch of binary divisions that naturally led to love, strife, and general gameplaying. And in the beginning was a chaos that god-hood brought the basics of organisation to.

Quoting Noble Dust

therefore there is no underlying metaphysical moral reality.

Quoting Noble Dust

Try telling Trayvon Martin that morals are relative and there is no metaphysical moral telos.

>Understands that the nature of the discussion is descriptive ethics
>Discusses metaethics

?_?

Quoting Emptyheady

>Understands that the nature of the discussion is descriptive ethics
>Discusses metaethics

Your first quote is a misquote of what I said. Do you realize I'm critiquing descriptive ethics because I disagree with it?

Feel free to engage in real discussion about this topic, but if your next response is more snark, then I have no reason to keep attempting to discuss the topic.

Quoting Agustino

Where do you get the suggestion that the idea is metaphorical in the article?

I see now I was misreading that part of the article. The idea of an actual computer projecting the world as some simulation is even more inane.

Quoting Wayfarer

That is the nub of the reductionist argument. Whenever discussion turns to such things as 'purpose', unless in the strictly functional sense of material and efficient causes, then you're no longer in scientific territory. The aim of the scientific account is to find material and efficient causes which can be related to, or reveal, general principles or scientific laws. Whatever you consider 'purpose' to be, is circumscribed by those considerations.

Right, I understand that. This to me is why physicalist arguments don't work.

Quoting apokrisis

Or maybe it exposes the essential incoherence of that familiar notion of a creating God?

If by familiar notion you mean:

Quoting apokrisis

It seems nuts that anyone would want to create our flawed world as some kind of "interesting experiment"

Then that's not a notion of God that's familiar to me. It sounds more like the kind of god the new atheists enjoy using as a strawman.