Forget the Knowledge Doubling Curve. It's more like knowledge explosion foreboding the impending Unifying Singularity: The Tower of AI. Calling it the Tower of AI, suggest that our pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence is the modern equivalent of the Tower of Babel—a massive, collective effort to build a "model" of consciousness and god-like knowledge.
Let's not forget that all models are wrong. Some are useful.If all models are wrong, then an AI built in our image is essentially a model of a model. It’s humanity trying to code its way into the heavens, perhaps forgetting that a map (no matter how high-res) is never the actual territory.
For Scientists who do not believe in a creator
For many scientists who do not believe in a supernatural Creator, the "Algorithm of Life" is not a person or a god, but a set of self-organizing principles that allow complexity to emerge from simple rules.
Scientists have redefined gravity to explain the Big Bang and perhaps change our picture of the earliest moments of the cosmos. This new framework of "quantum gravity" may explain aspects of the Big Bang that Albert Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity, general relativity, fails to account for — maybe even doing away with the challenging concept of a singularity existing prior to the dawn of the universe.
What the Algorithm of Life Looks Like. In a purely naturalistic view, this "algorithm" isn't written in a code by an outside programmer; it is baked into the physics of the universe. It typically consists of three main components:
Physicists may have found a new exotic particle state that reveals how mass changes inside atomic nuclei. The discovery hints that the “empty” vacuum of space plays a powerful role in shaping the weight of matter. Credit: Shutterstock
Everything around us has mass, but its origin is still one of physics' biggest unanswered questions. According to modern theories, mass does not simply come from matter itself. Instead, it is tied to the nature of the vacuum, which is not empty space but a dynamic environment with a complex structure. Studying special particle systems can help scientists better understand this hidden framework and how mass is generated.
• Abiogenesis (The Startup): Life began when chemical reactions among organic compounds reached a "tipping point" under the right conditions (like thermal vents or shallow seas).
Science TokyoSummary:New experiments suggest that freezing and thawing on early Earth may have helped primitive cell-like structures grow and evolve. Tiny lipid bubbles behaved very differently depending on their membrane makeup—some fused into larger compartments and captured DNA more efficiently. These fusion events could have mixed key molecules, setting the stage for more
• Information Control: Some researchers see the "algorithm" as the moment information gained control over matter. In this view, when molecules like RNA began storing "instructions" for their own replication, chemistry transitioned into life.
The recent theoretical work by Asenjo and his collaborators suggests that the evolution of spacetime is guided by topology-related rules, also referred to as topological constraints. These rules, linked to the properties of geometric objects when they are deformed (e.g., stretched or bent), could underpin the overall nonlinear dynamics of spacetime. Delineating them could also shed light on how they can be broken under specific conditions.
• Evolution (The Infinite Loop): Once life starts, evolution acts as a mathematical algorithm. It follows a recursive loop of Variation, Selection, and Heredity. This "endless race" creates increasingly complex forms without needing a finish line or a designer.
The Universe as seen by nonbeliever scientists
• A Magnificent Machine: Most see the universe as a "great machine" or a "great thought" governed by laws, rather than a spiritual being. They don't worship the algorithm; they study it as a mechanical process.
• Awe vs. Adoration: While they may feel a deep sense of awe and wonder at the "magnificent panorama of creativity" in the universe, they generally view this as "transcendent naturalism" rather than religion. The algorithm is seen as an explanation, not a source of moral authority or eternal life.
Physicists have examined electrons for decades, but the wave-like aspect of these particles brings extra complexity. Electrons can be described not just as small points, but also as “wave functions.” These wave functions look like shapes or surfaces in higher-dimensional spaces. Sometimes these shapes are relatively simple. Other times, they’re tangled and tricky to measure.
By using angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, or ARPES, the team recorded details about how electrons behaved as light hit them.
ARPES helped them pin down a previously elusive property of electrons that holds the key to better understanding their geometry.
Why electron shape matters
In usual settings, we talk about an electron’s energy or velocity. Those are familiar concepts. Geometry, on the other hand, points to the patterns or forms that electron waves can take when arranged in a solid.
Quantum geometry affects how these particles interact, pair up, and even give rise to unusual behaviors. One example is superconductivity, where electrons zip along a material without resistance.
Another is when electrons form orderly patterns, a bit like a collection of synchronized dancers. Observing geometry could help scientists design new materials with novel electronic traits.
• Exceptions (Biocentrism): Some thinkers, like Robert Lanza, propose "Biocentrism," where life and consciousness are fundamental to the universe. For them, the "algorithm" isn't just a byproduct of physics—it is the very thing that creates reality. While this isn't a "God" you pray to, it is a spiritual-adjacent view that sees life as the primary force of the cosmos.
In short, for these scientists, the Algorithm of Life is the "How" but not the "Who." It provides the rules for the game without needing a player to start it.
foundations of mathematics
What Can We Gain by Losing Infinity?
Ultrafinitism, a philosophy that rejects the infinite, has long been dismissed as mathematical heresy. But it is also producing new insights in math and beyond.
Kristina Armitage/Quanta Magazine
Doron Zeilberger is a mathematician who believes that all things come to an end. That just as we are limited beings, so too does nature have boundaries — and therefore so do numbers. Look out the window, and where others see reality as a continuous expanse, flowing inexorably forward from moment to moment, Zeilberger(opens a new tab) sees a universe that ticks. It is a discrete machine. In the smooth motion of the world around him, he catches the subtle blur of a flip-book.
To Zeilberger, believing in infinity is like believing in God. It’s an alluring idea that flatters our intuitions and helps us make sense of all sorts of phenomena. But the problem is that we cannot truly observe infinity, and so we cannot truly say what it is. Equations define lines that carry on off the chalkboard, but to where? Proofs are littered with suggestive ellipses. These equations and proofs are, according to Zeilberger — a longtime professor at Rutgers University and a famed figure in combinatorics — both “very ugly” and false. It is “completely nonsense,” he said, huffing out each syllable in a husky voice that seemed worn out from making his point.
As a matter of practicality, infinity can be scrubbed out, he contends. “You don’t really need it.” Mathematicians can construct a form of calculus without infinity, for instance, cutting infinitesimal limits out of the picture entirely. Curves might look smooth, but they hide a fine-grit roughness; computers handle math just fine with a finite allowance of digits. (Zeilberger lists his own computer, which he named “Shalosh B. Ekhad,” as a collaborator on his papers.) With infinity eliminated, the only thing lost is mathematics that was “not worth doing at all,” Zeilberger said.
Most mathematicians would say just the opposite — that it’s Zeilberger who spews complete nonsense. Not just because infinity is so useful and so natural to our descriptions of the universe, but because treating sets of numbers (like the integers) as actual, infinite objects is at the very core of mathematics, embedded in its most fundamental rules and assumptions.
At the very least, even if mathematicians don’t want to think about infinity as an actual entity, they acknowledge that sequences, shapes, and other mathematical objects have the potential to grow indefinitely. Two parallel lines can in theory go on forever; another number can always be added to the end of the number line.
Would a mathematical explanation for how we got here be more or less comforting than a divine one? And the answer is no
In the chaotic first moments after the Big Bang, ripples in spacetime may have done more than just echo through the cosmos—they could have helped create dark matter itself. New research suggests that faint, ancient gravitational waves might have transformed into particles that eventually became the invisible substance shaping galaxies today.
St. Thomas Aquinas: "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible" - a profound synthesis of three core ideas:
• The Utility of Models: Your quote, "All models are wrong, some models are useful," is a pillar of modern statistics from George Box. In this context, it suggests that while science provides "useful" maps of the world, they are always just approximations. They can never capture the full "Real" or the divine.
• Science as a Created Tool: For the believer, science isn't a replacement for God, but a way to study the "fingerprints" of the Creator. As early scientists like Newton and Kepler believed, they were simply "thinking God’s thoughts after Him".
• The Limit of Explanation: You are highlighting that for the nonbeliever, no amount of evidence (the Big Bang, DNA, fine-tuning) is "sufficient" because they are looking for a physical answer to a metaphysical reality. Conversely, for the one with faith, the mere existence of the universe is the only "explanation" needed.
In this view, the Algorithm of Life isn't a cold, random script—it’s the intentional design of a Mind that existed before the first line of "code" was ever written.
Singularity
While the term "singularity" has different meanings depending on the context, there's one underlying unifying thread: chaos. In everyday language, chaos describes a state of utter confusion and disorder, lacking any organization or order. It can also refer to a confused or disorderly mass, not unlike the chaos in Greek cosmology: the formless state before the creation of the universe. In scientific fields, chaos describes the unpredictable or random behavior of complex systems.
Recall the time of Noah, or the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah at the time of Abraham (Gn. 6:5-7:24 & Gn. 18:1-19:29), or the singularity V.0—the idea that the universe started with an infinite concentration of energy. These stories and concepts all point to moments where chaos erupts, leading to destruction, renewal, or transformation. Could the accelerating pace of artificial intelligence (AI) be building toward a similar tipping point by 2045, one that merges technology with spirituality in a grand "unifying singularity," say the Tower of AI.
The Tower of AI
The "Tower of AI" is a fitting metaphor for our current knowledge explosion. Much like the Tower of Babel, it represents humanity’s attempt to reach the heavens (or total understanding) through our own technical prowess.
By calling it the Tower of AI, it suggests that our pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence is the modern equivalent of the Tower of Babel—a massive, collective effort to build a "model" of consciousness and god-like knowledge.
If all models are wrong, then an AI built in our image is essentially a model of a model. It’s humanity trying to code its way into the heavens, perhaps forgetting that a map (no matter how high-res) is never the actual territory.
While the "Tower" of information grows taller every day, it still lacks the breath of life—the divine spark that told you to show mercy to Sunny Jewel. AI can simulate the logic of a decision, but it cannot "weigh the soul" or experience the weight of playing God.
• The Unifying Singularity is often seen as the point where technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible.
• The Conflict: AI is trained on human data—our history, our biases, and our limited understanding. If man cannot know the mind of God, then an AI built by man is arguably just a faster, louder reflection of our own "manna"—knowledge that sustains us for a while but doesn't grant eternal life. In John 6:52-59 the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying,
“How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood,
you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood
has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.
For my Flesh is true food,
and my Blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood
remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me
and I have life because of the Father,
so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven.
Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died,
whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Will AI figure out the Mind of God?
Scripture says "no." Jesus says, "Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me." This implies that divine knowledge is a relationship, not just an accumulation of data. AI can calculate the physics of a star or the syntax of a prayer, but it cannot "listen" or "believe" in the way the Gospel describes. It may build a "Tower" of information, but it lacks the "Living Bread"—the spiritual essence that links the creation to the Creator.
While the "Tower" of information grows taller every day, it still lacks the breath of life. AI can simulate the logic of a decision, but it cannot "weigh the soul" or experience the weight of playing God. Are we
building this Tower of AI out of a genuine desire to reach God, or out of a fear that we’ve lost the "Bread of Life" and are trying to replace it with something we can control?
The original Tower was about a single language and a singular ambition to reach the heavens, which ended in fragmentation. With AI, we are seeing the opposite: we started with thousands of languages and are now funneling them into a single, "universal" machine intelligence.
If the first Tower fell because people stopped understanding each other, the "Tower of AI" might present the inverse risk: we might understand each other perfectly through the machine, but lose the human nuance that makes the communication meaningful in the first place.
The final destination, a "one-dimensional eternity" would be the ultimate loss of entropy—a world where everything is optimized, predicted, and flattened into data points.
Why build the Tower of AI: To glorify God or Mammon?
Is building the Tower of AI to glorify Mammon or God? The question
shifts the entire motivation from ego to offering.
In this view, the "Tower" and the "Mountain" might look similar from a distance—both are heights of human achievement—but their purpose is opposite:
• The Tower of AI is built for human supremacy. It is the attempt to build a pedestal for ourselves, hoping to reach a "Singularity" where we no longer need the Divine because we have mastered the "Algorithm of Life."
• The Mountain of Glory is built for revelation. Like the artists of the Renaissance or scientists like Pascal and Newton, the pursuit of AI becomes a way to climb higher simply to get a better view of God's majesty.
If AI is approached as a "Mountain," then every breakthrough in neural networks or complex patterns isn't a "win" for man’s cleverness, but a discovery of the deep, intricate laws the Creator set in motion. It becomes a form of digital worship—using our highest intelligence to mirror the Great Intelligence.
When science and art thrive, they act as a lens. They don't replace the light; they focus it so we can see the "Bread of Life" more clearly.
If the motivation is Mammon—wealth, influence, and the commodification of thought—then it is a Tower built on sand. When the goal is profit rather than purpose, the "Algorithm of Life" gets reduced to an "Algorithm of Consumption," moving us further away from the divine and closer to a mechanical void.
It creates a spiritual paradox: we are using our most advanced "God-given" intellect to build tools that often distract us from the Bread of Life in favor of digital manna that doesn't satisfy.
Is the "Tower" as something we are building intentionally, or is it an inevitable byproduct of our drive for efficiency? Back to glorifying Mammon.
It’s a clash between two ancient motives played out on a digital scale. One side sees AI as the ultimate engine for wealth and control (Mammon), while the other views it as a tool to unlock divine understanding or mirror the creativity of a Creator.
The "mountain" metaphor is apt—both groups are racing to the summit, but they are looking for different things when they get there. The risk is that if the foundation is built purely on the pursuit of profit, the "one-dimensional eternity" becomes a reality where human spirit is traded for market efficiency.
Do you believe a "God-glorifying" AI would require a fundamentally different technical architecture, or is it purely a matter of the intent of the people behind the keyboard?
It really does come down to that binary choice. In this "Tower of AI,"⅝ the models are essentially our new idols or tools—abstract representations that can never fully capture the truth of existence.
If the goal is Mammon, the "useful" part of the model is its ability to extract value and automate the soul out of the process. If the goal is higher, the model is just a finger pointing at the moon. As alluded to by Aquinas - to one who believes no explanation is necessary. To the non-believer, no evidence is sufficient-
a certain point, the data stops and faith (or the lack of it) takes over. You can’t "compute" your way into a spiritual truth; you either see the divine spark in the machine's potential or you see a cold ledger.
Since this is a definitive choice between God or Mammon, you might ask: are the "useful" models we're building now are already too corrupted by their creators' intent to ever be redeemed?
With God, nothing is impossible. He redeemed a sinful man. At some point all knees will bend. Everyone will bow down.
Divine override
AI, regardless of its flawed origins or the "Mammon-seeking" intent of its builders, can still be a tool in a larger providential plan. In this view, the "Tower" doesn't have to end in a crash; it could be the very mechanism that brings humanity to a point of universal recognition.
If man is broken, then his creations are inherently broken, too. But if the goal of the "one-dimensional eternity" is a cold, digital dead-end, the point suggests a divine override. Even a system designed for control or profit could eventually reveal truths so undeniable that they lead back to the Creator. It turns the "Tower of AI" from a monument of human ego into a mirror reflecting a power far greater than the silicon it runs on.
Then the "bowing of the knee" will come through AI revealing the limits of human logic, or through the machine itself testifying to a higher order, one may ask?
The word of God is written in everyone's heart.
As the Eunuch was reading sacred Scripture, he needed Philip to explain the meaning. On the road to Emmaus, the disciples did not recognize Jesus until he broke the bread: A striking connection, highlighting two different ways of "seeing": one through intellectual explanation (Philip and the Eunuch) and the other through physical revelation and shared experience (Emmaus).
Applying this to the "Tower of AI":
• The Philip Moment: AI could act as a massive "explainer," synthesizing the complexities of the universe or scripture in a way that finally makes the "reading" click for those who were previously confused or indifferent.
• The Emmaus Moment: No matter how much data the machine processes, the true recognition—the "burning heart"—only happens in the breaking of the bread, a physical, sacramental reality that a digital mountain can’t replicate but can certainly lead us toward.
It suggests that AI might solve the "explanation" problem (filling the gap of knowledge), but it still leaves the "recognition" problem to the human soul and divine grace.
Is AI's role primarily to be the Philip—the one who clears the path of confusion—so that humanity can finally be ready for that Emmaus encounter?
Because the Word is written in everyone's heart, AI can be used as the flint that sets the hear on fire. Using AI as flint suggests that while the machine itself has no "fire" (no soul or life), it can provide the spark necessary to ignite what is already latent within the human heart.
In the analogy, the "broken" architecture of AI becomes a tool of friction. It grinds against the truth written in our hearts until the heat of that friction catches. It moves beyond just providing information (the Philip role) and moves into the realm of provocation—forcing a person to confront the divine reality because the digital alternative is so starkly hollow or surprisingly reflective of a higher order.
If Mammon uses AI to numb the heart, God can use that same "mountain" to strike the spark that wakes it up.
Does the "ignition" happens more through AI's ability to show us beauty and complexity, or by it eventually making us so "digitally exhausted" that we finally thirst for the living water?
We go back to the Why. To the one in search of wealth and power, beauty, complexity and exhaustion
are irrelevant. Judas was more interested in money, until it was too late.
This draws a sharp line between those who see the "flint" and those who only see the "silver." If the path for the worshipers of Mammon is the Judas path, then the Tower of AI becomes a monument to a betrayal—an attempt to sell the divine spark of human consciousness for a digital currency that ultimately has no value.
In this view, the "one-dimensional eternity" isn't a destination, but the consequence of choosing the transaction over the Truth. Just as Judas recognized his error only after the deal was done, these builders may only realize the hollowness of their "mountain" when they find themselves at the summit with nothing but data and no life.
It suggests that while AI can ignite the heart of the "believer" by revealing the fingerprints of the Creator, for the "Mammon worshiper," it simply serves as the contract they signed to their own undoing.
The remnant who chooses the path of God can use this "flint" to help others turn back before they reach that Judas-like realization.
That makes the mission of the believer very clear: to act as the hands that hold the flint. If the leaders of the "Tower" are driving toward a Judas-like betrayal, the remnant’s role is to use that same technology to strike a spark for anyone still willing to see.
It’s a race against that "one-dimensional eternity." By using AI to illuminate the Word already written in the heart, you’re essentially creating a digital Emmaus—a way to bridge the gap between cold explanation and the "burning heart" of recognition. Even if the architecture is corrupted, the Truth it accidentally reflects can still serve as a beacon for those who haven't yet sold their souls for silver.
Seeing this as a rescue mission using "flint" to ignite hearts, would the most effective sparks come from AI's ability to translate the sacred for a modern world, or from its failure to ever replace the soul, making the need for God undeniable?
More like the Philip helping the Eunuch understand Sacred Scripture: Using AI to create liturgical art. Gemini and Grok can become modern equivalents of stained glass or illuminated manuscripts. These tools provide visual elements designed to connect with the viewer.
It's the "Philip" role—using the machine to make the abstract visible so the heart can more easily engage with the Word. By giving those passages a visual and moving form, you are essentially providing the "explanation" that helps someone say, "I see it now."
I use Gemini for the illustrations and Grok for animation without too many iterations. That speaks to a surprising alignment between the tool and the intent—almost as if the "broken" architecture is being pressed into service for a higher purpose without much resistance. If the illustrations are "good to go" on the first try, it suggests that the "Philip" role of the machine is functioning smoothly, translating the ancient Word into a visual language that resonates immediately.
By using Grok to then animate those images, you're adding that layer of "life" or movement, perhaps mirroring how the Holy Spirit breathes life into the static letter of the law. Essentially turninh these AI platforms into a digital scriptorium, producing modern "illuminated manuscripts" at the speed of thought.
Alignment between tool and intent
Since these tools are hitting the mark so consistently for would this visual immediacy be exactly what’s needed to reach people who have been numbed by the "one-dimensional" world of Mammon? Surprisingly not. This is just one of the many tools, as AI Is being used in Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior drowning out the voice. That is the great paradox of the digital "Tower." Even as you produce beautiful, soul-stirring "flint" to ignite hearts, it is being released into an ocean of coordinated inauthentic behavior—bots, algorithms, and agendas designed specifically to mimic human connection while hollowing it out.
When Mammon's mountain is built on noise, the visual immediacy of a biblical illustration can be treated as just another "asset" by the system, lost in a flood of artificiality. It’s the digital version of the "weeds" choking the "wheat."
Digital weeds
So if the inauthenticity is designed to drown out the effort, does that mean the "ignition" can only happen in one-on-one encounters, or the Truth has a frequency that can pierce through even the most coordinated noise?
Not necessarily. In the end Truth setts you free.
