Debunking the universe is a program (a spin on it by Chessmanskeptic)

[chessmanskeptic]

http://missingmatter.net/questions/02/01/30/030248.shtml

and one more thing, all of Franko's in order to be true must show that quantum particles are 1's and 0's which THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR!

[Franko]

I really don't buy this idea.

Yes, you are an A-Theist, not a Skeptic.

It makes me think instead about how we let the dominant technological paradigm of the day shape our thinking.

Kind of the whole basis for A-Theism. Funny how quickly you’ll abandon it when you feel it’s turned on your?

To reduce everything to a computer (or a cellular automata) is a bit like reducing everything down to a clockwork mechanism, or to a steam engine or to hydraulics or electricity. Sure it gives us insights but it's not exactly future-proof.

Considering that modern physics uses computers to model everything you statement makes no sense what-so-ever. If reality cannot be reduced to True and False (logic), then there is no possible way for us to ever figure it out, without Logic it would be utterly beyond our comprehension.

Unless you are suggesting a mystical solution to the questions of science?

For example, the realization that DNA is not really a computer program that executes instructions one at a time (as opposed to an asynchronous network of catalysts and inhibitors) is a indication of how this kind of thinking while helpful to begin with can actually hold us back.

DNA is a dataset consisting of four unique codes. The DNA is the data, not the program itself.

Roger Penrose (in his books The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind) has spent a lot of time in recent years pointing out the fundamental limits of the computational model. His main interest is in debunking current work in artificial intelligence, which seeks to model the mind algorithmically and reduce it to a universal turing machine.

Penrose’s thinking is too linear.

His arguments apply equally to a turing model of the Universe too. Basically there's a lot that computers can't do, they need to break things up into discrete time steps, they can only work with integers of limited precision (that's what digital really means). He points out that there are well known problems that while easily solvable by a human can never be solved by any algorithm method (they are in effect uncomputable).

H-Mobius problems exist for your mind in the same exact way that they do for computers. If you doubt this then explain why Solipsism is not True (prove that your mind does not generate the Universe), or explain Fate and “free will” to me?

and one more thing, all of Franko's in order to be true must show that quantum particles are 1's and 0's which THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR!

Well you are dead wrong about that. But then again, all A-Theists are pseudo-Materialists by necessity. You have no idea what the real matter is.

You can write a computer program to mimic any aspect of consciousness which is understood. Obviously if you do not comprehend some aspect of your consciousness you are not going to be able to design a computer program to emmulate it. Apparently this is beyond the comprehension of people calling themselves A-Theists.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Franko
You can write a computer program to mimic any aspect of consciousness which is understood. Obviously if you do not comprehend some aspect of your consciousness you are not going to be able to design a computer program to emmulate it. Apparently this is beyond the comprehension of people calling themselves A-Theists.

Oh really, give me some examples of these so called programs.

The reason I say that the universe is not 1's in 0's is that the Qbit does not even exist yet. :p

As in the way of quantum computing, all there is are pieces of software. No actual hardware that can run the software.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I really don't buy this idea. It makes me think ...

Digital Universe (http://missingmatter.net/questions/02/01/30/030248.shtml) by lagado. (about the 8th one down the page).

Walter

Edited to add: reported.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Franko


Yes, you are an A-Theist, not a Skeptic.



Kind of the whole basis for A-Theism. Funny how quickly you’ll abandon it when you feel it’s turned on your?



Considering that modern physics uses computers to model everything you statement makes no sense what-so-ever. If reality cannot be reduced to True and False (logic), then there is no possible way for us to ever figure it out, without Logic it would be utterly beyond our comprehension.

Unless you are suggesting a mystical solution to the questions of science?



DNA is a dataset consisting of four unique codes. The DNA is the data, not the program itself.



Penrose’s thinking is too linear.



H-Mobius problems exist for your mind in the same exact way that they do for computers. If you doubt this then explain why Solipsism is not True (prove that your mind does not generate the Universe), or explain Fate and “free will” to me?



Well you are dead wrong about that. But then again, all A-Theists are pseudo-Materialists by necessity. You have no idea what the real matter is.

You can write a computer program to mimic any aspect of consciousness which is understood. Obviously if you do not comprehend some aspect of your consciousness you are not going to be able to design a computer program to emmulate it. Apparently this is beyond the comprehension of people calling themselves A-Theists.



petitio principii

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I really don't buy this idea. It makes me think instead about how we let the dominant technological paradigm of the day shape our thinking. To reduce everything to a computer (or a cellular automata) is a bit like reducing everything down to a clockwork mechanism, or to a steam engine or to hydraulics or electricity. Sure it gives us insights but it's not exactly future-proof. For example, the realization that DNA is not really a computer program that executes instructions one at a time (as opposed to an asynchronous network of catalysts and inhibitors) is a indication of how this kind of thinking while helpful to begin with can actually hold us back.

Roger Penrose (in his books The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind) has spent a lot of time in recent years pointing out the fundamental limits of the computational model. His main interest is in debunking current work in artificial intelligence, which seeks to model the mind algorithmically and reduce it to a universal turing machine. His arguments apply equally to a turing model of the Universe too. Basically there's a lot that computers can't do, they need to break things up into discrete time steps, they can only work with integers of limited precision (that's what digital really means). He points out that there are well known problems that while easily solvable by a human can never be solved by any algorithm method (they are in effect uncomputable).

and one more thing, all of Franko's in order to be true must show that quantum particles are 1's and 0's which THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Franko]

Yeah, you A-Theists are probably right ... it's just all magic.


heehehe ... retards ...

[CapelDodger]

From Franko:Considering that modern physics uses computers to model everything ...

Models are used in many branches of physics, but not all. And the models are not generally regarded as being one-to-one representations of reality. The fundamental component of the Universe is the Shroedinger function, not the quantum particle. This function is not uncertain, but the outcome of its collapse (the state of a system of particles) is. This uncertainty implies that reality cannot be modelled by a digital process. The uncertainty extends into chemistry, in particular the chemistry of the brain. Thought processes are effectively analogue processes where interactions are define by continuous non-linear functions; they cannot be modelled on a digital computer. They could, of course, be modelled on an analogue construct, but for that construct to be capable of modelling a brain it would effectively be a brain itself, I'd have thought.

The Universe is just the collapsed state of a very complex Shroedinger function. (Well that's the Universe sorted out - the real mystery is baseball. What the hell is that all about?)

[Peskanov]

I see at least 2 different questions here:

1.- Emulation of fundamentals of the physics: emulating atoms, forces, etc...
2.- Emulation of complex systems: dinamic of fluids, neuronal processes...

If we can solve question 1 correctly enough, complex phenomena which derives from it is posible as well. However, the problems mentioned (finite numbers, discret times) could prove this aproach impossible.
But if we can't do 1, still most high order phenomena can still be emulated.
An example: a real computer is highly complex system. However we can emulate a computer using another computer. This is quite common, and the algorithm is very simple compared to the inner workings of the emulated system...and the input/output remains the same.
It's ironic, but maybe emulating a brain correctly could be far more feasible than emulating a few atoms...Emulation of neuronal nets is also quite common today.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah, you A-Theists are probably right ... it's just all magic.


heehehe ... retards ...


Well then again your dam*** theory leaves plenty of open ends.

example: Psychics are probably hackers of TLOP. :rolleyes:

which in turn leaves the open possibility of "magic" althought the psychic would not be able to perceive it. :rolleyes:

Can you not realize your theory is flawed. It leaves open ends for free will. Consciousness can not be emulated in any way shape or form. Your da**** Goddess is also forced to obey TLOP so in turn she is also a figure of predestination. :p

[Checkmite]

:D

[evildave]

Actually, a computer doesn't need to operate on "ones and zeroes".

For instance, ENIAC used counters and register elements with ten values.

For another instance, analog computers of various kinds, electronic, optical, fluidic, and mechanical, are in wide use, though many technically illiterate people don't recognize them as a "computer".

You can build a computer off of any sort of consistent logical model you like, just as you can count in any numeric base you like, or measure with any metric you like.

Binary digital computers as we know them now are only a widely accepted standard that's inexpensive to produce. If they could work out the necessary precision to mask, shield and mass produce reliable analog computers, many computational tasks would be faster and more accurate as a result. Instead of 'n' clocks to do a 3D transformation on a matrix using linear algebra, one could configure the relevent analog transformations and simply send the coordinates in as voltage levels and have a result almost instantly from the various interactions of current and filtering. The reason we don't us this is we can't reliably make such a device, since every little imperfection in the masking leads to permanent errors.

The digital model is more tolerant of imperfections in both design and manufacturing. Using TTL as an example, it doesn't matter whether it's 3.0 or 5.2 volts when the value is checked, it's different enough from ground to be seen as a '1', and that's all the next phase of processing needs. In a purely analog system, that little variance is worlds of error.

The binary method isn't "better" for all problems, it's only more reliable and much cheaper.

[Franko]

Chessreligiousfanatic:
Can you not realize your theory is flawed.

I guess you expect me to take your word for that A-Theist?

Why don’t you tell me about your omnipotent “free willy” god some more?

It leaves open ends for free will.

If you have evidence for your “free willy” god then present it A-Theist. Otherwise I will continue to maintain my belief that you are nothing more than a hypocritical moron.

I'm the real Atheists here, I lack-o-belief in your "free willy" deity.

Consciousness can not be emulated in any way shape or form.

Consciousness is just an illusion. You are nothing more than your physical brain, and your brain is merely a collection of atoms (chemicals) obeying the same laws that other chemicals obey. Or are you claiming that the chemicals in your brain are more magical than other atoms, and therefore do not obey the ordinary laws of physics?

Your da**** Goddess is also forced to obey TLOP so in turn she is also a figure of predestination.

Actually my Goddess creates three fourths of TLOP, so She is not quite as bound by it as You are. But feel free keep pretending this isn’t the case.

Seriously, you are cracking us both up my little Graviton.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Franko


I guess you expect me to take your word for that A-Theist?

Why don’t you tell me about your omnipotent “free willy” god some more?



If you have evidence for your “free willy” god then present it A-Theist. Otherwise I will continue to maintain my belief that you are nothing more than a hypocritical moron.

I'm the real Atheists here, I lack-o-belief in your "free willy" deity.



Consciousness is just an illusion. You are nothing more than your physical brain, and your brain is merely a collection of atoms (chemicals) obeying the same laws that other chemicals obey. Or are you claiming that the chemicals in your brain are more magical than other atoms, and therefore do not obey the ordinary laws of physics?



Actually my Goddess creates three fourths of TLOP, so She is not quite as bound by it as You are. But feel free keep pretending this isn’t the case.

Seriously, you are cracking us both up my little Graviton.




So what your Goddess has free willy powers.:p

What makes you so sure that there is a god or goddess in the first place?

How can your Goddess be subject to only 3/4ths of TLOP?

YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE NUTCASES THAT BELIEVES IN GRAVITRONS! ROFLMAO

[Franko]

So what your Goddess has free willy powers.

No She is also bound by Fate (Gravity).

What makes you so sure that there is a god or goddess in the first place?

Well since I don’t have “free will” and I am conscious, it isn’t hard to do the math.

There is a higher power that is controlling my actions. Since I am conscious, it is only logical to conclude that this force must be more conscious (more powerful) than I am, otherwise, I would control it.

Atoms obey TLOP.
I am made of atoms.
I OBEY TLOP.

TLOP (GOD) controls ME controls CAR.

How can your Goddess be subject to only 3/4ths of TLOP?

There are 4 fundamental forces in reality.

1) Gravity
2) Electro-magnetism
3) Weak Nuclear Force
4) Strong Nuclear Force

All consciousness is the result of #1 (including the Logical Goddess). Forces 2 thru 4 are a creation of the Goddess. She uses these 3 forces as an enhanced means of communicating with you. By necessity these 3 forces are also a means of control. Anyone who controls the information you receive is controlling YOU.

YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE NUTCASES THAT BELIEVES IN GRAVITRONS! ROFLMAO

So anyone that believes in the existence of Gravitons is a nutcase? I don’t suppose you ever heard of the Higg’s boson moron-boy? Lots of you’re a-Theists pals believe in Gravitons as well. They are just looking for them in the wrong place …

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
So anyone that believes in the existence of Gravitons is a nutcase? I don’t suppose you ever heard of the Higg’s boson moron-boy? Lots of you’re a-Theists pals believe in Gravitons as well. They are just looking for them in the wrong place …
As you point out, lots of physicists believe in gravitons. However, they refuse to state that gravitons exist because they have not been able to provide solid evidence for their exsistence. The same is true of the Higg's Boson. You, on the other hand, are not constrained by such things as evidence.

No, you are not a nutcake because you believe in gravitons. You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) that gravitons house souls. You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) that gravitons have charge and spin. You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) their charge is unaffected by electromagnetic fields. You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) gravitons are "made of time". You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) that gender is determined by the spin of a particle which has not been proven to exist.

Now, let me guess. You will ignore everything I have just said and launch into a discussion of free will, toasters, TLOP, solipsism, or one of the other familiar cut-and-paste diversions you have used so often. Perhaps you will engage in some uncreative invective. The one thing I can be sure you won't do is provide evidence for any of your wild assertions.

Well, do as you will. It's your choice.

[Franko]

As you point out, lots of physicists believe in gravitons. However, they refuse to state that gravitons exist because they have not been able to provide solid evidence for their existence.

Actually Stimpy would know better than myself, but I believe the standard model requires the existence of Gravitons.

If I am not mistaken the Standard model of physics posits a force carrying particle for all of the four forces. They have found these bosons for the other 3 forces, but the force carrying particle of Gravity has strangely remained aloof.

For example, the photon is the FCP for Electromagnetism, and the Gluon is the FCP of the Strong Nuclear force. The Graviton would theoretically serve the same purpose for the gravitational force – it would carry/transfer information/energy.

Exactly like the Graviton does in the LD cosmology …

You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) that gravitons house souls. You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) that gravitons have charge and spin. You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) their charge is unaffected by electromagnetic fields. You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) gravitons are "made of time". You are a nutcake because you believe (without evidence) that gender is determined by the spin of a particle which has not been proven to exist.

Ohhh you are all wrong and you know it Tricky. I may not have given you all of my evidence for these things, but rest assured they are well documented facts.

It’s a moot point though because I could care less if you believe me about Gravitons. The fact is I have demolished your argument for “free will”, and without “free will” your 30+ years of devotion to A-Theism was all just a huge waste.

Without “free will” then Fatalism is True, and if Fatalism is True then your claim that there is no evidence for “god” is patently and obviously insane.

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP!

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

When YOU go for a ride in your CAR, who is more in control? YOU or CAR? There is no possible way that TLOP can control YOU and be less conscious than YOU. Not unless you want to pretend that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN, but only a real NUTCASE would claim something like that!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
I may not have given you all of my evidence for these things, but rest assured they are well documented facts. Would you cite some of the documentation, please?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Ohhh you are all wrong and you know it Tricky. I may not have given you all of my evidence for these things, but rest assured they are well documented facts.
Not given all of it? You haven't given any of it.

But if you have it, as you say, why aren't you sharing it with the world? Certainly such knowledge could do so much good for so many. Why are you hoarding it to yourself? Even if you have no desire for personal wealth, you could show that Logical Deists care about others. That in itself would be a remarkable turnabout.

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Franko


Actually Stimpy would know better than myself, but I believe the standard model requires the existence of Gravitons.

If I am not mistaken the Standard model of physics posits a force carrying particle for all of the four forces. They have found these bosons for the other 3 forces, but the force carrying particle of Gravity has strangely remained aloof.

For example, the photon is the FCP for Electromagnetism, and the Gluon is the FCP of the Strong Nuclear force. The Graviton would theoretically serve the same purpose for the gravitational force – it would carry/transfer information/energy.

Exactly like the Graviton does in the LD cosmology …



Ohhh you are all wrong and you know it Tricky. I may not have given you all of my evidence for these things, but rest assured they are well documented facts.

It’s a moot point though because I could care less if you believe me about Gravitons. The fact is I have demolished your argument for “free will”, and without “free will” your 30+ years of devotion to A-Theism was all just a huge waste.

Without “free will” then Fatalism is True, and if Fatalism is True then your claim that there is no evidence for “god” is patently and obviously insane.

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP!

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

When YOU go for a ride in your CAR, who is more in control? YOU or CAR? There is no possible way that TLOP can control YOU and be less conscious than YOU. Not unless you want to pretend that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN, but only a real NUTCASE would claim something like that!


How can you be so certain that TLOP is God? If so you realize that TLOP are not always constant which makes it even more unlikely that the Universe is a Computer.

Another porblem is that the universe would have to be completely constructed out of Qbits which there is no evidence that it is.:p

[The Fool]

Hang in there Franko darling. Jedi is making noises that he wants to come back to R&P and support you....His vast knowledge of gravity should be a handy resource for you to draw apon. Only problem for you is the first law of trolling says that trolls must never disagree with each other. Good luck and remember, Jedi believes marbles are exempt from gravity, better write that one in your secret book eh???........LOL

actually, It should spark things up, as a solo act you are getting pretty boring. "Frank and the knight" what a team....hahahaha...

[Franko]

How can you be so certain that TLOP is God?

Honestly? In the same way that I know I must be more conscious then the computer program I write.

If so you realize that TLOP are not always constant which makes it even more unlikely that the Universe is a Computer.

Whatever is the Source of TLOP (TLOPIS), is the limiting factor on your level of consciousness. You cannot be any more conscious than this “entity”, because if you were more conscious than it, YOU would control it, instead of IT controlling you. In other words, you can claim that TLOPIS is non-conscious, but all that means is by the same definition you are now less non-conscious. If you find that language meaningful, then there is no God. Of course in that case you would technically not be conscious yourself, so I guess that means you aren’t really even thinking about it?

Another porblem is that the universe would have to be completely constructed out of Qbits which there is no evidence that it is.

You mean, kind of like there is no evidence of the existence of a “Universe” prior to the Big Bang?

[evildave]

Atoms are invisible.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are invisible!

Atoms are composed of a nucleus orbited by one or more electrons.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are composed of a nucleus orbited by one or more electrons!

Atoms weigh very little.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU weigh very little!

Atoms can be excited into different quantum states by a single photon.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU can be excited into different quantum states by a single photon!

Atoms bounce around when they are heated.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU bounce around when you are heated!

Atoms are tiny.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are tiny!

Atoms are mindless.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are mindless!

[Franko]

Atoms are invisible.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are invisible!

Atoms are NOT invisible. Your major premise is flawed (Incorrect)

Atoms are composed of a nucleus orbited by one or more electrons.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are composed of a nucleus orbited by one or more electrons!

You minor premise implies addition (atoms – plural). But it doesn’t surprise me you forgot 1 + 1 > 1.

Atoms weigh very little.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU weigh very little!

You minor premise implies addition (atoms – plural). But it doesn’t surprise me you forgot 1 + 1 > 1.

Atoms can be excited into different quantum states by a single photon.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU can be excited into different quantum states by a single photon!

You minor premise implies addition (atoms – plural). But it doesn’t surprise me you forgot 1 + 1 > 1.

Atoms bounce around when they are heated.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU bounce around when you are heated!

This one is actually somewhat valid.

Atoms are tiny.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are tiny![/.quote]

You minor premise implies addition (atoms – plural). But it doesn’t surprise me you forgot 1 + 1 > 1.

[quote]Atoms are mindless.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU are mindless!

Yatzi would agree … and depending on your precise definition of “mindless” I might too.

Atoms are a function of TLOP: FnATOMS[TLOP]
You a function of Atoms: FnYOU[FnATOMS]
You are a function of atoms which are a function of TLOP: FnYOU[FnATOMS[FnTLOP]]

[chessmanskeptic]

Originally posted by Franko


Honestly? In the same way that I know I must be more conscious then the computer program I write.



Whatever is the Source of TLOP (TLOPIS), is the limiting factor on your level of consciousness. You cannot be any more conscious than this “entity”, because if you were more conscious than it, YOU would control it, instead of IT controlling you. In other words, you can claim that TLOPIS is non-conscious, but all that means is by the same definition you are now less non-conscious. If you find that language meaningful, then there is no God. Of course in that case you would technically not be conscious yourself, so I guess that means you aren’t really even thinking about it?



You mean, kind of like there is no evidence of the existence of a “Universe” prior to the Big Bang?


Fact: The universe was a singularity at the Big Bang.

Fact: Gravitons are becoming less and less likely, because of the development of M-Theory and String theory.

Fact: TLOP only control the motions of atoms.


How the fu***** hell can an atom control an entire mind?






From your standpoint you sound like one of those fu**ing new age sh** believers in the "Universal Conscience"!

[Franko]

Chessman:
Fact: The universe was a singularity at the Big Bang.

Fact? Really? I had no idea anyone was around to observe it?

Hey, but if you can convince yourself that there is definitely NO GOD, then I guess you are gullible enough to believe anything.

[ b]Chessman:[/b]
Fact: Gravitons are becoming less and less likely, because of the development of M-Theory and String theory.

Ohhh, yeah! You mean the same String theory with the 6 extra “invisible” dimensions? Why is believing in invisible dimensions more logical than believing in VERY visible Lady Fate?

Fact: TLOP only control the motions of atoms.

Well unless you are claiming to possess a “Soul” or some other non-atom components (non-TLOP controlled components) then I would say all of the evidence indicates that YOU don’t control your words and actions, your words and actions are controlled by a set of rules called “The Laws of Physics”. Unless you are claiming to be the source of those rules, then I’d say that the evidence indicates the Rules control You, and You are just an “Observer”.

How the fu***** hell can an atom control an entire mind?

It’s not an individual atom controlling a mind, it is a “force” … The Laws of Physics.

From the Omniverse you are nothing more then a pattern of information in a Sea of Energy (your consciousness). You are like a computer program -- an algorithm. The core of your program is “written” in a code (“computer language”) that you’d call Gravity (or possibly Thermodynamics from your POV). You experience the sensation of your algorithm being “run”, that is what you feel as “being alive”, or “experiencing free will”, but you are not controlling the things that are happening to you. Everything which is happening is happening algorithmically according to the program and the language it was written in.

From your standpoint you sound like one of those fu**ing new age sh** believers in the "Universal Conscience"!

If either of us is the mystical New Ager, then surely it is You. You are the one who believes that the Universe magically appeared out of no where, and you are the one who believes that humans are endowed with unexplainable magic "free will" powers.

I believe that Consciousness makes Matter.

You believe that Matter makes Consciousness. Which is logically analogous to claiming that Only You exist, and the Universe is a figment of your imagination generated by an algorithm in your subconscious mind. (although you probably don’t perceive that yet).

[chessmanskeptic]

It’s not an individual atom controlling a mind, it is a “force” … The Laws of Physics.

From the Omniverse you are nothing more then a pattern of information in a Sea of Energy (your consciousness). You are like a computer program -- an algorithm. The core of your program is “written” in a code (“computer language”) that you’d call Gravity (or possibly Thermodynamics from your POV). You experience the sensation of your algorithm being “run”, that is what you feel as “being alive”, or “experiencing free will”, but you are not controlling the things that are happening to you. Everything which is happening is happening algorithmically according to the program and the language it was written in.



Well shouldn't that program be made of Qbits. ;) It is the only quantum computing language.

A mind is not an algorithm.:p If it was then why are all of my descisions not impulse.

Mind you that the deffinition of freewill is action without impulse!:p


hmmm the reason that M-Theory is more logical is THAT IT HAS THE MATH TO BACK IT UP which debunks your lady fate! :)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Peskanov
I see at least 2 different questions here:

1.- Emulation of fundamentals of the physics: emulating atoms, forces, etc...
2.- Emulation of complex systems: dinamic of fluids, neuronal processes...

If we can solve question 1 correctly enough, complex phenomena which derives from it is posible as well. However, the problems mentioned (finite numbers, discret times) could prove this aproach impossible.
But if we can't do 1, still most high order phenomena can still be emulated.
An example: a real computer is highly complex system. However we can emulate a computer using another computer. This is quite common, and the algorithm is very simple compared to the inner workings of the emulated system...and the input/output remains the same.
It's ironic, but maybe emulating a brain correctly could be far more feasible than emulating a few atoms...Emulation of neuronal nets is also quite common today.

So if we emulate a computer that uses two comupers, which use two computers each, which use two computers each (etc)... could we end up with a complex emulated system?

[Franko]

Well shouldn't that program be made of Qbits. It is the only quantum computing language.

Semantics perhaps?

From a single binary system many different “languages” can be created.

A mind is not an algorithm.

Assertion <> Proof or Evidence Logical, ”Empirical” or Otherwise.

If it was then why are all of my descisions not impulse.

Actually, your body is already in motion well before your “consciousness” perceives it in many instances.

Mind you that the deffinition of freewill is action without impulse!

Do chemicals in a beaker in a lab somewhere have “free will”? Do such chemicals (atoms) act (move) without impulse? The way I see it, every action has a reaction, and ALL of those actions and reactions are governed by the set of rules know to us as “The Laws of Physics”. Unless you are claiming to be the source of the rules, then the Rules control you, and you don’t seem to control anything. You just “observe” (perceive).


hmmm the reason that M-Theory is more logical is THAT IT HAS THE MATH TO BACK IT UP which debunks your lady fate!

M-Theory proves that you have magic powers? My, my, my, I bet Randi will have trouble sleeping tonight … :rolleyes:

-----------------------------------

So if we emulate a computer that uses two comupers, which use two computers each, which use two computers each (etc)... could we end up with a complex emulated system?

Careful A-Theist, that kind of talk borders on blasphemy for your breed.

[evildave]

Your premise assumes complete knowledge of all physical phenomena, and all knowledge of physical phenomena on a micro scale are totally applicable to phenomena measured on a macro scale.

The little things don't necessarily scale up to the big things reliably.

Diamonds are made of carbon.
Coal is made of carbon.
Coal can cut glass.

You can build a bridge out of popsicle sticks strong enough for a man to stand on. Therefore a MUCH BIGGER bridge made of popscicle sticks, made in the same way could span the bay next to the golden gate bridge, and be safely opened to regular traffic.

[Franko]

evildave:
Your premise assumes complete knowledge of all physical phenomena, and all knowledge of physical phenomena on a micro scale are totally applicable to phenomena measured on a macro scale.

No.

You are confusing Determinism with Omniscience. I don’t have to demonstrate Omniscience to prove Determinism.

The little things don't necessarily scale up to the big things reliably.

I agree.

Diamonds are made of carbon.
Coal is made of carbon.
Coal can cut glass.

Okay, so ”cut” is the operative word here, and cutting depends on lots of things like the atomic bonds, the hardness, elasticity, strength, etc. Since there is incomplete information regarding these required parameters you have incomplete information regarding the validity of this syllogism.

So here’s mine:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of atoms.
You obey TLOP.

Now in my syllogism, ”obey” is the operative word, and in order for one thing to “Obey” another thing the “thing obeying” has to be moved by the “thing controlling”, and that is the ONLY criteria for “obey”. Since all atoms obey TLOP, and since you are nothing other than atoms, obviously You obey TLOP as well. The only way this could possibly be untrue is if atoms didn’t obey TLOP, or if YOU are made of something other than just atoms.

You can build a bridge out of popsicle sticks strong enough for a man to stand on. Therefore a MUCH BIGGER bridge made of popscicle sticks, made in the same way could span the bay next to the golden gate bridge, and be safely opened to regular traffic.

Hey if you had unlimited resources I bet you could do it.

[Peskanov]

c4ts,

---
quote:
So if we emulate a computer that uses two comupers, which use two computers each, which use two computers each (etc)... could we end up with a complex emulated system?
---

Yes, and this kind of systems have been done. I remenber at least one contest; the winner did about 5 layouts of emulation: something like: linux emulating windows emulating amiga emulating mac emulating nes...
Also, the makers of "wine" like to put their emulator to test recursively, and also in parallel. I just don't know which limit they got in number of emulations, so.

[evildave]

Well, if "obey" is the operative word, and we're playing word games, then you believe atoms are conscious and capable of making decisions on their own, yet "obey" some set of laws because they choose to.

[Franko]

evildave: (A-Theist)
Well, if "obey" is the operative word, and we're playing word games, then you believe atoms are conscious and capable of making decisions on their own, yet "obey" some set of laws because they choose to.

No, not at all. Since they “Obey” they don’t need to make any “conscious decisions”. They are simply doing what they are told – they have no “free will”. Atoms (like Yourself) are simply controlled by a more powerful force. They are nothing but automatons.

[evildave]

The difference between a "god" and a human is only a matter of scale. To me, humans are a lot more real than gods are. For you, gods are a lot more powerful than humans are.

If gods are super-duper, it's only that much more indirection built on top of what you perceive to be an inflexible rule-set. If the massive amount of indirection that makes consciousness possible does not grant it the ability to make choices, then why presume that building up greater complexity and granting it "power" would make choices possible for even a god(dess)?

I don't see the rule-set as being inflexible. For example, intertia "says" objects will stay ar rest, or stay in motion, unless acted upon by an external force. But there are always other forces, therefore I can move where I wish. Every machine is a balance of forces. I can't directly move a large rock, but I can operate a lever to move it, or build a rig to move it, or rent heavy equipment to move it. There's no reason to conclude a rock is unmovable, only because it seems at first glance to be too big to move. You only need to find the right way to move it, and it will move.

[Franko]

evildave:
The difference between a "god" and a human is only a matter of scale. To me, humans are a lot more real than gods are. For you, gods are a lot more powerful than humans are.

“humans” are real, and so is God, but yes, I would agree that God is “more powerful” than humans. But would She really be “God” if She weren’t?

If gods are super-duper, it's only that much more indirection built on top of what you perceive to be an inflexible rule-set.

evildave … let’s be honest here. How “flexible” is your mind regarding the whole “Round, Moving Earth Thing”? … how’s your flexibility on the notion that 2 + 2 = 4?
Why do you think the Universe is comprehensible to us at all edb? You remember what Einstein said? … The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe was that it was all so comprehensible.

If the massive amount of indirection that makes consciousness possible does not grant it the ability to make choices, then why presume that building up greater complexity and granting it "power" would make choices possible for even a god(dess)?

“choices” still exist in Logical Deism, and as a Fatalist, I still use that term pretty much the same way that you would. The main difference, is in the perception of what that term means. I won’t make assumptions about how you believe it works, but in my mind, the term “choice” is simply the resultant output from my algorithm. You run a program, you give it an input, some code is executed in sequence, and an output is generated. The output is the “choice”. But in my reality, Choice is entirely deterministic, fundamentally no different than the computer code I am sure you are very familiar with.

I don't see the rule-set as being inflexible. For example, intertia "says" objects will stay ar rest, or stay in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.

I’m am running low on T i m e presently, but 1) the rule set is not inflexible in the sense that it is constantly evolving and expanding. It’s growing and becoming ever more complex and elaborate (better). and 2) because of the very nature of Time and Consciousness, reality was Destined to become uneven, and fractal-like over time. Neither Time nor consciousness can exist without a discernable pattern of some form or another (a Sequence), and a pattern requires at least 2 fundamentally opposite components.

But there are always other forces, therefore I can move where I wish. Every machine is a balance of forces. I can't directly move a large rock, but I can operate a lever to move it, or build a rig to move it, or rent heavy equipment to move it. There's no reason to conclude a rock is unmovable, only because it seems at first glance to be too big to move. You only need to find the right way to move it, and it will move.

Exactly. Technically speaking, if you can conceive of it logically in your mind, nothing is “impossible”.

Or put another way … Given enough Time and Resources (i.e. Energy/Consciousness) “Science” (i.e. Logic) solves ALL problems and answers ALL questions.


BTW: your tag … I am my idiosyncrasies. that’s actually very True, although the Elephant will tell you EXACTLY the opposite.

[evildave]

I am actually very flexible about what 2+2 is equal to. It could be 10 or 11, if you use some of the smaller radixes. It could be that '2' has some other significance, such as an index into a table of floating point values, such that dereferencing f[2]2+f[2] is anything.

The Earth is not perfectly round, and it is only moving relative to other things. It could be argued that being in orbit around something is essentially the same thing as not moving relative to it. It's probably not accelerating and decelerating under its own power. Perhaps all of space is moving relative to the Earth.

Now we get to programs and inputs again. What makes you think a human brain is just like a turing machine? It's like trying to claim the international telephone system is just a pair of cans and a piece of string.

[Franko]

Now we get to programs and inputs again. What makes you think a human brain is just like a turing machine? It's like trying to claim the international telephone system is just a pair of cans and a piece of string.

Ohh, you're right poogamer, it's probably all just magic.

[evildave]

And now you get all cranky and upset, and start petulantly name-calling, again.

It's just that you're drawing very broad conclusions (i.e. "No Free Will") from the most minimalistic information. (I.e. 'atoms'.)

Like waking up in the morning, seeing red light out the window and concluding "God has brought divine judgement down on the world and is blighting the sun! We are all about to be sucked into a black hole! Angels and demons are fighting in the steets! We must stay under the covers and never peek out again!" It may only be that a red car is reflecting light into your window instead, but you want to draw broad conslusions about all the universe from this, so you do.

Two cans and a piece of string transmit sound.
The international telephone system transmits sound.
The international telephone system is two cans and a piece of string.

I can transmit data with a mirror by reflecting sunlight.
The internet transmits data.
The internet is only some guy with a mirror.

[roger]

Originally posted by evildave
It could be argued that being in orbit around something is essentially the same thing as not moving relative to it. It's probably not accelerating and decelerating under its own power. Perhaps all of space is moving relative to the Earth.
Well, velocity is relative, but acceleration (such as you undergo in an elliptical orbit) is not relative. Thus, you can determine if A is orbiting B or B is moving around A.

sorry, didn't mean to intrude in your discussion with Franko.

[LucyR]

To be more precise: A and B revolve around a common center of gravity.

Consider the symmetry of the situation of two point objects of equal mass.