Franko's "Universe as a Computer Program" Debunked

[Checkmite]

Brace yourselves…this is a LONG post. :D

We’ve all heard Franko, again and again, liken the universe as he understands it to a computer program, with the “Logical Goddess” as the writer. He contends that as programmer, the Logical Goddess determines absolutely everything that will happen in the universe (her program). Ad yet, he still insists that we are all responsible for our own actions, even if the Logical Goddess decided that we will take those actions.

I agree that a “computer program” would be an excellent analogy to describe how God (or Goddess, whatever) created the universe…however, I am under the impression that the computer program analogy is inconsistent with Franko’s ideas of predetermination and consequences. I can list my reasons, of course, but Franko will just bring out his ridiculous “your logic is flawed” cheap shots, which everyone but him seems to know are complete bunk.

Rather than waste my time thusly, I have decided to make my point by actually writing some computer programs based on Franko’s models of the universe. The goal of my programs is to prove that a universe cannot be "predetermined" and yet still allow "consequences for our actions". Franko cannot seriously call the logic as presented in these programs “flawed”, because if you write a computer program with flawed logic, the program will not work – it’s as simple as that. This will force him to either admit he was wrong about some particular point, or simply ignore me; if he chooses the latter, of course, he will never have any room to accuse anyone in this forum of “dishonesty”.

My programs will be written in C++ code. I am not a complete expert at C++, but it doesn’t matter…the programs needed to make my point are relatively simple. You, the readers, on the other hand, need know absolutely nothing about C++…I won’t get into confusing terms, or try to “teach” you C++, I will simply comment on how exactly this or that piece of code relates to the argument. I will make it simple as possible, so anyone can follow along – including YOU right there.

Naturally, all the programs I use here are public domain, and anyone can use them/alter them for their own purposes – I don’t even care about being given credit, because the programs are so simple that anyone an write them. Now then:

In these exercises, I will play the “Logical God”, since I’m not into cross-dressing. I will use C++ to “create” my own simple universes, each with features designed to prove my points. These programs will have been tested on my computer already, so they will work on your compiler if you cut and paste the code exactly as is into your IDE. If you don’t have a compiler, you can get a free one here (http://www.borland.com/bcppbuilder/freecompiler/). If you are unwilling to download a compiler, then you'll have to take my word for it, or ask someone who does have a compiler if the programs work.

The very first Universe I will create will be one in which every action is predetermined by God – me :).



/* all my comments will be written between the slash/star marks, but I’ve made them bold also, so they will be easier to read for you guys. in case you are wondering, you don’t have to erase the comments when you cut-and-paste the code, because the compiler ignores them…that’s right, it blips right over them as if they weren’t even there */

/* The Universe v.1.0.1 – by Joshua Korosi */

#include <iostream>

/* this function links the class “iostream” to my program. I won’t confuse you by explaining classes, suffice it to say that by putting “iostream” into my program, I have established a “law of physics” that says “once the universe begins, all observable events in the universe will be printed on your screen” */

int main()

/* this is the “big bang”, the beginning of the universe. it will not be printed to the screen when we run our program, because it is unobservable. how can something inside the universe observe the beginning of the universe? */

{
std::cout << “Jeffrey is born!\n”;

/* this is the first event in our universe. the “std::cout” means that what follows is an observable event, so it will be printed to the screen consistent with the current law of physics */

std::cout << “Tonya is born!\n”;
std::cout << “Jeffrey robs a bank.\n”;
std::cout << “Tonya donates blood.\n”;

/* so far, so good…we’ve got a few events happening in chronological order. */

std::cout << “Jeffrey is sent to the Abyss!\n”;
std::cout << “Tonya advances to a Higher Existence!\n”;

/* two more normal events that may seem to be related to the previous events. */

cin.get();

/* since a billion years in the universe is only a second in heaven (or something like that), if we ran the universe without this little bit of code, it would finish and close before you could even see it! so, we put this in. all “cin.get();” does is “pause” the universe so that you can see what has happened so far. to restart the universe once it is paused this way, press any key */

return 0;
}

/* that’s it! the universe has ended, because all good things must come to an end */



Now, compile and run.

The last two events – Jeffrey going to the Abyss and Tonya advancing - would seem, to an outsider, to be related to the events that happened before them; that is, Jeffrey being bad and Tonya being good. But are they? When we are able to examine the code behind the universe, we find that Jeffrey’s and Tonya’s afterlives weren’t dependent on anything. The only reason Jeff and Tonya ended up where they did is because I, as God, predetermined where they would end up. If you changed std::cout << “Jeffrey robs a bank.\n” to std::cout << “Jeffrey donates blood\n”, it doesn’t change the fact that Jeffrey goes to the Abyss, because everything is predetermined, and I have still predetermined that Jeff is ultimately doomed.

What does any of this mean? All it means is that the last two events – Jeff and Tonya ending up where they do – can not be called “consequences” of their actions. Their actions were predetermined by me, as were their fates. When everything is predetermined, there are no “consequences” for anything; there can only be simply loosely related but independent chronological events – as my functional program clearly demonstrates!

Now, let’s introduce another conscious entity besides myself into the universe. You see, since I predetermined absolutely everything they did, we can’t really call Jeffrey and Tonya “conscious”…so far as we can tell, they’re not any different than dust that I sweep up. The only way to determine whether something is conscious or not is to observe it acting independent of my manipulation – that is, that they have the ability to do something without my making them do it. We’ll call our conscious entity “Jeffrey”.



/* The Universe v. 1.0.2 – by Joshua Korosi */

/* we’ll begin this universe the same as the other one, by making a law of physics that says “all observable events will be printed to your screen” */

#include <iostream>

int main()
{

/* this all looks familiar so far */

int answer;

/* what’s this? what I’ve done is establish another law of physics that allows our conscious entity to commit an action (the action is called “answer”) that has an effect on the universe, and can have real consequences */

std::cout << “Jeffrey is born!\n”;
std::cout << “Jeffrey must decide whether or not he believes in Joshua. Does he?\n”;
std::cout << “Type 1 if Jeffrey believes in Joshua; type anything else if he doesn’t.\n”;

/* in this event, Jeffrey must decide (as the event states) whether he believes in God (me). As God, I have decided that Jeffrey’s afterlife will be decided by how he answers this question */

std:cin >> answer;

/* the universe waits in awe while Jeffrey ponders my existence. now he has the opportunity to take an action – answer the question. */

if (answer = 1)
{
std::cout << “Jeffrey advances to a Higher Existence!\n”;
}
else
std::cout << “Jeffrey is sent to the Abyss!\n”;

/* hey, stop looking so confused! let me explain before you give up. what I’ve done is give Jeffrey an option. he can answer the question any way he wants. however, the only way Jeffrey can get to the Higher Existence is by giving “yes” as the answer to the question. Any other answer will see him sent to the Abyss for his heresy. */

cin.get();
return 0;
}

/* the universe ends, as normal. */



When you compile this program and run it, you will be asked a question – does Jeffrey believe in God? Since Jeffrey is supposed to be a conscious entity separate from me, I can’t decide for him. And since artificial intelligence isn’t around yet, I need YOU to play Jeffrey and answer the question – since you, as a conscious entity separate from myself, are qualified. If you answer that Jeffrey does believe in me (by typing 1 and pressing “enter”), Jeffrey gets to enjoy the bliss of heaven. Anything else typed in will doom Jeffrey to the flames of the Abyss.

Now, I may have declared what will happen if Jeffrey answers one way or the other, but have I really predetermined anything? Of course not…although I’ve determined such-and-such a consequence for such-and-such an action, I have absolutely no way of knowing which one Jeffrey (you) will pick!

I could go on, giving Jeffrey lots of choices to make, each with certain consequences, leading to different choices – and leading in turn to still more consequences. I can create a giant tree of millions of possible actions, reactions, and consequences. But although I’ve defined all the possibilities, I haven’t preordained anything- because I cannot predict how Jeffrey will choose. He may choose something that gets him killed after only one or two decisions…in which case, all the rest of my defined possibilities become pointless.

If I try to make my universe like Franko’s, and decide whether or not Jeffrey believes in me even after I define all the consequences, then I’ve accomplished the same thing as my first universe did – only I will have wasted time creating a list of options and possibilities that will never be used. A “Logical God” would never commit such an illogical act.

Thus, we have two possibilities:

Possibility 1: Our universe is like v. 1.0.1, and everything is predetermined. In that case, there can be no “consequences” for individuals’ “actions”, because there are no individual actions – only a chronological sequence of independent events.

Possibility 2: Our universe is like v. 1.0.2, and although all the consequences are definable, nothing is predetermined because we have no way of knowing which particular option a conscious entity will choose.

Now, Franko has some options. He can do the following:

Option A: Admit that he was wrong, and the universe does not resemble a computer program (and the “Logical Goddess” is not so logical after all); or

Option B: Admit that he was wrong, and that since the universe is predetermined, there cannot logically be “consequences for our actions”, as unequivocally demonstrated by the computer program; or

Option C: Admit the he was wrong, and that since there are consequences for our actions, and although all the consequences can be defined, the universe is not “predetermined” by definition; or

Option D: Declare that my computer programs mean nothing, even though he made the “universe is like a computer program” analogy himself – in which case, he cannot call anyone else “dishonest”; or

Option E: Ignore my post altogether – in which case, again, he has no room to call anyone else “dishonest”.

Which will it be?

Note: For some reason, it won't post...but after the #include function in the two programs, the word "iostream" should appear between a < and >. You'll have to insert these yourself, should you wish to cut-and-paste the code.

[MRC_Hans]

Interesting. I have made another "World simulator"; a version of ye olde Life program, but with probabilistic genetic developement in it. In this program (slightly more complex than Josh's), you can see how various "creatures" prosper, become extinct, and are supplanted by other creatures. You can edit the colony, but even after extensive editing, the little world runs its partly predetermined course, only the destinies of individual creatures is changed. The program is rather primitive, but then it was written in 1989. You can find it on my homepage www.hans-egebo.dk , in the "Software" section.

Cheers, Hans

[iain]

Joshua,

Nice work. I have a question for you.

In your second program, Jeffrey's fate relies on user input. If your program is a model universe, that is input from outside the universe.

Is it possible to have a genuinly non-deterministic program (i.e. where Jeffrey has free will) with no external input at all? It seems to me that for your example to work, this is necessary at least in principle.

I also think you're being very nasty to poor Jeffrey and I for one am not going to worship you :D

[Checkmite]

I suppose the only way I could get Jeffrey's decision to be non-deterministic yet still not require outside input would be to have the computer randomly select 1 or 2 as "answer" everytime the program is run. This is completely possible, and it accomplishes the desired effect.

Notice that if I created my aforementioned "tree of possibilities", and had all the decisions/actions set to occur at random, you would get a different universe and unique chain of events everytime you ran the program. So when Franko asks, "if the universe were created again with the exact same initial conditions, would everything be different, or would we all still here here," we can answer, "everything might well be different!" because running the exact same program over and over would produce a different result each time.

In that case, the program would prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that randomly selected choices are not due to "magic" or "supernatural" influence, and are entirely possible in a perfect logic-based system like a computer program.

[iain]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I suppose the only way I could get Jeffrey's decision to be non-deterministic yet still not require outside input would be to have the computer randomly select 1 or 2 as "answer" everytime the program is run. This is completely possible, and it accomplishes the desired effect.
I'm not convinced.

There's no way that I know of to get a computer to generate a truly random number. All computers either use a deterministic algorithm to generate pseudo-random numbers (and if you know the algorithm, you know which number is coming next) or use an external source for randomness (e.g. key-strokes from the user). The first isn't random at all and in the second case we are back to needing external input.

[CWL]

Originally posted by iain
Joshua,

Nice work. I have a question for you.

In your second program, Jeffrey's fate relies on user input. If your program is a model universe, that is input from outside the universe.

Is it possible to have a genuinly non-deterministic program (i.e. where Jeffrey has free will) with no external input at all? It seems to me that for your example to work, this is necessary at least in principle.

I also think you're being very nasty to poor Jeffrey and I for one am not going to worship you :D

Intrestingly enough, Franko's cosmology appears to rely on the principle of external input (at least at a so called "decision junction"). He claims that the Universe is nothing but a big game of Dungeons & Dragons in which the consciousnesses (the "Gravitons") participate.

Hence I think Joshua's request that we "play the role of Jeffrey" is rather adequate. I would like to add that more choices could be available to Jeffrey and that such choices need not to be at the very end of the Universe. The consequences could also be "here and now" - i.e. the Universe could be constructed without "ultimate consequences" (which a poor misguided secular humanist such as myself has been trying to point out a few times).

[thaiboxerken]

You take the blue pill, you go home... You take the red pill and.........

[iain]

Originally posted by CWL


Intrestingly enough, Franko's cosmology appears to rely on the principle of external input (at least at a so called "decision junction"). He claims that the Universe is nothing but a big game of Dungeons & Dragons in which the consciousnesses (the "Gravitons") participate. I'm afraid I gave up trying to understand Franko's cosmology some time ago. If this is the case, I of course defer to those who know better. ;)

However, that means that Joshua's program might disprove Franko's assertions but would not in any way be evidence against those (maybe more rational) folk who claim that the universe is deterministic without external influences.

[MRC_Hans]

About random generators: It is possible to design a true random generator (usually a device that taps a semicinductor noise generator) and hook it up to a computer.

A Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) is basically deterministic, but it wont make any difference in a case like this, because once the number has been generated, there is no way to determine wether it came from a PRNG or was truly random.

Hans

[BobM]

My understanding of Franko's beliefs has the Logical Goddess as the creator of 'this' universe, but not as the creator of us. We're 'gravitons' from elsewhere that she pulled into this universe.

She determines Right and Wrong. Good and Evil. But it is our initial state upon entry into her universe that determines which way we go.

So in a way, we are responsible for our own destiny... in another way we aren't.

Whatever.

[Franko]

I must be hitting pretty close to the mark to be getting Uncle Tom all riled up like this.

Geez, two sacrificial threads today -- and one even started by a never-before-seen sockpuppet.

Yeah ... that's "free will" in action ... :rolleyes:

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
I must be hitting pretty close to the mark to be getting Uncle Tom all riled up like this.

Geez, two sacrificial threads today -- and one even started by a never-before-seen sockpuppet.

Yeah ... that's "free will" in action ... :rolleyes:

Poor Franko. Can't even begin to think of a rebuttal?

As you all can plainly see, it is evident that Franko refuses to even consider this evidence against his theories. It is obvious he doesn't care about debating "religion & philosophy". In any case, as I mentioned, he can't call anyone "dishonest" anymore. While he could argue with a typical debate by saying our logic is "wrong" (invoking "4-sided triangles", etc), he can't argue with the perfect logic of a functional computer program.

Nonetheless...

As far as the "outside influence" goes, I think CWL explained pretty well how my programs would be valid models (i.e., external "gravitons" and such). However, does the fact that another user has to input the data really represent "outside influence"? It seems to me that it doesn't. Since the user (you) can only "answer the question" within my Universe program, and can't do anything else, the user in fact becomes nothing but another function - my "random number generator". Since the user can't answer the question until my universe begins and the events preceding his decision take place, what does it mean to say he's an outside influence? He is symbolically just an integer definition.

[BobM]

While he could argue with a typical debate by saying our logic is "wrong" (invoking "4-sided triangles", etc), he can't argue with the perfect logic of a functional computer program.

Are you sure he even read it? Franko is a busy man, you know. He has lots of threads to monitor these days.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by BobM


Are you sure he even read it? Franko is a busy man, you know. He has lots of threads to monitor these days.

:D

Sou

[Franko]

Hey TLOP said She was making it the "Unofficial Franko-Day" in the R&P forum in honor of me being proclaimed "Philosopher" by the wizard Randi himself.

... and to think it wasn't that long ago that Randi considered me a "Postard". I feel so ... redeemed.

[Franko]

So Joshy,

Let me get this straight, without knowing jack squat about Logical Deism you are claiming to have somehow figured out what Logical Deism is all about and then written an algorithm that proves Logical Deism is False?

Did you build yourself a really cool secret agent fort out of the sofa cushions while you were at it?

For someone who pretends to be a Deist Joshua you certainly seem to be obsessed with disproving the existence of God. Is that the Tricky-(A-Theist)-Dictionary definition of Deism you are using?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
So Joshy,

Let me get this straight, without knowing jack squat about Logical Deism you are claiming to have somehow figured out what Logical Deism is all about and then written an algorithm that proves Logical Deism is False?

Did you build yourself a really cool secret agent fort out of the sofa cushions while you were at it?

For someone who pretends to be a Deist Joshua you certainly seem to be obsessed with disproving the existence of God. Is that the Tricky-(A-Theist)-Dictionary definition of Deism you are using?

I'm not disproving the existence of God, nor am I trying to. In fact, the computer program analogy is a quite excellent one, insofar as "how God manipulates the universe".

What I am trying to prove - and have done a good job of it, apparently - is that you can't have a universe that completely deterministic, and yet still insist that our actions have "consequences".

I don't know very much about Logical Deism at all, Franko, with the exception that it doesn't match any dictionary or encyclopedic definition of Deism. In fact, I challenge you to find 3 sites on the internet which promote YOUR idea of Deism, rather than mine.

But that is neither here nor there. All that matters here is that YOU said "everything is predetermined, but there are still consequences for our actions", and my computer programs demonstrate that you can have it only one way or the other - but can't have it both ways at once. How this disproves "God" is beyond me - unless you consider yourself "God". What is troubling, dear Franko, is that a measly figment of your imagination such as myself has managed to beat one of your most precious arguments into the ground with a single post and two very simple - even amateurish - computer programs. :D :D :D

So you can sit there and pout about it, or you can dust yourself off and move on. Your move, tiger.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko
Hey TLOP said She was making it the "Unofficial Franko-Day" in the R&P forum in honor of me being proclaimed "Philosopher" by the wizard Randi himself.

... and to think it wasn't that long ago that Randi considered me a "Postard". I feel so ... redeemed.
Sorry Frank, before you strain a ligament trying to pat yourself on the back. 5,000 posts is the result of Argumentum ad nauseum and not any reflection on the content of your posts. If Duplications were removed you would be hovering somewhere around the 45 to 50 post mark. Get a new comedy writer, your material is stale.

[Franko]

Alright Joshua,

What I am trying to prove - and have done a good job of it, apparently - is that you can't have a universe that completely deterministic, and yet still insist that our actions have "consequences".

Obviously you have never read Skinner and obviously you know absolutely NOTHING about determinism. Determinism is ALL ABOUT rewards and punishment. It is the magical system that you insist must exist (despite having no evidence for this belief) which would lead to a reality with no rewards and punishments (no consequences) for actions.

I don't know very much about Logical Deism at all, Franko, with the exception that it doesn't match any dictionary or encyclopedic definition of Deism. In fact, I challenge you to find 3 sites on the internet which promote YOUR idea of Deism, rather than mine.

Joshua what does the definition of “Deism” have to do with the existence of “god”, “Fate”, “free will”, “soul”, etc. You want to make something out of a non-issue it smacks of diversion. I think you understand perfectly well what I mean when I say “Deism” and I have already demonstrated more than once, point by point that the definition I use is consistent with Most people’s usage of the term.

But that is neither here nor there. All that matters here is that YOU said "everything is predetermined, but there are still consequences for our actions", and my computer programs demonstrate that you can have it only one way or the other - but can't have it both ways at once.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you write a computer program, and that program has a bug in it, and you are unaware of that bug, then that program is predetermined to crash. And if that program felt “pain” when it crashed, then it will have suffered consequences – predetermined consequences.

How this disproves "God" is beyond me - unless you consider yourself "God". What is troubling, dear Franko, is that a measly figment of your imagination such as myself has managed to beat one of your most precious arguments into the ground with a single post and two very simple - even amateurish - computer programs.

Dream on my little friend. Although if you have convinced yourself, and it makes you happy, and you aren’t really concerned whether you are right or not … then good for you – congratulations.

So you can sit there and pout about it, or you can dust yourself off and move on. Your move, tiger.

I had you checkmated about 80 moves ago. You still have failed to perceive it, and you still fail to concede.


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

Come on Fool-ly! Dedicate a new thread to me. You know you are just dying to do it!!! Use a sock-puppet ...

[Checkmite]

Wait, Franko....you're getting cryptic. Are you saying that my computer programs are somehow logically flawed? If they are, how could they function?

This, what you said:


If you write a computer program, and that program has a bug in it, and you are unaware of that bug, then that program is predetermined to crash. And if that program felt “pain” when it crashed, then it will have suffered consequences – predetermined consequences.

Makes no sense, because you posted it with no context. Explain it, please? My programs are not flawed. A "Logical" god or goddess would not create such a flawed program. And a program couldn't feel "pain" when it crashed, even in theory, because it will have stopped functioning instantaneously, allowing no time for any "pain", as an event, to occur.

And as for this:


Joshua what does the definition of “Deism” have to do with the existence of “god”, “Fate”, “free will”, “soul”, etc. You want to make something out of a non-issue it smacks of diversion. I think you understand perfectly well what I mean when I say “Deism” and I have already demonstrated more than once, point by point that the definition I use is consistent with Most people’s usage of the term.

Well then why did you bring it up? Nobody mentioned the word "Deism" in this thread until you did - I was just responding to you when you said this:


...without knowing jack squat about Logical Deism you are claiming to have somehow figured out what Logical Deism is all about and then written an algorithm that proves Logical Deism is False?

Again, my "algorithm" only proves that a universe cannot be deterministic and involve consequences at the same time...because the only reason anything happens in a predetermined universe is the fact that it was predetermined - events are not dependent upon each other. You say I am "wrong", but you don't point out the flaw in my program. Where is it?

And no, what you demonstrate is that what you call "Deism" is what everyone else calls "theism".

In any case, you are the one employing diversion. This thread is about the computer programs I wrote. If they are flawed, you must present evidence. Don't derail the thread.

[evildave]

/* The Universe v. 1.0.2 – by Joshua Korosi */
/* Ported to ANSI C, with DOS/windows console conio extension by evildave */

/* we’ll begin this universe the same as the other one, by making a law of physics that says “all observable events will be printed to your screen” */
#include < stdio.h >
#include < ctype.h >
#include < conio.h >

int main(void)
{
/* what’s this? what I’ve done is establish another law of physics that allows our conscious entity to commit an action (the action is called “answer”) that has an effect on the universe, and can have real consequences */
puts(
"Jeffrey is born!\n"
"Jeffrey must decide whether or not he believes in Joshua. Does he?\n"
"\n"
"Type Y if Jeffrey believes in Joshua; type anything else if he doesn't:"
);

/* in this event, Jeffrey must decide (as the event states) whether he believes in God (me). As God, I have decided that Jeffrey’s afterlife will be decided by how he answers this question */
/* the universe waits in awe while Jeffrey ponders my existence. now he has the opportunity to take an action – answer the question. */
if( tolower(getch()) == 'y' )
{
puts( "\nJeffrey advances to a Higher Existence!\n" );
}
else
{
puts( "\nJeffrey is sent to the Abyss!\n" );
}

/* hey, stop looking so confused! let me explain before you give up. what I’ve done is give Jeffrey an option. he can answer the question any way he wants. however, the only way Jeffrey can get to the Higher Existence is by giving “yes” as the answer to the question. Any other answer will see him sent to the Abyss for his heresy. */


/* The universe ends, as normal, with a non-error result. */
return 0;
}



I could give it to you in Windows, if you like... but then it would be a truly EVIL universe.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by evildave

I could give it to you in Windows, if you like... but then it would be a truly EVIL universe.


Has the point of the program changed at all? If not, then...

:confused:

[evildave]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Has the point of the program changed at all? If not, then...

:confused:

No, it hasn't. You can just press a more friendly 'Y' instead of pressing '1', and then pressing 'Enter'.

I halved the number of steps involved. Dozens of people will only conveniently have to press one key to damn or save all the Jeffreys they like. Indeed, we could even put it in a loop and you can "save" all the Jeffreys you like by wedging the 'Y' key down. Or callously damn all the Jeffreys you like by letting the cat walk on the keyboard.

My post also doesn't chew up the #include directives, and displays in a monospace font. Because it's "magic".

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by evildave




My post also doesn't chew up the #include directives, and displays in a monospace font. Because it's "magic".

Oh, well aren't we all special and lucky. What do you want, a gold star or something?

Damn dirty A-Theist!

:D

[Franko]

[computer bugs …]Makes no sense, because you posted it with no context. Explain it, please? My programs are not flawed. A "Logical" god or goddess would not create such a flawed program. And a program couldn't feel "pain" when it crashed, even in theory, because it will have stopped functioning instantaneously, allowing no time for any "pain", as an event, to occur

Obviously you don’t know as much about computer programming as you claim. Every program has bugs in it.

And as for a programming “crashing”, I am making an analogy to “death”, you obtuse moron.

Again, my "algorithm" only proves that a universe cannot be deterministic and involve consequences at the same time...because the only reason anything happens in a predetermined universe is the fact that it was predetermined - events are not dependent upon each other. You say I am "wrong", but you don't point out the flaw in my program. Where is it?

Your utter lack of knowledge about Determinism is equivalent to someone who doesn’t know the multiplication tables asking me to explain Calculus to them. I’ll tell you the same thing I told whitefork when he asked me to prove that Humans are made of Atoms … I’m not here to instruct imbeciles in the basics.

[Checkmite]

I'm just explaining what my programs illustrate, Franko. Are you saying the programs are illogical?

Again, if every program has a bug in it, find the bug in mine.

[Franko]

I'm just explaining what my programs illustrate …

Aside from illustrating your utter naivety what exactly do you think it illustrates?

Franko. Are you saying the programs are illogical?

No programs are entirely logical – at least on one level they are.

Again, if every program has a bug in it, find the bug in mine.

Ohh, I’ve already found lots of bugs in your program Graviton.

But you seem very attached to your bugs ...

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


Ohh, I’ve already found lots of bugs in your program Graviton.

But you seem very attached to your bugs ...

Well?

[Franko]

1) You believe that you possess magical "free will" powers which you are unable to provide any evidence for, or even explain what you mean by the term.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
1) You believe that you possess magical "free will" powers which you are unable to provide any evidence for, or even explain what you mean by the term.

Curious. Please explain where, in the programs I wrote, I have referred to "free will" and how, if such references exist, they constitute "bugs".

[Franko]

Curious. Please explain where, in the programs I wrote, I have referred to "free will" and how, if such references exist, they constitute "bugs".

That's my point, the programs you wrote DON'T HAVE "free will", and neither do you. But at least your program is "smart" enough not to pretend that it has "free will".

[BobM]

I just noticed how similar the name evildave is to the word evidence. It really messes up my speed-reading. Weird.


evildave
evidence

[Franko]

evildense

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


That's my point, the programs you wrote DON'T HAVE "free will", and neither do you. But at least your program is "smart" enough not to pretend that it has "free will".

Yet, Franko, the second program is still completely logical, but also allows somebody to make a decision within it, and I have absolutely no control over that decision - even though I'm the person who wrote the program! That means whomever makes that decision has "free will" to make said decision, without me knowing which option they'll choose.

[Franko]

Yet, Franko, the second program is still completely logical, but also allows somebody to make a decision within it, and I have absolutely no control over that decision - even though I'm the person who wrote the program! That means whomever makes that decision has "free will" to make said decision, without me knowing which option they'll choose.

I haven’t bothered to read your programs, but I am assuming you are referring to a program that requires an input.

SO what? What does that have to do with anything. In reality you occasionally require inputs as well, and where do those inputs come from??? They come from other programs (other algorithms, other gravitons).

So you run your little program, and it gets to the point where it needs an input, lets say a number value between 10 and 30. So then you run another program that does nothing but generate numbers from 10 to 30 (and this program may require inputs from yet another program). And then you take that output, and feed it into the original program as the input.

So where’s the “free will”? I just see a bunch of programs interacting in an entirely deterministic manner. Where is the magic part you keep referring to?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


I haven’t bothered to read your programs, but I am assuming you are referring to a program that requires an input.

That's great...you respond to a thread about my computer programs by saying you've found "flaws" in them, when in fact you haven't even bothered to read them in the first place. Tell me how Logical that is. Anyway...

Originally posted by Franko
So you run your little program, and it gets to the point where it needs an input, lets say a number value between 10 and 30. So then you run another program that does nothing but generate numbers from 10 to 30 (and this program may require inputs from yet another program). And then you take that output, and feed it into the original program as the input.


But what if you think of the number yourself, without "running another program that does nothing but generate numbers" to do the input function for you? Saying that my "thinking of a number is really just me running a program in my head" is begging the question. But if you don't believe this, then...

How about this? Suppose the program I "run" to input the number into my first program is a true random number generator, and doesn't require any input at all? Then your deterministic chain is broken, and we're left with something that is completely unpredictable.

[Franko]

How about this? Suppose the program I "run" to input the number into my first program is a true random number generator, and doesn't require any input at all? Then your deterministic chain is broken, and we're left with something that is completely unpredictable.

Except what you are asserting (a true random number generator) doesn't exist in reality. If it did, thenyou'd have something magical.

I have pointed it out more times then I can count, that random number generator programs are NOT TRULY RANDOM. They are programs! They are logical and deterministic by nature!

A Random number generator typically does rely on an external input, it just hides this fact. Many random number generators simply read an area of memory that is constantly in flux (like the area where the time from a clock is stored). But this is no difference then one program calling another like in my previos example.

You can also generate pseudo-random numbers by complex functions (typically using a mod function). But once again the functions can be traced, so the "random" result could be predetermined if you made the effort.

So you still have no evidence that computer programs have "free will".

[Franko]

BTW, you choice of title for this thread (... DeBunked) shows what a non-skeptc you really are. You already had you mind made up before you even got started.

Very "scientific" of you Religious Fanatic.

[evildave]

/* The obfuscated universe v. 0.0.1 – by evildave */
#include < cstdlib >
#include < iostream >
#include < cstring >
#include < ctime >
#include < list >
using namespace std;

// Gimme kbhit & getch
#include < conio.h >

// Return index of a variation of a found argument if it's there, else 0 (same as command line executable)
// argc, argv from main
// szzarg, a nul terminated list of nul terminated strings
int FindArgs( int argc, const char** argv, const char* szzarg )
{
while( *szzarg )
{
const char** pargv = argv + argc;
int curr = argc;
while( --curr )
{
if( !strcmp( *--pargv, szzarg ) )
return curr;
}
szzarg += strlen(szzarg)+1;
}
return 0;
}


// Something to generate phases from
#define EDEF_GENERATION(edef) \
edef(BORN)\
edef(INFANT)\
edef(CHILDHOOD)\
edef(ADOLESCENCE)\
edef(ADULTHOOD)\
edef(MIDDLEAGE)\
edef(SENIOR)\
edef(ELDERLY)\
edef(OLDAGE)\

#define EDEF_ENUM(e) e,
#define EDEF_STRING(e) #e,
#define EDEF_VNAME(e) mf_ ## e
#define EDEF_VTAB(e) EDEF_VNAME(e),
#define EDEF_DFUNC(e) void EDEF_VNAME(e)();
#define EDEF_IFUNC(e) void Life::EDEF_VNAME(e)()
#define EDEF_CASE(e) case e: EDEF_VNAME(e)(); break;

class Life
{
time_t born;
time_t laststage;
static time_t lifestagetime;
static list<Life*> population;
static list<Life*> killed;
friend void fnatexit(void);
friend int main(int argc, const char** argv );
enum LifeStage
{
EDEF_GENERATION(EDEF_ENUM)
} phase;
static const char* szLifeStage[];
EDEF_GENERATION(EDEF_DFUNC);
public:
char name[16];

Life();
~Life();

void Die();
void Live();
void Stage();
};
list<Life*> Life::population;
list<Life*> Life::killed;
time_t Life::lifestagetime = 1;

const char* Life::szLifeStage[] = { EDEF_GENERATION(EDEF_STRING) };

Life::Life()
{
laststage = born = time(NULL);
phase = BORN;
population.push_back( this );

const char vowel[5] = { 'a','e','i','o','u' };
const char consonant[21] = { 'b','c','d','f','g','h','j','k','l','m','n','p','q ','r','s','t','v','w','x','y','z' };
name[0] = toupper(consonant[rand()%sizeof consonant]);
int nsyl = 1 + (rand()%5);
char *p = name+1;
while( nsyl-- )
{
*p++ = vowel[rand() % sizeof vowel];
*p++ = consonant[rand() % sizeof consonant];
}
*p++ = 0;
cout << name << ": " << "Waah!\n";
}
Life::~Life()
{
cout << name << ": " << "Taco! (lived " << laststage - born << " second" << (laststage - born == 1 ? "" : "s" ) << " and died while in stage: " << szLifeStage[phase] << ")\n";
}
void Life::Die()
{
killed.push_back(this);
}
void Life::Live()
{
time_t curr = time(NULL);
if( curr - laststage >= lifestagetime )
{
laststage = time(NULL);
phase = (LifeStage)(1 + phase);
Stage();
}
}
void Life::Stage()
{
switch( phase )
{
EDEF_GENERATION(EDEF_CASE)
}
}

EDEF_IFUNC(BORN)
{
// Might die at birth
cout << name << ": " << "Waah!\n";
if( (rand() & 15) == 1 )
Die();
}
EDEF_IFUNC(INFANT)
{
cout << name << ": " << "Goo...\n";

// Might die
if( (rand() & 15) == 1 )
Die();
}
EDEF_IFUNC(CHILDHOOD)
{
// Might die
cout << name << ": " << "I believe in Santa Claus!\n";
if( (rand() & 15) == 1 )
Die();
}
EDEF_IFUNC(ADOLESCENCE)
{
// Might have a baby
if( (rand() & 15) > 12 )
new Life();

cout << name << ": " << "I believe in God!\n";

// Might die
if( (rand() & 15) == 1 )
Die();
}
EDEF_IFUNC(ADULTHOOD)
{
// Might have a baby
if( (rand() & 15) > 5 )
new Life();

cout << name << ": " << "I believe I'd better get to work.\n";

// Might die
if( (rand() & 15) < 2 )
Die();
}
EDEF_IFUNC(MIDDLEAGE)
{
// Might have a baby
if( rand() & 1 )
new Life();

cout << name << ": " << "I believe I'll have another donut.\n";

// Might die
if( (rand() & 15) < 4 )
Die();
}
EDEF_IFUNC(SENIOR)
{
cout << name << ": " << "I believe I'll sit down.\n";

// Might die
if( (rand() & 15) < 5 )
Die();
}
EDEF_IFUNC(ELDERLY)
{
cout << name << ": " << "I believe I broke my hip.\n";

// Might die
if( (rand() & 15) < 7 )
Die();
}

EDEF_IFUNC(OLDAGE)
{
// Just dies
Die();
}

void fnatexit(void)
{
cout << "That's the end of the universe.\n";
cout.flush();
getch();
}


int main( int argc, const char** argv )
{
if( FindArgs( argc, argv, "-?\0/?\0-h\0-H\0/h\0/H\0" ) )
{
cout << *argv << "\n\t-l span between life phases\n";
return 0;
}
atexit( fnatexit );
int il = FindArgs( argc, argv, "-l\0-L\0" );
Life::lifestagetime = (il && il < argc-1) ? atoi(argv[1+il]) : 1;

srand(time(NULL));

cout << "Building generations that live for " << Life::lifestagetime << " seconds." << "\n";

int seedPop;
for( seedPop = 0; seedPop < 10; ++seedPop )
{
new Life();
}
// Keep the world going as long as there're people in it
while( Life::population.size() )
{
time_t stamp = time(NULL);

// Give everyone a life
list<Life*>::iterator iterate;
for( iterate = Life::population.begin(); iterate != Life::population.end(); iterate++ )
(*iterate)->Live();

// Clear up the dead people
while( Life::killed.size() )
{
Life* curr = Life::killed.front();
Life::population.remove(curr);
Life::killed.remove(curr);
delete curr;
}

if( kbhit() )
{
getch();
cout << "Doomsday for " << Life::population.size() << " people!!!\n";
while( Life::population.size() )
{
delete Life::population.front();
Life::population.pop_front();
}
return 0;
}
}
return 0;
}

[MRC_Hans]

Franko:
Except what you are asserting (a true random number generator) doesn't exist in reality. If it did, thenyou'd have something magical.

I have pointed it out more times then I can count, that random number generator programs are NOT TRULY RANDOM. They are programs! They are logical and deterministic by nature!
Frank, NOTHING becomes true simply by you pointing it out repeatedly. A Pseudo Random Number Generator is deterministic, but it is possible to build a true random generator, as a hardware device that feeds a random sequence to a computer. They typically tap some noise source (no magic).

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

And, as usual, you are evading the main argument of this thread: Josh's #1 program, the deterministic version, shows that there is no cause and effect in a deterministic system, because it has all been preprogrammed. Since you claim this universe to be deterministic, how do you account for your additional claim that humans are responsible for their destiny (even for "the one" choice)? How about addressing that issue instead af bickering about random numbers?

Hans

[Checkmite]

Thank you, Hans.

[Franko]

Handjob:

And, as usual, you are evading the main argument of this thread: Josh's #1 program, the deterministic version, shows that there is no cause and effect in a deterministic system, because it has all been preprogrammed.

When one line of code is executed, and then the next line of code is executed, and then the next … that is Determinism!

I am a fatalist remember. The Universe is acting Deterministically – JUST LIKE A COMPUTER PROGRAM!!!

Since you claim this universe to be deterministic, how do you account for your additional claim that humans are responsible for their destiny (even for "the one" choice)? How about addressing that issue instead af bickering about random numbers?

Did you get to pick who your parents are MRC? Does the fact that you didn’t get to pick your parents mean that they aren’t your parents?

Are you seriously this retarded, or are you just running on autopilot now, mindlessly defending your dogmatic religion at all cost?

[Franko]

Hanjob:

Frank, NOTHING becomes true simply by you pointing it out repeatedly. A Pseudo Random Number Generator is deterministic, but it is possible to build a true random generator, as a hardware device that feeds a random sequence to a computer. They typically tap some noise source (no magic).

How on Earth is that "Truly Random"?

That's just you to lazy or unable to trace the code ... nothing more.

[MRC_Hans]

Did you get to pick who your parents are MRC? Does the fact that you didn’t get to pick your parents mean that they aren’t your parents?

Are you seriously this retarded, or are you just running on autopilot now, mindlessly defending your dogmatic religion at all cost? And how does that stupid quastion releate to the one I asked? Seems you mindless autopilot cannot find the way to the answer: When every action is in the program, how can humans influence their destiny?

Do I have to remind you that you have said:

What you are claiming is that people who DO NOT believe that there will be consequences for their actions will behave just as morally as those who do. It is an utterly absurd claim. You might as well say that if we abolished the prisons tomorrow that the crime rate would be unchanged. How could they change their behaviour if it was all programmed?

and:

You get one Free Will decision. Use it wisely.

and:

Hell Yeah!!! If I am not benefiting by an action, then why am I undertaking that action in the first place?


How does this work in a deterministic, preprogrammed universe?

Hans

[Franko]

A-Theist,

When every action is in the program, how can humans influence their destiny?

I am not sure I understand your question?

You ever use the computer program MS Word? It’s a word processor, that is its Fate. MS Word doesn’t suddenly transform into the game QUAKE. In the same way that You don’t magically transform into a Cow.

[morals …] How could they change their behaviour if it was all programmed?

Who said they can?

I am a Fatalist … all things are preordained. You are the one claiming that things happen magically and unlike a deterministic computer program. I am just waiting for you or Joshy to present some evidence for your ridiculous claim.

… but I’m not holding my breath. I’ve been waiting over a Year for One single A-Theist to present some evidence for “free will”.

How does this work in a deterministic, preprogrammed universe?

Like a computer program.

You do remember me going on and on about you being nothing more than an MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit) Algorithm? … and TLOP just being a superior, more complex, more elaborate, more intricate, faster, more efficient program … ?

[Checkmite]

Franko...

If I did not choose my parents, they are still my parents nevertheless of course. However...since I did not choose them, can I be held responsible if they are criminals, or one of them is a deadbeat, or both of them gave me up for adoption, etc etc? Since I did not choose them, is it my fault who they are?

[Franko]

If I did not choose my parents, they are still my parents nevertheless of course. However...since I did not choose them, can I be held responsible if they are criminals, or one of them is a deadbeat, or both of them gave me up for adoption, etc etc? Since I did not choose them, is it my fault who they are?

If one (or both) of your parents had bad genes, or was an alcoholic, or abused you physically or mentally, or couldn’t hold down a job, or failed to get you immunized, or put you up for adoption, etc, etc. then don’t think for a minute that YOU will not suffer any consequences as a result.

Is that another example of your “free will” in action?

… because I would call that Fate. But then again I don’t use one of those illogical A-Theist Dictionaries that Tricky (religious nutcase) swears by.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


If one (or both) of your parents had bad genes, or was an alcoholic, or abused you physically or mentally, or couldn’t hold down a job, or failed to get you immunized, or put you up for adoption, etc, etc. then don’t think for a minute that YOU will not suffer any consequences as a result.

Is that another example of your “free will” in action?

… because I would call that Fate. But then again I don’t use one of those illogical A-Theist Dictionaries that Tricky (religious nutcase) swears by.

I didn't ask whether or not I would suffer any consequences. I asked whether it would be my fault. Would it?

[Julia]

Franko,
Could you expand some more on your belief about fate? I am
not asking to make fun of you, I'm really interested. The whole
concept of fate has confused me my entire life. I like to hear what other peoples views are.
Oh, and to be completely honest, most of this forum is over my head. I'm not good at debate. I have come here to learn. I enjoy
reading (that which I can understand) because as I get older I
realize I have no foundation of belief. I am not really an atheist.
I don't know what I am, or what I will become. People here have
a head start and more intellect than I do.
But back to fate . . .

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
… because I would call that Fate. But then again I don’t use one of those illogical A-Theist Dictionaries that Tricky (religious nutcase) swears by.
Oops. My secret is out. Well, no use hiding it. I confess that I have been using The Devil's Dictionary of Ambrose Bierce (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/) for my "Lexicon". That is why I use definitions like:
CHRISTIAN, n. - One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

[Franko]

I didn't ask whether or not I would suffer any consequences. I asked whether it would be my fault. Would it?

"fault"? Can you define that term?

[Franko]

Hey Julia!

Could you expand some more on your belief about fate? I am
not asking to make fun of you, I'm really interested. The whole
concept of fate has confused me my entire life. I like to hear what other peoples views are.

I am a Fatalist. Which is very similar to saying that I am a hard core Determinist.

A Fatalist believes that all things happen for a logical reason. There is no magic, just cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect.

You had the “Big Bang”, and at that moment (or a moment before) there was an “Initial State” --an initial configuration of the Energy. Since that time everything has behaved in an entirely Deterministic (Logical, Objective) fashion, including the behavior of You and Me.

Essentially we are observers.

Oh, and to be completely honest, most of this forum is over my head. I'm not good at debate. I have come here to learn. I enjoy reading (that which I can understand) because as I get older I realize I have no foundation of belief.

If there is anything that I ever say which doesn’t make sense to you, please let me know, and I will be more than happy to explain it another way. There is nothing I believe which I cannot convey logically to another individual.

And in my experience complicated things are really just a whole lot of simple things appended together. Nothing about reality is beyond the grasp of the average human being.

I am not really an atheist.

Good for you darling. That tells me you are smarter than most of the people on the forum (most of the people on this forum are A-Theists). I am a Logical Deist myself.

[MRC_Hans]

You do remember me going on and on about you being nothing more than an MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit) Algorithm? … and TLOP just being a superior, more complex, more elaborate, more intricate, faster, more efficient program … ? Do I remember? How could I forget? You repeat it in every other post. But that doesnt explain your contradiction: Call it MPB, call it what you will, If it was all preordained, how have anybody any influence on their destiny. How can the threat of punishment make them change their behaviour if EVERY choice is preordained? How can MS Word be responsible for how it was programmed? Or for what I write?

Hans

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


"fault"? Can you define that term?

Since I did not choose my parents, does the responsibility fall on me if they do something wrong? Should I be praised, on the other hand, if they turn out to be excellent parents?

[Franko]

Since I did not choose my parents, does the responsibility fall on me if they do something wrong? Should I be praised, on the other hand, if they turn out to be excellent parents?

Seems like it’s all just dumb luck to me. Like everything in existence …

[Franko]

But that doesnt explain your contradiction:

what contradiction?

Call it MPB, call it what you will, If it was all preordained, how have anybody any influence on their destiny. How can the threat of punishment make them change their behaviour if EVERY choice is preordained? How can MS Word be responsible for how it was programmed? Or for what I write?

It almost sounds as if you are claiming it is better NOT to exist, then to exist. Considering that you are an A-Theist, this makes perfect sense, but if you really believe this, then why are you wasting your time talking to me?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


Seems like it’s all just dumb luck to me. Like everything in existence …

Come on, Franko...yes or no?

[Franko]

Since I did not choose my parents, does the responsibility fall on me if they do something wrong?

You mean like if they train you to be a suicide bomber and they train you to strap explosives on your body and then go to a busy market and detonate yourself? If you live, should YOU be prosecuted, or should your parents be prosecuted for raising you that way?

Should I be praised, on the other hand, if they turn out to be excellent parents?

If your parents do a really good job of raising you, and you grow up and become a person of wealth and renown do you owe your parents a percentage of the money you earn? Do they deserve some of the credit for your fame?

Supposing that there is a God, does God similarly deserve some of the credit, and/or blame for your actions? After all, if she didn’t put you in this reality, would you have done ANY of those things at all?

Of course are you going to bitch to God for being born if you don’t like the hand you were dealt? How is God responsible for your hand? You had that hand when She found you. Besides, if life here is so unbearable … you know where the exit is. How is You not leaving when you want Her fault?

Like I said Joshua, you are an A-Theist. You don’t want to accept responsibility for your own actions. You want to live a consequence free existence. That’s why you like to believe you have magic “guilt-free (willy)” powers. Don’t think that you-know-who isn’t watching and paying very careful attention.

[Checkmite]

Why do you keep trying to avoid the question by changing it? Simple question: Since I did not choose my parents, is it my responsibility who they are? I'm not talking about things I have a CHOICE over, such as whether to attempt a terrorist bombing. Let's say I was conceived out of wedlock, for example, or due to unprotected sex. That action, committed by my parents, had direct consequences on my, certainly - I was born, after all - but am I responsible for them having unprotected sex? Would it be my fault if I was born out of wedlock?

Originally posted by Franko

Like I said Joshua, you are an A-Theist. You don’t want to accept responsibility for your own actions. You want to live a consequence free existence. That’s why you like to believe you have magic “guilt-free (willy)” powers. Don’t think that you-know-who isn’t watching and paying very careful attention.

You are so full it of, Franko. :D No matter how I try to simplify it, it goes over your head. Either you are unable to respond, or unwilling to respond. Let's try again:

Listen, I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. That's WHY I don't believe the universe is absolutely deterministic. If the universe is deterministic, as you contend, and if I am just a program doing what I was programmed to do, as you contend, then am I responsible for what the Programmer designed me to do? If, indeed, the universe is deterministic, and I'm just doing what I'm programmed to do, and can't change or do anything else (because I have no will), then why doesn't the Goddess simply delete me right away, instead of running me? Is she hoping that I will "magically" IGNORE my program and become a paragon of virtue? If the universe is "deterministic", why can't she just look at my code and say "oh, Joshua was programmed to not believe in me, he is a bad program" and send me to the Cosmic Abyssal Recycling Bin immediately?

See, let's say I'm just an algorithm, a peer-to-peer transfer protocol that some programmer designed so that people can share files over the internet - like WinMX or Kazaa. My job is simply that - to transer files. That's it - I have no control over what those files are, I just transfer them.

Now, suppose the Programmer who wrote and installed me uses me to transfer Bad Things - like terrorist bomb plans, for example, or child pornography. Maybe being able to get such things is why he programmed me all along. It doesn't matter. I have no choice over what files I transfer - I couldn't stop it if I wanted to. I couldn't even "want" to stop it, because I have no will.

What you are saying is that when my "cycle" is up, then the Goddess will look at me and say, "during your existence, you were used to transfer terrorist bomb plans and child pornography - therefore, you are a bad program and you will be deleted from the hard drive of the universe."

There are problems with your version of the universe. The first problem is that the judgement ultimately doesn't matter to me - I'm a few lines of code and that's it. When I'm "exited" and "uninstalled", nothing can possibly matter to me any longer, because I am no longer running. So the purpose of "judgement" in your universe is an unnecessary (and therefore illogical) extravagance.

But the second, and most obvious, problem is that your universe blames the tool used to commit the crime rather than the evil Programmer who actually committed it. Why doesn't the Goddess ever get pissed at the "Progenitor/Initial/Lead/Solipsist/Programmer" for writing such effed-up program/gravitons? Imagine what it would be like if the FBI, when it finds a child pornographer, puts the file-transer program on trial and sentences it to be "deleted" instead of arresting the criminal himself. That's the universe you present, Franko.

Now, before you have a seizure, you need to remember that the purpose of this thread isn't to prove whether "God" exists or doesn't. It isn't to "prove" whether the universe is deterministic or purely random, allowing for free will. The universe may very well be deterministic, Franko.

The sole purpose of this thread is to prove that a universe can be predetermined, or can be personal-responsibility based, but can't be both at the same time. The two types of universes are mutually exclusive. And yes, God (or Goddess) can exist in either one. It seems to me that you think your explanation of the universe is the only one in which God can exist, therefore to disprove your explanation is to disprove the existence of God. It's not true - I've done nothing to disprove the existence of God.

You say you don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive - but those two programs I wrote at the very beginning of the thread prove that they are mutually exclusive. Of course, you admittedly started saying that I was wrong immediately without even reading the programs! Who is the one who already had his mind made up?

No matter how much you say I'm wrong, the programs are there for all to see, and they won't go away. Rather than long strings of convoluted arguments, those two programs are physical, repeatable, and direct evidence that I'm right. They work, and if you would actually look at them, you'd see too that they prove exactly what I say they prove. But you won't examine them. Are you afraid of what they might show you?

[Franko]

Joshua,

Listen, I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. That's WHY I don't believe the universe is absolutely deterministic.

That is a contradiction. If you are responsible for what happens to you, then that is determinism – positive and negative reinforcement.

Of course since you have a kindergarteners understanding of Determinism I don’t expect any of this to make much sense to you. :(


If the universe is deterministic, as you contend, and if I am just a program doing what I was programmed to do, as you contend, then am I responsible for what the Programmer designed me to do?

What “programmer” are you referring to?

I’ve told you many times that I do not believe that the LG created you. She may have modified your algorithm (greatly improved it), but She didn’t write it. She didn’t create YOU.

If, indeed, the universe is deterministic, and I'm just doing what I'm programmed to do, and can't change or do anything else (because I have no will), then why doesn't the Goddess simply delete me right away, instead of running me?

Because She didn’t create you, and She needs some time to make an assessment of you. She is trying to determine if you are an ultimately beneficial meme, or an ultimately harmful one.

Is she hoping that I will "magically" IGNORE my program and become a paragon of virtue?

She is hoping that your program is NOT fatally flawed – Yes. She is even trying to correct any error She’s perceives, but some Gravitons are beyond all hope.

If the universe is "deterministic", why can't she just look at my code and say "oh, Joshua was programmed to not believe in me, he is a bad program" and send me to the Cosmic Abyssal Recycling Bin immediately?

This universe isn’t a True universe. That is why you are only here for an instant (although it may not seem that way to you). Imagine an electron orbiting the nucleus of an Atom. The electron orbits in a shell, and it can change from one shell to the next. The electron orbits in the shell, but when it changes shells (changes states) it seems to jump (teleport) from one shell directly to the other.

In reality the electron is NOT teleporting to the new shell magically. In reality it is moving there in a fairly “normal” manner, except this happens so quickly relative to our sense of time that it appears to happen instantaneously.

The same thing is happening with You here. This Universe is not a True eternity. It is simply a transition zone between two shells (real universes).

See, let's say I'm just an algorithm, a peer-to-peer transfer protocol that some programmer designed so that people can share files over the internet - like WinMX or Kazaa. My job is simply that - to transer files. That's it - I have no control over what those files are, I just transfer them.

Now, suppose the Programmer who wrote and installed me uses me to transfer Bad Things - like terrorist bomb plans, for example, or child pornography. Maybe being able to get such things is why he programmed me all along. It doesn't matter. I have no choice over what files I transfer - I couldn't stop it if I wanted to. I couldn't even "want" to stop it, because I have no will.

That’s True, but how is this any different then the terrorist example I used previously? If you are conditioned for evil, then you are evil.

What you are saying is that when my "cycle" is up, then the Goddess will look at me and say, "during your existence, you were used to transfer terrorist bomb plans and child pornography - therefore, you are a bad program and you will be deleted from the hard drive of the universe."

She won’t actually delete you, She’ll just “copy” you to a place where you can no longer cause any harm to anyone but yourself. Eventually you will be the one who deletes your own program.

There are problems with your version of the universe. The first problem is that the judgement ultimately doesn't matter to me …

If you are saying that your Fate doesn’t really concern you, then I don’t know what you expect me to tell you?

… I'm a few lines of code and that's it.

You are what you are and that’s it.

When I'm "exited" and "uninstalled", nothing can possibly matter to me any longer, because I am no longer running. So the purpose of "judgement" in your universe is an unnecessary (and therefore illogical) extravagance.

No, you are somewhat autonomous. The moment you ceased sensing (perceiving) Time you would cease to exist, the LG has been helping you to improve your perception of Time, but even before Her modifications to your algorithm you still experienced Time. In fact, if you were cut loose immediately (and not sent to a cell) then you would fall back to the Abyss and experience Time far better then you ever did in the past. You don’t even need the universe (classroom) around you any more.

But the second, and most obvious, problem is that your universe blames the tool used to commit the crime rather than the evil Programmer who actually committed it.

That’s not True.

I was only following orders works sometimes, but for the most part you should have known better. Rest assured when anyone uses this defense at their judgment day they are always asked Who’s orders were you following? and that guy gets it 10x as bad.

Why doesn't the Goddess ever get pissed at the "Progenitor/Initial/Lead/Solipsist/Programmer" for writing such effed-up program/gravitons?

Because without Him, none of us would exist.

Imagine what it would be like if the FBI, when it finds a child pornographer, puts the file-transer program on trial and sentences it to be "deleted" instead of arresting the criminal himself. That's the universe you present, Franko.

Are you saying that if we could eliminate only the technology necessary for child pornography (but nothing else) we shouldn’t do it?

What purpose do Nuclear weapons serve Josh? Should every family have a Nuclear weapon in their basement – “just in case”?

Now, before you have a seizure, you need to remember that the purpose of this thread isn't to prove whether "God" exists or doesn't. It isn't to "prove" whether the universe is deterministic or purely random, allowing for free will. The universe may very well be deterministic, Franko.

You sound like a Skeptic there Josh … ;)

The sole purpose of this thread is to prove that a universe can be predetermined, or can be personal-responsibility based, but can't be both at the same time.

Says who?

You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of Determinism. What you are saying above is the equivalent to 2 + 2 = 3.

The two types of universes are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I realize that your “heavenly crystal spheres” are incompatible with my whacky “Round-Earth” model of the solar system.

And yes, God (or Goddess) can exist in either one. It seems to me that you think your explanation of the universe is the only one in which God can exist, therefore to disprove your explanation is to disprove the existence of God. It's not true - I've done nothing to disprove the existence of God.

If I have evidence for God, and you do not, and you are reflexively attempting to disprove My evidence for god, then that doesn’t make you look like a Deist – it makes you look like any other A-Theist on this forum.

You say you don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive - but those two programs I wrote at the very beginning of the thread prove that they are mutually exclusive.

If you wrote them and You are God, then perhaps what you say is correct?

But I have never claimed that the LG wrote your program, and I have stated that She didn’t more times then I can count. I don’t think you really care though because I happen to believe you are simply an A-Theist who took a thrashing from me, and then created a sock-puppet (Joshua Korosi) who pretends to be a “Deist” while he goes out of his way to dogmatically assert the sacred beliefs of the Cult of Pessimism (A-Theism).

Of course, you admittedly started saying that I was wrong immediately without even reading the programs! Who is the one who already had his mind made up?

Considering the title of this thread, I figured I’d play by your rules.

You don’t understand squat about Logical Deism, yet (according to you) you have already determined that it is FALSE.

You sound just like any other A-Theist who believes that NO EVIDENCE means FALSE just because he wants it to. (unless it’s no evidence for “free will” in which case NO EVIDENCE means TRUE just because he wants it too).

No matter how much you say I'm wrong, the programs are there for all to see, and they won't go away.

Your programs prove nothing. And they certainly aren’t any evidence for “free will”. They certainly aren’t evidence that GOD does not exist.

Don’t you remember?

TLOP (GOD) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

[evildave]

Well of COURSE it's not a computer program!

It's a VCR tape.

After carefully hand crafting and animating every atom in the universe like a stop-action cartoon for nearly an eternity, god(dess) just sits there like an autistic toddler watching it over and over.

[Franko]

evildave:
It's a VCR tape.

After carefully hand crafting and animating every atom in the universe like a stop-action cartoon for nearly an eternity, god(dess) just sits there like an autistic toddler watching it over and over.

Apparently you have confused me with the UndercoverElephant. That is his version of how it all works.

[evildave]

Demonstrate why having infinite (perfect and immutable) read only memory that's accessed in a predetermined manner would produce different results from the predictable universe you describe.

(And of course "god"(dess) can have infinite read only memory. It's got lots of other impossible baggage. Just throw the infinite bank of ROM into a box and pop it into the cosmic VCR.)

[Franko]

evildave,

Demonstrate why having infinite (perfect and immutable) read only memory that's accessed in a predetermined manner would produce different results from the predictable universe you describe.

Read only memory? Where did you come up with that notion?

Do you know anything today that you didn’t know yesterday? Do you know anything today that you didn’t know ten years ago?

If you answered YES, then I’d say there is empirical evidence you (and the universe) are more than ROM.

(And of course "god"(dess) can have infinite read only memory. It's got lots of other impossible baggage. Just throw the infinite bank of ROM into a box and pop it into the cosmic VCR.)

You’ve been misinformed. Logical Deists don’t believe in the notion of “Infinity”. Infinity (as it is typically defined) is an incoherent concept. It is NOT logical.

[evildave]

The ROM only maintained the *illusion* of additional experience beteen the image of the universe of a day ago, and the image of the universe today.

[Franko]

The ROM only maintained the *illusion* of additional experience between the image of the universe of a day ago, and the image of the universe today.

If Solipsism were True you’d have it exactly right.

Atheist = A-Theist = A Theist = One Theist (God)

[evildave]

If it's all immutably pre-determined, then it can be represented as one big read-only image.

Solipsism only claims that it's all in some big psycho's head. It does not necessarily make claims of determinism, one way or another. Though I suspeve a solipsistic universe run by a psycho-'goddess' to train gravitons would be far from deterministic.

The following code sample illustrates how (if the tables represented all values representable in the universe), the reults of all operations could be a table lookup.

This over-simplifies a bit. But the idea is that whatever you plug in for these predictable outcomes, the output is the predicted outcome.

The state of the entire universe, including all of your current notions for this picosecond is at address 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000

The state of the entire universe, including all of your current notions for the next picosecond is at address 0x000000000000000000000000000000000001

A counter is simply being strobed to make it all work. Or the ROM is not built for random access (which saves a lot of logic on any masking), but for only sequential access (like a tape). The result of each strobe is dumped on the cosmic address bus to light (or not light) subatomic-size elements.

To make this perfectly clear (at least to everyone besides Franko) It's not my belief, it's my model of why the 'totally deterministic' universe notion is dumb, and essentially makes the claim that the universe is a tape in a VCR.

I would suspect that anyone who did know a little about how computers actually work would understand this allusion to illusion.



#include < stdio.h >
#include < stdlib.h >

void help(void)
{
printf( "MathDemo number operator number\nDemonstrates simplistic table-driven math\n" );
printf( "\t Supports numbers between 0 and 3\n\tOperators: +, -, *, /\n" );
exit(1);
}

int main( int argc, const char** argv )
{
int first, second, result;
char op;
if( argc != 4 )
help();
first = atoi(argv[1]);
op = *argv[2];
second = atoi(argv[3]);
if( first < 0 || first > 3 || second < 0 || second > 3 )
help();
switch( op )
{
case '+':
{
static const int tab[4][4] =
{
{ 0, 1, 2, 3 },
{ 1, 2, 3, 4 },
{ 2, 3, 4, 5 },
{ 3, 4, 5, 6 },
};
result = tab[first][second];
}
break;
case '-':
{
static const int tab[4][4] =
{
{ 0, -1, -2, -3 },
{ 1, 0, -1, -2 },
{ 2, 1, 0, -1 },
{ 3, 2, 1, 0 },
};
result = tab[first][second];
}
break;
case '*':
{
static const int tab[4][4] =
{
{ 0, 0, 0, 0 },
{ 0, 1, 2, 3 },
{ 0, 2, 4, 6 },
{ 0, 3, 6, 9 },
};
result = tab[first][second];
}
break;
case '/':
{
// Division rounds to int, but you could make these tables 'float', and the outcomes would work
static const int tab[4][4] =
{
{ 0, 0, 0, 0 },
{ 0, 1, 0, 0 },
{ 0, 2, 1, 0 },
{ 0, 3, 1, 1 },
};
result = tab[first][second];
}
break;
default:
help();
}
printf( "%d %c %d = %d\n", first, op, second, result );
return 0;
}

[Franko]

Evildave:

If it's all immutably pre-determined, then it can be represented as one big read-only image.

If you think I am going to trasp through your little A-Theists diversions into “look mommy – I writz a comp-utard poogran!” Then you really didn’t learn anything in A-Theist indoctrination camp.

… and you call yourself a Poogranner!

[Kilted_Canuck]

Frankie, Frankie, Frankie,

why do you always have to go around saying that we have no free will BUT we have to suffer the consequences. Maybe you should plan out what you believe and what you will preach for others, so that you don't contradict yourself as often.

P.S. Your not convincing anyone here because we are skeptics, not because we are all Athiests.;)

[Franko]

Da’Fool-Lite:

why do you always have to go around saying that we have no free will BUT we have to suffer the consequences. Maybe you should plan out what you believe and what you will preach for others, so that you don't contradict yourself as often.

How is that a contradiction moron? Do you know Anything about Determinism you clueless twit?? … Anything at all?!?

Pleeease! … :rolleyes:

Why don’t you hop back to Infidels.org, or at least dash back over to the Banter section, and leave the grown-ups to have their “grown-up talk”.

That’s it … run along little girl …

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko


If you think I am going to trasp through your little A-Theists diversions into “look mommy – I writz a comp-utard poogran!” Then you really didn’t learn anything in A-Theist indoctrination camp.

… and you call yourself a Poogranner!

Actually you call yourself a "programmer". Of course, you couldn't write a line of code nor comprehend even a trivial example meant to illustrate a point, weak little pretender boy.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko


If you had a point to make you would have just made it.

But you don't have a point to make evildave. The only point you are making is My point.

And My point is that YOU are nothing more than an A-Theist Troll, who is deeply devoted to his religious dogma, but doesn't really have anything to say about it, no points to make, no evidence to support it ...

But you are going to holler and whine like a religious fanatic that it is the "one true faith" regardless of these facts.

Ha! I love it when you get all petulant!

[Franko]

evilnitwit:

a trivial example meant to illustrate a point

If you had a point to make you would have just made it.

But you don't have a point to make evildave. The only point you are making is My point.

And My point is that YOU are nothing more than an A-Theist Troll, who is deeply devoted to his religious dogma, but doesn't really have anything to say about it, no points to make, no evidence to support it ...

But you are going to holler and whine like a religious fanatic that it is the "one true faith" regardless of these facts.

[evildave -- desperate fanatic mode/on]

[evildave]

Cool, I'm watching 'Back to the Future', and my quote of your post preceeds Franko's post.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by evildave
Cool, I'm watching 'Back to the Future', and my quote of your post preceeds Franko's post.

Im converted, Ed is not Supreme... EvilDave is...

Unless.... EvilDave is the Messias!!! Look, EvilDave.

Praise the Lord

:rolleyes: :D

[evildave]

And of course we have further evidence conveniently dropped in our laps relevent to poking little holes in Franko's assertion that "computers are absolutely deterministic".

Real time inputs, bugs, glitches.

Somebody will have fun trying to reproduce this one.

So, was it "predetermined" that the software would hiccup just for me? My, don't I feel privileged.

[Earthborn]

I think there is some confusement here that 'predetermined' somehow means the same as 'preprogrammed'. This is not true. It is possible to make a computer program that does things that are not programmed into it but that are still the inevitable result of it running.

Imagine a very simple universe: a huge plain that contains of nothing but red and white tiles. The only things 'living' there are robotic ants that deterministically follow a very simple program:

IF I'm on a RED TILE
TURN 90 degrees LEFT
WALK FORWARD to next tile

IF I'm on a WHITE TILE
TURN 90 degrees RIGHT
WALK FORWARD to next tile

The ants have no free will, they cannot decide to do it any other way. They blindy follow their TLOP.

There is another rule in this universe:
IF an ant stood on a RED TILE
it will TURN WHITE

IF an ant stood on a WHITE TILE
it will TURN RED

This means that the actions of the ants have an influence on their surrounding! Even though the things that will happen as a result of this deterministic universe are not preprogrammed, they are still inevitable since there is no room for chance in the TLOP in this universe. It is even impossible to predict exactly what will happen, without running the program of this universe: the only way to predict what will happen is tracing step by step every step of the ants, basically running the program in your head.
Everything is predetermined (impossible to happen any other way) but not preprogrammed (planned out by the programmer).

Some of you probably already know that I'm talking about the world famous Langton Ants. You can experiment with them with several JAVA programs you can find on the web, or you can just use my program. Not in fancy-schmancy C, but just in down to earth QBasic: you can find it on your Windows CD or in %windir%\COMMAND directory. Just copy the program below and paste it in Notepad. Save it as LANGTON.TXT, then rename it to LANGTON.BAS (QBasic is a DOS program so pasting the program directly into it is a bit difficult.) Start QBasic and use the OPEN menu to OPEN the LANGTON.BAS program and press F5 to start.
DECLARE SUB Checker ()
DECLARE SUB Polka ()
DECLARE SUB TwinDot ()
DECLARE SUB Spot ()

SCREEN 12
CONST MaxX = 639: CONST MaxY = 479
INPUT "Number of 'Ants':", a
PRINT " 1 - Red"
PRINT " 2 - White"
PRINT " 3 - Checker"
PRINT " 4 - Polka Dot"
PRINT " 5 - TwinDot"
PRINT " 6 - Spot"
INPUT "Choose background:", b

DIM x(a): DIM y(a): DIM d(a)
FOR n = 1 TO UBOUND(x)
x(n) = INT(RND * (MaxX + 1)): y(n) = INT(RND * (MaxY + 1)): d(n) = INT(RND * 4) + 1
NEXT

SELECT CASE b
CASE 1: LINE (0, 0)-(MaxX, MaxY), 4, BF
CASE 2: LINE (0, 0)-(MaxX, MaxY), 15, BF
CASE 3: Checker
CASE 4: Polka
CASE 5: TwinDot
CASE 6: Spot
END SELECT

DO

FOR n = 1 TO UBOUND(x)
SELECT CASE POINT(x(n), y(n))
CASE 15: PSET (x(n), y(n)), 4
d(n) = d(n) + 1: IF d(n) > 4 THEN d(n) = 1
CASE 4: PSET (x(n), y(n)), 15
d(n) = d(n) - 1: IF d(n) < 1 THEN d(n) = 4
END SELECT

x(n) = x(n) - (d(n) = 2) + (d(n) = 4): y(n) = y(n) - (d(n) = 3) + (d(n) = 1)

IF x(n) > MaxX THEN x(n) = 0
IF x(n) < 0 THEN x(n) = MaxX
IF y(n) > MaxY THEN y(n) = 0
IF y(n) < 0 THEN y(n) = MaxY
NEXT

LOOP UNTIL INKEY$ = CHR$(27)
SCREEN 0: WIDTH 80,25

SUB Checker

FOR n = 0 TO MaxY STEP 2
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 2: PSET (m, n), 15: PSET (m + 1, n), 4: NEXT
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 2: PSET (m, n + 1), 4: PSET (m + 1, n + 1), 15: NEXT
NEXT

END SUB

SUB Polka

LINE (0, 0)-(MaxX, MaxY), 15, BF

FOR n = 0 TO MaxY STEP 4
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 4: PSET (m, n), 15: PSET (m + 2, n), 4: NEXT
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 4: PSET (m, n + 2), 4: PSET (m + 2, n + 2), 15: NEXT
NEXT



END SUB

SUB Spot

LINE (0, 0)-(MaxX, MaxY), 15, BF

FOR n = 0 TO MaxY STEP 4
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 4: PSET (m, n), 15: PSET (m + 1, n), 4: NEXT
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 4: PSET (m, n + 1), 4: PSET (m + 1, n + 1), 15: NEXT
NEXT


END SUB

SUB TwinDot
LINE (0, 0)-(MaxX, MaxY), 15, BF

FOR n = 0 TO MaxY STEP 3
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 3: PSET (m, n), 15: PSET (m + 1, n), 4: NEXT
FOR m = 0 TO MaxX STEP 3: PSET (m, n + 1), 4: PSET (m + 1, n + 1), 15: NEXT
NEXT

END SUBWhen you start the program you can enter how many 'ants' it will use. Choose 2 for the first time you run the program. And choose a RED or WHITE background for them to run around on.

You will see that the ants appear to randomly run around at first. (Okay, you don't see the ants, only the tiles they change in colour) But they are not! Only their starting coordinates are 'randomly' chosen. Everthing else is just their rigid programs unfolding.
But suddenly out of the blue it appears as if they invented something new! They begin making large tube structures that can reach to the ends of the screen and beyond. They are only stopped when they encounter the works of the other ant which makes them turn back and destroy what they just made until they end up with what they had when their universe first began: the start of the program). But they don't stop there: they simply appear to go back to a past before that and start making other structures until they hit eachother works again and go in reverse once more. This universe with these two ants seems to have no time: everything happens once in one direction, once in the other and then back again. Even the starting point has no special meaning: it is just one state in an endless string of different states.

If you want to see a demonstration of the complexity these ants can create, choose one of the dotted backgrounds with two ants. They will create complex patterns that keep changing for minutes (depending on your computer of course), then they start cleaning everything up, make something new and clean that up to start all over again. Remember: the patterns are not designed in advance and the ants have no memory of them.

If you choose 1 ant in the beginning it will behave a bit differently: it too can create complex patterns, however it will not clean it up. The pattern keeps changing forever eventually creating a mess that looks quite random. Although all the different patterns could theoretically be recorded in a 'videotape' fashion (saving the screen everytime the ant makes a move), this would require an infinitely long tape.

If the universe is like this, having totally rigid 'natural laws' that cannot be deviated from than this is a good analogy, and it is deterministic: it cannot evolve in any other way. It does not mean that one thing cannot be the result of what went on previously, in fact everything IS deterministically the result of what went on previously. The end result will be the same everytime the universe restarts the same way, hence it is predetermined. Since it is not specifically programmed to produce a specific outcome, it is not pre-programmed. Something that is pre-programmed is pre-determined, but something pre-determined is not necessarily pre-programmed.

However: if there is only the slightest bit of randomness introduced into such a universe, ours or the ants', the end result will not always be exactly the same everytime it is run, therefore it is not predetermined. No one can be sure today that there is nothing in the universe that is or isn't entirely deterministic. It is a philosophical question that cannot be answered.

[evildave]

Well, if you want the same demonstration, but easier to find and more largely studied, there's always "life", and the same sorts of web searches that turn up ants will turn that up. "Life" can be randomly seeded, and it will generally turn out stable colonies after a little while.

As a closed system, your results are generally guaranteed, but neither simulation is purely deterministic if you add or ramove a single cell (or ant, or block) at a randomly chosen time and a randomly chosen location while the simulation is running. Often it will have little or no effect. Sometimes it will hugely change the outcome. You have to run that sim a LOT of times to catch the differences.

And "outcome" is subjective. What is the "outcome"? When the colony reaches apparent stability? The state the colony is in after 100 cycles? 1000 simulation cycles? 10000 cycles? A week of cycles?

The Earth its self is not a closed system, nor is any subset of population on this Earth. If we had provable determinism in the real world, the same joker would win the lottery every week. But since we can't even simulate the state 40 plastic balls will have after they get blown around by some air, what makes you think you can determine the state of the whole universe a billion years from now?

And what of applicability of this computational predictability to the real world? We can demonstrate the fallibility of this assertion with every release of a software product that has to go out to real people in the real world with millions of computers, some of which are broken in subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways, all under the influence of real-time inputs and contending with other applications for resources.

The Greeks thought they could derive all knowledge from math and philosophy alone, and they were wrong. You have to have those little "reality checks" that scientific method allows. Math always "works", but it doesn't always match what you find in reality. Actually, it seldom does. Your measurements are buggered, your assumptions are imprecise, and elements you never considered intervene.

[Kilted_Canuck]

Franko, I didn't know you had it in you! You discovered the Theory of Everything and didn't tell us. So, how is the Quantum World related to the Macroscopic World, in what you call TLOP? These worlds are not connected in the least sense, but you seem to be able to connect them and claim that we are all insane for not seeing it. The laws of physics are not all connected, as Relativity, Newtonian physics, and Quantum physics will show you.

Give us some hard evidence, and we might believe you. (No, that voice inside your head does not count)

[Franko]

Earthborn:
I think there is some confusement here that 'predetermined' somehow means the same as 'preprogrammed'. This is not true. It is possible to make a computer program that does things that are not programmed into it but that are still the inevitable result of it running.

the inevitable result of it running = Fate = Determination

of course A-Theists want to pretend that it is magic. A-Theists want to pretend that the present is NOT based on the past, and that the future will NOT be based on the present. A-Theist want to pretend that they have “free will”, and there will be no consequences for their actions.

[Franko]

Jilted-A-Theist:
Franko, I didn't know you had it in you! You discovered the Theory of Everything and didn't tell us. So, how is the Quantum World related to the Macroscopic World, in what you call TLOP? These worlds are not connected in the least sense, but you seem to be able to connect them and claim that we are all insane for not seeing it. The laws of physics are not all connected, as Relativity, Newtonian physics, and Quantum physics will show you.

Really? Well … I must say this is fascinating coming from a person who believes that whenever you flip a coin it ALWAYS lands TAILS up because there is no evidence that it will land HEADS up. I find it amazing that a person who can profess a belief in “free will” despite the stunning lack of evidence for “free will” can profess to comprehend Relativity, or Newtonian mechanics, or Quantum mechanics and expect to be taken seriously.

Give us some hard evidence, and we might believe you. (No, that voice inside your head does not count)

Morons like you are all the evidence I need to demonstrate the non-existence of your “free willy” deity.

And BTW … how do you know that I’m not just a voice inside Your head … ?

[evildave]

Blah-blah-blah.

Franko turns to insults and recriminations again.

Standard script.

You know, the only reason he probably believes in this lack of free will is that he's in such a grotesquely deep rut of ingrained behavior that he'll never crawl out of it, no matter how he tries.

Back to the "coin toss", can the "TLOP controls your car with goddesses" gibberish be far behind?

[Franko]

evildavey (A-Theist):

Blah-blah-blah.

Franko turns to insults and recriminations again.

Standard script.

You know, the only reason he probably believes in this lack of free will is that he's in such a grotesquely deep rut of ingrained behavior that he'll never crawl out of it, no matter how he tries.

Back to the "coin toss", can the "TLOP controls your car with goddesses" gibberish be far behind?

I don't see how this is evidence for "free will" or any of your other dogmatic religious beliefs davey. Just as I prophesized ... it looks like more of your standard A-Theist Trolling.

[evildave]

Ooh! Looky!

Franko's using the word "Trolling" again.

Isn't it cute?

[justsaygnosis]

Perhaps this may help you persuade Franko to try and be more reasonable dealing with your program.

[Earthborn]

Well, if you want the same demonstration, but easier to find and more largely studied, there's always "life", and the same sorts of web searches that turn up ants will turn that up. "Life" can be randomly seeded, and it will generally turn out stable colonies after a little while. Yes, but then I can't show you my cool Langton Ant program! :)As a closed system, your results are generally guaranteed, but neither simulation is purely deterministic if you add or ramove a single cell (or ant, or block) at a randomly chosen time and a randomly chosen location while the simulation is running.Indeed.And "outcome" is subjective. What is the "outcome"? When the colony reaches apparent stability? The state the colony is in after 100 cycles? 1000 simulation cycles? 10000 cycles? A week of cycles?All true: outcome is a bit subjective. But I think we can call the following instances outcomes:
- It all comes to a grinding halt (End of Times)
- It starts repeating itself (Big Crunch)
- It goes on and on without actually changing much of importance, not making any real structures anymore (heat death)
The Earth its self is not a closed system, nor is any subset of population on this Earth.Well, duh! But the universe just might be.
If we had provable determinism in the real world, the same joker would win the lottery every week.If physisists discover a Theory of Everything that does not include any outside influences and what-ever-is-the-smallest-particle behaves entirely deterministically (no room for chance events) then we would have provable determinismwhat makes you think you can determine the state of the whole universe a billion years from now?I don't think I ever claimed it would be possible. In fact quite the opposite: even in the situation the Langton Ants are in, there is only one way to know what the program will do after a certain time: running it. So the only way to predict what the universe will do is to build a huge computer capable of holding the entire universe in memory, putting in the initial states of it and programming the TLOP and running it. Problem is that it will be much slower than the universe itself so it will never predict anything.And what of applicability of this computational predictability to the real world?Obviously you can have determinism without computational predictability unless you have a faster model of what computer God is running the universe on. :DYour measurements are buggered, your assumptions are imprecise, and elements you never considered intervene.True: discussing whether determinism is true or not is pretty irrelevant when you consider that we won't know absolutely for sure anyway. Determinism is simply the absence of any true randomness, so proving it is like proving a negative: you would need to prove that there ISN'T anything random to be found anywhere.

[Franko]

Earthborn:
True: discussing whether determinism is true or not is pretty irrelevant when you consider that we won't know absolutely for sure anyway. Determinism is simply the absence of any true randomness, so proving it is like proving a negative: you would need to prove that there ISN'T anything random to be found anywhere.

randomness is like the A-Theist “god”. It’s the source of their “magic”, it’s the source of their “free willy” powers.

But I lack-o-belief in their deity. I see no evidence for the existence of “True randomness” , and no A-Theist can even explain what it would look like. It’s just a nonsense word. Besides, Thomas Bayes dispelled this “magic” virtual ages ago.

[Checkmite]

I seriously don't get his guy anymore...he's mystifying me more than ever.

I say I prefer a universe where there are cause/effect consequences instead of predetermined events, and Franko says "that's because you don't want there to be any consequences". I say that, rather than being made to commit certain predetermined actions like a puppet, I want to be responsible for my own actions, and Franko responds by saying "that's because you don't want to be responsible for your actions". Where is this guy coming from? After announcing that I want to buy a blue shirt, I half expect Franko to say something like "that's because you don't want to wear a blue shirt". Whatever you say, tiger. :rolleyes:

[evildave]

He's just fulfilling his sworn duty as everybody's favorite strawman.

You want a religious fanatic who *likes* abuse, there's Franko.

You want someone to play 'argument clinic' all hours of the day and night, there's Franko.

You want someone to justify your personal loathing for mindless, drooling idiots who spout off about phenomenology? There's Franko.

Just look at the priceless contributions he makes here. I mean, you couldn't even get telephone solicitors to take that job; they have too much self esteem.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by evildave
Just look at the priceless contributions he makes here. I mean, you couldn't even get telephone solicitors to take that job; they have too much self esteem.
Speaking as a person who's not a telephone solicitor I would have to agree. If, on the other hand, I were a telephone solicitor then I would shoot myself.

Oh dear! Now Franko is going to say that all A-Theists want to shoot themselves.

Incidentally, if you look up "Straw Man fallacy" in the latest Webster's dictionary it says "see Franko". Not bad for such a young upstart.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I must say, if I was manager in some company in Frank's district, I would do whatever was in my powers to get him employed as a salesman.














With my worst competitor. :D

Hans

[Underemployed]

Forgive a poor foolish newbie for pooring oil on a fire,

THESIS:
At or before the Big Bang/First day of Creation/The Dreamtime/[insert preferred story here], everything that was ever going to happen in the Universe was set down. Every movement of every electron was set off on its inevitable course according to the immutable physical laws of existence. Whatever we call 'freedom' in terms of our own decision-making is an illusion arising naturally through these laws.

ANTITHESIS:
As above, except we have special dispensation from physical laws due to Consciousness/Souls/Random Fluctuations in Quantum Foam/Someone from another Universe pressing the '1' key [delete as applicable]. We get to choose our fate.

SYNTHESIS:
:confused: Ummm...ah....I'll have to get back to you on this one...sometime next year maybe....

I'll have to side with Franko on the issue of free will I'm afraid - it's all a scam (but then I was fated to say that).

However, Joshua's elegant examples were designed to debunk the notion that even without free will, there are still consequences for your actions. I'm not sure if this isn't more of a linguistic issue than one of logic.

If by 'consequences' Franko is saying that there is an absolute right and wrong, it is bad to murder, rape and steal etc regardless of the existence of humans, then Joshua's Universe v1.0.1 completely disproves this. If our consciousness is the product of a vastly complicated program or mechanism, we can't be held to be 'bad' or 'good'. Being put in the bad books of our Creator simply for following our programming is idiotic.

But if he just means that 'consequences' means effect will follow cause, then it doesn't really matter whether or not we are complex automatons or free-willed entities - of course actions have consequences!

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick completely?

Please set me right,

Underemployed

[Checkmite]

Underemployed:

Kudos for hitting the nail squarely on the head, and welcome to the Forum!

[Franko]

If by 'consequences' Franko is saying that there is an absolute right and wrong, it is bad to murder, rape and steal etc regardless of the existence of humans, then Joshua's Universe v1.0.1 completely disproves this. If our consciousness is the product of a vastly complicated program or mechanism, we can't be held to be 'bad' or 'good'. Being put in the bad books of our Creator simply for following our programming is idiotic.

But if he just means that 'consequences' means effect will follow cause, then it doesn't really matter whether or not we are complex automatons or free-willed entities - of course actions have consequences!

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick completely?

Please set me right

If You are destined to be born to parents where your mother is an alcoholic, and your father physically abuses you, are you seriously claiming this is a “free will” decision on Your part? Are you claiming that you won’t have to deal with the consequences of being born into this family situation?

Are you claiming that somehow Joshie’s program proves such a scenario never happens in reality?

What are you claiming?


THESIS:
At or before the Big Bang/First day of Creation/The Dreamtime/[insert preferred story here], [ Franko: “Initial State” ] everything that was ever going to happen in the Universe was set down. Every movement of every electron was set off on its inevitable course according to the immutable physical laws of existence. Whatever we call 'freedom' in terms of our own decision-making is an illusion arising naturally through these laws.

Yeah … yet for some strange reason the A-Theists are disputing this is how it works ???

ANTITHESIS:
As above, except we have special dispensation from physical laws due to Consciousness/Souls/Random Fluctuations in Quantum Foam/Someone from another Universe pressing the '1' key [delete as applicable]. We get to choose our fate.

That’s what the A-Theists are claiming:

Anti-Thesis = A-Theism

Somehow via magic we are able to defy TLOP and the Initial state and act in accordance with our own “free will”. It’s an unprovable supernatural claim, and the reason it’s unprovable, is because there is absolutely no evidence for it.

[Checkmite]

Franko, my programs have nothing to do with the topic of whether "free will" exists or not...stop changing the subject.

[Franko]

Franko, my programs have nothing to do with the topic of whether "free will" exists or not...stop changing the subject.

That’s right A-Theist. Your programs are a diversion, nothing more.

If you had a point to make, you would have made it.

There’s no evidence for your magic powers A-Theist, and we both know it. I just find it amusing making you face this fact day after day.

[Checkmite]

No, they did have a point, which Underemployed illustrated again...but that point seems to have been lost on you, since you have a hang-up on this "free will" thing and can't have a single discussion without trying to make "free will" fit into it somewhere. If we were discussing the colors of turnips, you'd have to say something like "how does this prove free will?"

The point of this thread is determinism vs. true cause and effect.

Let me outline the argument once again.

1. In an absolutely predetermined universe, the only truly meaningful "cause" any event can have is that said event was predetermined by the Creator. Some events may appear connected, but if the universe is "predetermined", any connection between events is coincidental. The short hand is, as someone mentioned, the "death fate" argument. If it has been predetermined that you will die by gunshot, then you may drive wrecklessly, or swim in a rough ocean even though you're not a good swimmer, because you can't die in a car crash or by drowning, you can only die by gunshot.

2. In a true cause vs effect universe, a choice is made between two or more options by some entity seperate from the Creator. That entity may be another consciousness, or the D&D "player" you so often refer to. Nevertheless, the Creator may program various "possible consequences" for choosing each option, but that Creator cannot know which option will be chosen. If he/she did know, then the whole concept of "options" would be an illogical and unnecessary addition, and it would essentially be the same as the universe described in Item 1.

The whole point behind me writing the computer programs to illustrate the above two items, Franko, is so that you couldn't call these arguments "illogical", because if the computer programs were "illogical", they wouldn't work - and they do, in fact, work. The arguments are perfectly logical...unless you want to claim that computers work illogically.

Nowhere in this explanation does "free will" show up in the equation. This thread is not about "free will" - so, as I said, don't keep trying to change the subject.

[Franko]

Joshua Korosi: (A-Theist)

No, they [Josh’s Program] did have a point, which Underemployed [Josh’s sockpuppet] illustrated again [dogmatically intoned] ...but that point seems to have been lost on you [religious dogma = no effect], since you have a hang-up on this "free will" thing [since I require evidence to believe something] and can't have a single discussion without trying to make "free will" fit into it somewhere [this is the religion and philosophy forum after all]. If we were discussing the colors of turnips, you'd have to say something like "how does this prove free will?" [perhaps you’d like it better back over at Banter? ]

The point of this thread is determinism vs. true cause and effect.

Let me outline the argument once again.

[Snipped] A-Theist Diversion #1

[Snipped] A-Theist Diversion #2

The whole point behind me writing the computer programs to illustrate the above two items, Franko, is so that you couldn't call these arguments "illogical", because if the computer programs were "illogical", they wouldn't work - and they do, in fact, work. The arguments are perfectly logical...unless you want to claim that computers work illogically.

Nowhere in this explanation does "free will" show up in the equation. This thread is not about "free will" - so, as I said, don't keep trying to change the subject.

Joshie is basically using his “computer programs” to try and prove that if you happen to be born to an alcoholic mother and a physically abusive father who are both uneducated and unemployed that you will not have to deal with any consequences associated with this family situation.

Either that or he is somehow claiming that his computer programs prove you really DO get to select who your parents are going to be in advanced. Actually I have no idea what Joshie is trying to prove.

All he has proved to me so far is that he is a ultra fanatical religious nutcase who comes to a skeptics forum with no evidence for his beliefs and expects everyone to take his word as gospel, about how reality functions even though he has no evidence for the things he believes. Like all these A-Theists it’s more than obvious to me that Joshie is nothing more than a dire pessimist. He is absolutely convinced that a bad future ultimately awaits him.

I think he may be right …

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko




Joshie is basically using his “computer programs” to try and prove that if you happen to be born to an alcoholic mother and a physically abusive father who are both uneducated and unemployed that you will not have to deal with any consequences associated with this family situation.

Either that or he is somehow claiming that his computer programs prove you really DO get to select who your parents are going to be in advanced. Actually I have no idea what Joshie is trying to prove.



The computer programs prove neither, nor are they intended to.

But isn't it interesting, Franko, that you so casually ignore demonstrably logical arguments? "Logical" Deism indeed. You refuse to even consider that which may prove you wrong. Is this not one of the signs of "religious fanaticism"?

[Franko]

The computer programs prove neither, nor are they intended to.

So what do they prove (other than the dogmatism and religious fervor of the adherents of A-Theism)?

If You are destined to be born to parents where your mother is an alcoholic, and your father physically abuses you, are you seriously claiming this is a “free will” decision on Your part? Are you claiming that you won’t have to deal with the consequences of being born into this family situation?

Are you claiming that somehow Your program proves such a scenario never happens in reality?

What are you claiming?

I still remember when you pretended to be a Deist Joshie, now what was I saying about A-Theists being deceitful individuals, incapable of honesty?

But isn't it interesting, Franko, that you so casually ignore demonstrably logical arguments?

What argument? You haven’t made one, you just posted a bunch of computer code, and then tried to pretend that it actually proved something. All it proved is that you A-Theists have no evidence for your beliefs and instead must rely on diversions and logical fallacy.

You refuse to even consider that which may prove you wrong.

How does it prove me wrong Joshie? You can’t even articulate what point you are trying to make.

Is this not one of the signs of "religious fanaticism"?

Here’s the sign that YOU are a religious fanatic:

If you have some evidence for your religious beliefs, I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. But for over a YEAR NOW you keep spouting of the same dogmatic nonsense, day after day. NO EVIDENCE??? And you are going scream at me, like it is my fault?!? Like it is MY problem?!?! Get a life you dogmatic religious fool! You are embarassing yourself.


What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Joshua Korosi, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Joshua Korosi, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

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

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Underemployed]

Hmmm...I see why Franko makes so many people want to post. I am a little hurt at being called a sock-puppet, so I might get a bit emotional...but here goes, because I am a sucker for a good argument. Or indeed a bad one.

Quote:

What are you claiming?

Well, I suppose what I am claiming is exactly what I said. If it was unclear I am sorry. I'll try and say it in simpler terms:

If things are predetermined - by TLOP, a Logical Godess, by whatever - then your example of the child born to abusive parents makes no sense. Since their future actions are already set in stone, it doesn't matter what the consequences are for this child, it's just an automaton! Of course it will have a ****** life (unless otherwise decreed by it's predetermined path) but this is thanks to the Creator.

Joshua was taking issue with the conflicting claims that:

A) All things are predetermined, right down to your very last thought and action

B) We should still all be nice to each other and watch out for poor kids with bad parents.

If a Creator wanted us all to be nice, wouldn't it have.... um.... predetermined it to be so? Or did it predetermine our universe to make us all feel confused all the time? Joshua's program showed that in a predetermined existence, The Universe does exactly what it says on the tin. If that child has to deal with those consequences, it was meant to. It doesn't prove such a situation never happens in reality, only that such consequences are the decision of the Creator. Are you saying you want to defy your Goddess?

Incidentally....opening up a whole new can of worms.... (sorry)

Have I missed a few issues of Scientific American? The one where they conclusively proved that at the lowest possible level the Universe still acts like clockwork? I missed that one.

Last time I checked, the jury is still out on whether or not things are fundamentally predictable or random. I currently side with Franko on this one, but I can only say I believe it - I can't say I know for sure. I believe free will to be an illusion - a devilishly cunning one - but that's all it is, a belief.

Where does your unshakeable faith in the fundamental predictability of the Universe come from, Franko?

[Franko]

If things are predetermined - by TLOP, a Logical Godess, by whatever - then your example of the child born to abusive parents makes no sense. Since their future actions are already set in stone, it doesn't matter what the consequences are for this child, it's just an automaton! Of course it will have a ****** life (unless otherwise decreed by it's predetermined path) but this is thanks to the Creator.

It is important to keep in mind, that although I believe the Goddess creates and generates this Universe, I do not believe She created “Us” (You or me, or anyone else here).

A) All things are predetermined, right down to your very last thought and action

B) We should still all be nice to each other and watch out for poor kids with bad parents.

If a Creator wanted us all to be nice, wouldn't it have.... um.... predetermined it to be so?

If She had created YOU, then Yeah, I would expect She would have just created you the way She wanted you to be. But like I said, She didn’t create you. And She has no idea what you are like, So She created this universe, and She brought you here, and now She is checking you out to see is you are worth keeping around, or if She should toss you back to whence you came.

Or did it predetermine our universe to make us all feel confused all the time? Joshua's program showed that in a predetermined existence, The Universe does exactly what it says on the tin.

Yep, that is exactly how it happens.

If that child has to deal with those consequences, it was meant to. It doesn't prove such a situation never happens in reality, only that such consequences are the decision of the Creator. Are you saying you want to defy your Goddess?

It is very non-beneficial to even attempt to defy Her, whereas if you do what She wants you to do you are richly rewarded. I notice that for the most part only A-Theists attempt to defy Her.

Incidentally....opening up a whole new can of worms.... (sorry)

Have I missed a few issues of Scientific American? The one where they conclusively proved that at the lowest possible level the Universe still acts like clockwork? I missed that one.

Last time I checked, the jury is still out on whether or not things are fundamentally predictable or random. I currently side with Franko on this one, but I can only say I believe it - I can't say I know for sure. I believe free will to be an illusion - a devilishly cunning one - but that's all it is, a belief.

Where does your unshakeable faith in the fundamental predictability of the Universe come from, Franko?

The main evidence for Indeterminism is unquestionably Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, but this notion is so flawed I hardly even know where to begin. Almost as soon as Heisenberg came out with this nonsense, it was savaged by Einstein and others. The A-Theist claim Heisenberg was vindicated by John Bell, but Bell’s work has got such an obvious hole in it that only a fanatically religious A-Theist could accept it. I notice that A-Theists seem to love MWI (yeah, an invisible God is a stretch, but an infinite number of invisible parallel universes is “obviously” True :rolleyes: ).

The best evidence for Determination, is that the present is obviously based on the past, just as the future will obviously be based on the present. If you believe in Indeterminism or if you believe that Heisenberg and his “Uncertainty principle” are True, then the present would not be based on the past, nor would the future be based on the present. Things would just happen randomly. Heisenberg could never explain why his randomness didn’t filter up to the real world. The reason it doesn’t is because it isn’t really random.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


So what do they prove (other than the dogmatism and religious fervor of the adherents of A-Theism)?

Here, let me tell you, again:

1. In an absolutely predetermined universe, the only truly meaningful "cause" any event can have is that said event was predetermined by the Creator. Some events may appear connected, but if the universe is "predetermined", any connection between events is coincidental. The short hand is, as someone mentioned, the "death fate" argument. If it has been predetermined that you will die by gunshot, then you may drive wrecklessly, or swim in a rough ocean even though you're not a good swimmer, because you can't die in a car crash or by drowning, you can only die by gunshot.

2. In a true cause vs effect universe, a choice is made between two or more options by some entity seperate from the Creator. That entity may be another consciousness, or the D&D "player" you so often refer to. Nevertheless, the Creator may program various "possible consequences" for choosing each option, but that Creator cannot know which option will be chosen. If he/she did know, then the whole concept of "options" would be an illogical and unnecessary addition, and it would essentially be the same as the universe described in Item 1.


Originally posted by Franko
If You are destined to be born to parents where your mother is an alcoholic, and your father physically abuses you, are you seriously claiming this is a “free will” decision on Your part? Are you claiming that you won’t have to deal with the consequences of being born into this family situation?

Are you claiming that somehow Your program proves such a scenario never happens in reality?

What are you claiming?

My post, and this thread, has nothing to do with "free will" or the consequences/lack thereof of such. Find a different thread.

Originally posted by Franko
I still remember when you pretended to be a Deist Joshie, now what was I saying about A-Theists being deceitful individuals, incapable of honesty?

Yes, what?

Originally posted by Franko
What argument? You haven’t made one, you just posted a bunch of computer code, and then tried to pretend that it actually proved something. All it proved is that you A-Theists have no evidence for your beliefs and instead must rely on diversions and logical fallacy.

Diversions? The computer programs and what they illustrate was the entire purpose of this thread. How can something this thread is based on be used as a diversion? And if the logic is false, then why do the computer programs work? A computer program based on logical fallacy will not function. Maybe if you really understood computer programs, you'd see my point. Perhaps you don't know C++?

Originally posted by Franko
How does it prove me wrong Joshie? You can’t even articulate what point you are trying to make.

Yes, I have articulated the point. Several times now. To recap:

1. In an absolutely predetermined universe, the only truly meaningful "cause" any event can have is that said event was predetermined by the Creator. Some events may appear connected, but if the universe is "predetermined", any connection between events is coincidental. The short hand is, as someone mentioned, the "death fate" argument. If it has been predetermined that you will die by gunshot, then you may drive wrecklessly, or swim in a rough ocean even though you're not a good swimmer, because you can't die in a car crash or by drowning, you can only die by gunshot.

2. In a true cause vs effect universe, a choice is made between two or more options by some entity seperate from the Creator. That entity may be another consciousness, or the D&D "player" you so often refer to. Nevertheless, the Creator may program various "possible consequences" for choosing each option, but that Creator cannot know which option will be chosen. If he/she did know, then the whole concept of "options" would be an illogical and unnecessary addition, and it would essentially be the same as the universe described in Item 1.

These aren't diversion, Franko, they're the entire point of this thread. If you want to talk about "free will", try ]this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11177). Otherwise, stop trying to hijack other threads.

Originally posted by Franko
Here’s the sign that YOU are a religious fanatic:

If you have some evidence for your religious beliefs, I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. But for over a YEAR NOW you keep spouting of the same dogmatic nonsense, day after day. NO EVIDENCE??? And you are going scream at me, like it is my fault?!? Like it is MY problem?!?! Get a life you dogmatic religious fool! You are embarassing yourself.

I was registered in June of last year, which means I've been on this forum for about 7 months - just barely over half a year. And, my computer programs are evidence that my arguments are logically valid. Can you prove they aren't?

And I'm not screaming at you, Franko. Indeed, your repetitive and more extreme use of exclamation points and insults lately is disturbing...calm down and focus. It seems as if your ego may be tied into your belief system a bit too much.

Originally posted by Franko
What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Joshua Korosi, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

Sounds sort of like your argument for determinism.

Originally posted by Franko
What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Joshua Korosi, A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

I believe in God.
--------------------------

Originally posted by Franko
What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

The laws of physics again...like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, right?

Originally posted by Franko
What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

This defines God's relationship with you. It still presumes the existence of God.

Originally posted by Franko
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

I'm not "more conscious" than a car; I'm conscious and a car just isn't. You can't be "more conscious" than something else anymore than a woman can be "more pregnant" than another woman.

Nonetheless...you are still trying to hijack the thread. Stay on topic, please.

[Franko]

Joshua Korosi:

I'm not "more conscious" than a car; I'm conscious and a car just isn't. You can't be "more conscious" than something else ...

I'm conscious ...

So ... You_consciousness > 0

a car just isn't. [conscious]

So ... Car_consciousness = 0

Ergo since: You_Consciousness > 0 and Car_consciousness = 0 Then

You_consciousness > Car_consciousness

Even CWL conceded this point Joshie, so are you telling me you are even more dogmatic than him now?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko




So ... You_consciousness > 0



So ... Car_consciousness = 0

Ergo since: You_Consciousness > 0 and Car_consciousness = 0 Then

You_consciousness > Car_consciousness

Even CWL conceded this point Joshie, so are you telling me you are even more dogmatic than him now?

(insert really obnoxious buzzer sound here)

You are either conscious, or you're not. There aren't any "levels" of consciousness. I am, my car ain't.

You measuring consciousness by "greater than zero" is nonsensical. It isn't a scale, it's a true dichotomy -

You_Consciousness = Y, Car_Consciousness = N

Is a lion "more dead" than a squirrel?

And so what if CWL "conceded"...is that supposed to mean something to me?

[justsaygnosis]

It should be deemed true that the cause which determined the effect is ultimately responsible for all that comes of the effect.
If LD is playing universal dominatrix LD is ABSOLUTELY ACCOUNTABLE for everything.
According to logic LD is deliberately and consciously generating bad karma for herself.

[Franko]

JSG:

It should be deemed true that the cause which determined the effect is ultimately responsible for all that comes of the effect.
If LD is playing universal dominatrix LD is ABSOLUTELY ACCOUNTABLE for everything.
According to logic LD is deliberately and consciously generating bad karma for herself.

You have a “flat-earth” model of the Universe my little friend.

You want to pretend there is no “Goddess” … fine … imagine She’s just a figment of my imagination. That doesn’t change the fact that the events of your existence are wholly determined moment by moment by forces utterly beyond your control. You want to claim that those forces are “non-conscious”? What do I care, but remember the next time you are in your car, that those “non-conscious” forces could at any moment cause another Car to swerve directly into you, or run a stop sign, or your car could blow a tire and flip at high speed, etc, etc, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. Fate.

At least … that’s what the empirical evidence says …

[Underemployed]

Dear All,

Thank you , Franko, for replying to my post in such a detailed manner. It has cleared up the main loose end and the reason Joshua started this thread.

Have you not previously mentioned...

Quote:

"It is important to keep in mind, that although I believe the Goddess creates and generates this Universe, I do not believe She created “Us” (You or me, or anyone else here). [...]She has no idea what you are like, So She created this universe, and She brought you here, and now She is checking you out to see is you are worth keeping around, or if She should toss you back to whence you came."

...Or words to this effect in other threads?

Why do you think Joshua and others are taking issue with this?

I would like you to explain further how the Goddess can create everything without 'You' or 'Us' being included. This is, after all, the James Randi Educational Forum and I would like to learn from you.

[Franko]

I would like you to explain further how the Goddess can create everything without 'You' or 'Us' being included. This is, after all, the James Randi Educational Forum and I would like to learn from you.

Can Time not exist? I mean … let’s say that prior to the “Big Bang”, there was no Time. How long did this Timeless period last for?

Maybe there never was a “Timeless period”? Maybe Time has always existed? How is it possible for Time to not exist? Even if nothing at all existed, didn’t nothing at all have to last for a certain interval?

Okay, so according to LD you start off with one single entity – a consciousness. We call him the Progenitor, and since he was the only consciousness in existence at the Time, he is the Progenitor Solipsist, the PS.

So the PS is around for a long time. And he is evolving, he is becoming more and more self aware. He understands himself and what he is (Time) better and better. He is perceiving Time better and better over the course of Time. Eventually he comes to the realization that he is alone.

And over Time this gets to be a problem for him. Solitude becomes a trap from which he must escape, so he begins to devise a plan. All that he really has to work with is Time. Time is all that exists. Essentially what he has to do is split Time in two. But there are a lot of problems with this. If he’s not careful he’ll just create another identity completely identical to himself. Now he could create an entity inferior to himself, but that’s a problem. He could reverse the situation and create an entity superior to himself, but that just shifts the problem to the new entity. What he really needs to do is create an entity that is different than himself, but one that is still his fundamental equal.

And that’s exactly what he ends up doing. Eventually, he figures out a way to split himself into two different but fundamentally equal parts. One part (the “new” entity) contains more information (more Mass), but a lower processing Time (Velocity), and the other part contains less information (less Mass), but more processing power (Velocity). So the PS becomes the PR (Progenitor Remnant), and the “new” entity becomes the first “female” – Right Spin. (a side effect of the process is that all entities with Mass also now acquire a “Spin”, and all entities with Velocity now also acquire a “Charge”). Furthermore, as a result of splitting up his original Mass, he is unable to further replicate without the direct involvement of the female entity.

That’s the dawn of Our Time, because it was after these events that all of us were created. It’s after this point in Time that real evolution begins. When individual existence first began the bare Omniverse was the only Universe that existed. We are Gravitons and we are produced as the result of a collision between a right Spin and a left Spin Graviton. In reality we don’t even exist in this “universe”. This Universe is analogous to being deeply absorbed in a Television program.

So you now you have these gravitons – just particles really. And they are winging around, transferring information back and fourth between each other when they are in range of one another. Occasionally two collide just right, and they produce a new Graviton. But their experiences are all different now. No two can occupy the exact same region of Spacetime. They are becoming more and more individuals, they are becoming more and more unique because of the region of the Omniverse they tend to occupy, or the Gravitons they tend to communicate with regularly. Eventually, one of them (a right Spin) perceives something new – She perceives a new way to communicate (transfer) information (energy). What She really perceives is an improved way to perceive Time. She perceives a way to project a common frame of reference from Her mind, directly to yours. In effect, She’s lending you a part of Her perception, and She is hoping that by experiencing it directly you will realize how to do what She does all on your own.

After all, intrinsically you are no different then Her, Your just less evolved.

But I don’t think many people realize what’s going on. Some people realize it though.

Definitely not the A-Theists. They are about as far from the Truth as one can get.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Franko
JSG:



You have a “flat-earth” model of the Universe my little friend.

You want to pretend there is no “Goddess” … fine … imagine She’s just a figment of my imagination. That doesn’t change the fact that the events of your existence are wholly determined moment by moment by forces utterly beyond your control. You want to claim that those forces are “non-conscious”? What do I care, but remember the next time you are in your car, that those “non-conscious” forces could at any moment cause another Car to swerve directly into you, or run a stop sign, or your car could blow a tire and flip at high speed, etc, etc, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. Fate.

At least … that’s what the empirical evidence says …
For starters I'm 48 years old. I'm somewhat short but not your little friend by any means.
The point I'm making is this. If that 'goddess' is the cognotive initiator of those events and is doing so with intent and motive that constitutes 'mens rai'.
It would be logical to assume I'd be the victim and LG is on the hook for the 'bad karma.'
Actually the route territory I'm covering while my driver has knee surgery is quite hilly. There's snow and ice all over northern Rhode Island right now. I kind of wish it was flat then this graviton would have a lot less to worry about. I'm well aware of what gravity does to vehicles on ice, especially big one's with cargo.
It's like this my man. I live in the outside world and not in labs or software programs.
I appreciate all that people who do that for a living contribute to the world but you may be spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME playing with 1's, 0's, C++ and Java to realize that people act like people not like programs. I could be way off on that assessment but I get that impression.

[wraith]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis

For starters I'm 48 years old.

geez, take a breather pops
;)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko

Maybe there never was a “Timeless period”? Maybe Time has always existed? How is it possible for Time to not exist? Even if nothing at all existed, didn’t nothing at all have to last for a certain interval?

Time is a creation of the Big Bang. Time exists within the Universe.
Before the BB, there was no time as you perceive it.


Okay, so according to LD you start off with one single entity – a consciousness. We call him the Progenitor, and since he was the only consciousness in existence at the Time, he is the Progenitor Solipsist, the PS.

And who created this consciousness?
Did it come out of nothing?
Was there something before the PS?


So the PS is around for a long time. And he is evolving, he is becoming more and more self aware. He understands himself and what he is (Time) better and better. He is perceiving Time better and better over the course of Time. Eventually he comes to the realization that he is alone.

How could he perceive that he was alone if he had no reference to know that he was alone?
How do you know that something exist if you have NEVER seen it before?


And over Time this gets to be a problem for him. Solitude becomes a trap from which he must escape, so he begins to devise a plan. All that he really has to work with is Time. Time is all that exists. Essentially what he has to do is split Time in two. But there are a lot of problems with this. If he’s not careful he’ll just create another identity completely identical to himself. Now he could create an entity inferior to himself, but that’s a problem. He could reverse the situation and create an entity superior to himself, but that just shifts the problem to the new entity. What he really needs to do is create an entity that is different than himself, but one that is still his fundamental equal.

How did he "split" time? I think what you mean is that he had to split consciousnesss.



And that’s exactly what he ends up doing. Eventually, he figures out a way to split himself into two different but fundamentally equal parts. One part (the “new” entity) contains more information (more Mass), but a lower processing Time (Velocity), and the other part contains less information (less Mass), but more processing power (Velocity). So the PS becomes the PR (Progenitor Remnant), and the “new” entity becomes the first “female” – Right Spin. (a side effect of the process is that all entities with Mass also now acquire a “Spin”, and all entities with Velocity now also acquire a “Charge”). Furthermore, as a result of splitting up his original Mass, he is unable to further replicate without the direct involvement of the female entity.

How do you conceive gender in this scenario. What for?

Gender has a biological purpose here, but there...


That’s the dawn of Our Time, because it was after these events that all of us were created. It’s after this point in Time that real evolution begins. When individual existence first began the bare Omniverse was the only Universe that existed. We are Gravitons and we are produced as the result of a collision between a right Spin and a left Spin Graviton. In reality we don’t even exist in this “universe”. This Universe is analogous to being deeply absorbed in a Television program.

I am lost here.
Where exactly gravitons were created?

The only two entities after the slip of time were the PS and this female entity. But you have said many times what the LG had nothing to do with our creation.

Besides, in this process how gravitos get their intrinsic nature?



So you now you have these gravitons – just particles really...

Eventually, one of them (a right Spin) perceives something new – She perceives a new way to communicate (transfer) information (energy). What She really perceives is an improved way to perceive Time. She perceives a way to project a common frame of reference from Her mind, directly to yours. In effect, She’s lending you a part of Her perception, and She is hoping that by experiencing it directly you will realize how to do what She does all on your own.

So, this is the moment when the LG created her own Universe?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Can Time not exist? I mean … let’s say that prior to the “Big Bang”, there was no Time. How long did this Timeless period last for?

Maybe there never was a “Timeless period”? Maybe Time has always existed? How is it possible for Time to not exist? Even if nothing at all existed, didn’t nothing at all have to last for a certain interval?
I had never heard of this concept of "timelessness" until coming on the boards here, and it seems counterintuitive, but on reflection, I can conceive of its possibility. After all, how do you measure time? You measure things happening. You may measure the movement of clockwork, or the vibrations of an atom or even the erosion of mountains. But if nothing exists, then nothing happens. If time is the sequence of events, then what meaning does it have if there are no events?

Bear in mind, I am not claiming this to be true, but it is an interesting possibility.


Okay, so according to LD you start off with one single entity – a consciousness. We call him the Progenitor, and since he was the only consciousness in existence at the Time, he is the Progenitor Solipsist, the PS.
Yes, and you do not have a creator for the Progenitor. He "magically" popped into existence, much as some people claim the Big Bang did. LD does what all theories of origins must do, which is acknowledge that it does not know what happened before "the beginning". While there is nothing wrong with making this admission, too many religions postulate things that go beyond any knowledge or evidence. IMO we should stop making claims when we reach the point before which we have no knowledge. Based on most available info, this point is the Big Bang.


So the PS is around for a long time. And he is evolving, he is becoming more and more self aware. He understands himself and what he is (Time) better and better. He is perceiving Time better and better over the course of Time. Eventually he comes to the realization that he is alone.
I don't understand how the PS can evolve. How can it learn? There is nothing going on. One learns through experience, and if the PS experiences nothing, then it cannot learn. If things are happening (like time passing) that the PS does not control, then the PS is not the creator of everything. Recall also, that earlier you said Gravitons were the fundamental particles of time and gravity. Unless gravitions existed at this point, then there could be no time.


And over Time this gets to be a problem for him. Solitude becomes a trap from which he must escape, so he begins to devise a plan. All that he really has to work with is Time. Time is all that exists. Essentially what he has to do is split Time in two. But there are a lot of problems with this. If he’s not careful he’ll just create another identity completely identical to himself. Now he could create an entity inferior to himself, but that’s a problem. He could reverse the situation and create an entity superior to himself, but that just shifts the problem to the new entity. What he really needs to do is create an entity that is different than himself, but one that is still his fundamental equal.
Even though this scenario is interesting, it is a lot of speculation. Also, it's impossible under the tenets of LD. An entity cannot create something more complex than itself. LD says complexity and consciousness are always diminished in the creation as compared to the creator.


And that’s exactly what he ends up doing. Eventually, he figures out a way to split himself into two different but fundamentally equal parts. One part (the “new” entity) contains more information (more Mass), but a lower processing Time (Velocity), and the other part contains less information (less Mass), but more processing power (Velocity). So the PS becomes the PR (Progenitor Remnant), and the “new” entity becomes the first “female” – Right Spin. (a side effect of the process is that all entities with Mass also now acquire a “Spin”, and all entities with Velocity now also acquire a “Charge”). Furthermore, as a result of splitting up his original Mass, he is unable to further replicate without the direct involvement of the female entity.
This implies that the PS had mass and velocity to begin with. From where did they arise? This also implies that the Progenitor Remnant is male, because if one entity acquired a "right spin" then that action must leave the PR with the opposite and equal reaction, thus acquiring "left spin". I am curious as to why the PR has (so far) played such a limited part in your story to date. Interesting though. Many pagans also posit "male" and "female" forces in the universe.


That’s the dawn of Our Time, because it was after these events that all of us were created. It’s after this point in Time that real evolution begins. When individual existence first began the bare Omniverse was the only Universe that existed. We are Gravitons and we are produced as the result of a collision between a right Spin and a left Spin Graviton. In reality we don’t even exist in this “universe”. This Universe is analogous to being deeply absorbed in a Television program.
From the previous paragraph, it appeared that the PS split up and generated the left and right spin LG and PR (edited to add - What is the "female" remnant? I'm confused as to this original left-spin particle. I had assumed that it was the LG, but later, you seem to say otherwise). Are you saying that these two entities then "collide", creating every other graviton in existence? If so, it would seem that the original "colliding" gravitons must be greatly diminished, just as the PS was diminished when it split into the PR and the LG (Or PR and Left-Spin, if this is not the LG). It also appears either that these two "original" gravitons should still be around somewhere (I doubt they went to the abyss), or they were destroyed in the collision. If the former, why aren't they the "top gravitons"?

So you now you have these gravitons – just particles really. And they are winging around, transferring information back and fourth between each other when they are in range of one another. Occasionally two collide just right, and they produce a new Graviton. But their experiences are all different now. No two can occupy the exact same region of Spacetime. They are becoming more and more individuals, they are becoming more and more unique because of the region of the Omniverse they tend to occupy, or the Gravitons they tend to communicate with regularly. Eventually, one of them (a right Spin) perceives something new – She perceives a new way to communicate (transfer) information (energy). What She really perceives is an improved way to perceive Time. She perceives a way to project a common frame of reference from Her mind, directly to yours. In effect, She’s lending you a part of Her perception, and She is hoping that by experiencing it directly you will realize how to do what She does all on your own.
What can I say about this passage. It is marvelously inventive, as fiction. As science, though, it has a number of glaring problems, such as how does a particle "perceive" anything? Gravitons have sensory apparatus?

When two gravitons collide to create a new one, where does the mass come from? Are the colliding gravitons destroyed? Does their mass combine? This also implies that gravitons are being created even today, if they manage to collide just right. Some of them have not "always been here".

I am confused though. I was under the impression that one of the gravitons that split from the PS was the LG. Now it appears that "she" is just one of the "children" of the original collision, albeit a more perceptive one.


After all, intrinsically you are no different then Her, Your just less evolved.
It sounds as if you are using "evolved" to mean "perceptive".


But I don’t think many people realize what’s going on. Some people realize it though.

Definitely not the A-Theists. They are about as far from the Truth as one can get.
It is quite hard to "realize" something like this, what with the dearth of evidence. It doesn't sound like anything that two people would ever derive individually. If it is truly "logical", then there should be many who have come to the same conclusions. In my wide experience, I have never met anyone else with beliefs remotely similar to this.

It is true that few if any atheists would "realize" this. It makes too many unsupportable claims, and atheists are famous for not believing unsupported claims.

However, I would like to thank you, Franko, for this very interesting and polite post. As I say, your story is quite creative (pun intended) and well thought out. It might make a great "D&D" scenario. It may, in fact, be exactly that.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by wraith


geez, take a breather pops
;)



Shouldn't you be in a hamper by now?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

I had never heard of this concept of "timelessness" until coming on the boards here, and it seems counterintuitive, but on reflection, I can conceive of its possibility. After all, how do you measure time? You measure things happening. You may measure the movement of clockwork, or the vibrations of an atom or even the erosion of mountains. But if nothing exists, then nothing happens. If time is the sequence of events, then what meaning does it have if there are no events?

Yes, and you do not have a creator for the Progenitor. He "magically" popped into existence, much as some people claim the Big Bang did. LD does what all theories of origins must do, which is acknowledge that it does not know what happened before "the beginning". While there is nothing wrong with making this admission, too many religions postulate things that go beyond any knowledge or evidence. IMO we should stop making claims when we reach the point before which we have no knowledge. Based on most available info, this point is the Big Bang.

To understand anything of what Franko just said, you need to get the foundation right. That is consciousness and time. Everything else, stems out from here.

Can you have a "no-time" time period?
What accounts for the transition bewteen "time" and "no-time" periods?

How did "no-time" become spacetime?

Secondly, like spacetime, what about consciousness and time? Conscioustime if you will :cool:
Ever catch yourself sleeping?
:eek:

[neutrino_cannon]

How could you possibly tell if the universe was determined or random? It certainly has the apearance of randomness, but that could merely be a very complex form of determinism. I really can't see how you can prove it either way unless you have a working theory as to how the universe actualy works, that is consistent with all observed effects.

Oh wait, were working on one of those aren't we, and it doesn't seem to support determinism, as far as i know.

[wraith]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
How could you possibly tell if the universe was determined or random? It certainly has the apearance of randomness, but that could merely be a very complex form of determinism. I really can't see how you can prove it either way unless you have a working theory as to how the universe actualy works, that is consistent with all observed effects.

Oh wait, were working on one of those aren't we, and it doesn't seem to support determinism, as far as i know.

The present is not based on the past?

[MRC_Hans]

The present is not based on the past? The present is based on the past in a probabilistic way. If you ordered Tofu for lunch yesterday and hated it, you are probably not gonna order it again today.

Though, in your case....:rolleyes:

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The present is based on the past in a probabilistic way. If you ordered Tofu for lunch yesterday and hated it, you are probably not gonna order it again today.

Though, in your case....:rolleyes:

Hans

Whats the probability of 2 + 2 equaling 4?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by wraith


The present is not based on the past?

The past does not exist. If the present is based on it, then the present must not exist either. But the present exists. Therefore the present is not based on the past.

QED

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
To understand anything of what Franko just said, you need to get the foundation right. That is consciousness and time. Everything else, stems out from here.
So he says. Of course, he never explains how consciousness and time could "magically" pop out of the void. In other words, where does the foundation come from? Can't you see? Every "story" of creation must have a starting point (foundation), beyond which is unknown.

Originally posted by wraith
Can you have a "no-time" time period?
What accounts for the transition bewteen "time" and "no-time" periods?
I don't know about a "no-time" period. I explained the concept, but I admit that I don't have enough info to say I think it is correct. However, the question about "transition" is silly. Transition implies the passage of time. Without any concept of time, "transition" is meaningless. I would suggest that when something appeared (perhaps, but not definately the Big Bang), then time started.

Originally posted by wraith
Secondly, like spacetime, what about consciousness and time? Conscioustime if you will :cool:
Ever catch yourself sleeping?
:eek:

Yes, what about them? Are you trying to make a point, or just stringing words together? And yes, every time I wake up, I have caught myself sleeping. Why do you ask?

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork


The past does not exist. If the present is based on it, then the present must not exist either. But the present exists. Therefore the present is not based on the past.

Thats great whitefork :rolleyes:

So the present just pops in willy-nilly?
I take it that the future "JUST HAPPENS"
Random is it?

The presents exists?
What about the past present? ;)
I take it that you dont have any memories or any future plans? The future does not exist aswell right? :rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

So he says. Of course, he never explains how consciousness and time could "magically" pop out of the void. In other words, where does the foundation come from? Can't you see? Every "story" of creation must have a starting point (foundation), beyond which is unknown.

Was time created?

I don't know about a "no-time" period. I explained the concept, but I admit that I don't have enough info to say I think it is correct. However, the question about "transition" is silly. Transition implies the passage of time. Without any concept of time, "transition" is meaningless. I would suggest that when something appeared (perhaps, but not definately the Big Bang), then time started.

So why did "no-time" become "time"?

Yes, what about them? Are you trying to make a point, or just stringing words together? And yes, every time I wake up, I have caught myself sleeping. Why do you ask?

You catch yourself sleeping?
So you can actually say "I am sleeping" when youre sleeping?

[whitefork]

Beautiful - Wraith claiming that the past exists. Where? When?
How many? Every past moment has exactly the same status? Replicating the existing present all the way back to the beginning of time.

[MRC_Hans]

Whats the probability of 2 + 2 equaling 4? I guess this is just your Turing contender algorithm popping up a default reply.

2+2=4 is irrelevant. We are discussing the present and the past.

It is not difficult to produce practical examples where 2+2 has a probabilistic outcome, but I'm afraid they are beyond your scope. They would require you to understand fractions.

Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
Was time created?
I honestly don't know. I have no evidence for a creator. How do you propose to gather evidence for something that happened when there was no time? I have said it is a possibility that when there was no matter or energy, there was also no time.

However, you seem to have no problem with consciousness and time being the "foundations". If you can believe these things exist without a creator, why can you not believe that the universe exists without a creator?

Originally posted by wraith
So why did "no-time" become "time"?
I don't know. I don't even know if it did. I mention it only as a possibility. You do understand that, right?

Originally posted by wraith
You catch yourself sleeping?
So you can actually say "I am sleeping" when youre sleeping?
Actually, I have. I have been in the middle of a dream and realized it was a dream, without waking up. Occasionally, I have even "dreamed I woke up". It is an odd feeling.

However, as you certainly know, the transition from "asleep" to "awake" is usually a gradual one.

-----
Any chance of you commenting on Franko's creation story?

[CWL]

[musical interlude]

Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00001OH7Q/ref=m_art_li_3/102-4034343-4489724) - He's waiting in the wings
He speaks of senseless things
His script is you and me, boy

[/musical interlude]

[whitefork]

More music more music more music more music:

From Howard DeVoto:

Time flies
Time crawls
Like an insect
Up and down the walls

The light pours out of me

[MRC_Hans]

The deterministic cosmology presupposes that time has not existed always. Determinism claims that the present is derived from the past, in other words, the conditions existing in THIS second are caused by the conditions existing in the previous second (or microsecond, or whatever resolution you prefer). Of course, the conditions of one second ago were created by the conditions two seconds ago, etc. etc. etc. all the way back to the initial state. But if TIME did not start somewhere, there is no initial state, and consequently no basis for the conditions leading to THIS second.

Franko's cosmology tries to get around this by claiming that it took a lot of time (since for some reason he rejects the notion of time starting at some point), but this will not do. Its like those perpetuum mobiles that pretend that if you let water (or steel balls or whatever) run up a very obligue slope, they wont notice they run upwards. You cant be a little bit pregnant, and you cant have SOME determinism.

Hans

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith


Whats the probability of 2 + 2 equaling 4?

It's all in how you encode it.
2<SUB>3</sub>+2<SUB>3</sub>=11<SUB>3</sub>
2<SUB>4</sub>+2<SUB>4</sub>=10<SUB>4</sub>

Another possibility is if you have two mirrors, and carelessly toss them into a dumpster, and then carelessly throw in two more mirrors, you will get thousands of little mirrors.

If you are so inclined to wait for the outcome, add two {healthy, intact} male rabbits and two {healthy, intact} female rabbits to an empty field and wait a couple of years. Is it still four rabbits?

Start with two atoms of plutonium-238. Add two more. Oops. One picked this moment to decay. Now you've got three atoms of plutonium-238 and one of uranium-234.

Why is it that some people think that the world is just so cut and dry that a bit of kindergarten arithmetic explains everything for all cases? I suppose it could be that experimentation and verification of assertions takes effort.

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork
Beautiful - Wraith claiming that the past exists. Where?

In my head

When?

Just then ;)

How many?

I am aware of my past

Every past moment has exactly the same status?

same status?

Replicating the existing present all the way back to the beginning of time.

How long are you able to stop "present time" without calling lapsed time the past?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

I honestly don't know. I have no evidence for a creator. How do you propose to gather evidence for something that happened when there was no time? I have said it is a possibility that when there was no matter or energy, there was also no time.

no time?
How is there "no time"?
Can you think of a timeless period?
What about a 4 sided tri? ;)
( you still have to show me this btw :cool: )

However, you seem to have no problem with consciousness and time being the "foundations". If you can believe these things exist without a creator, why can you not believe that the universe exists without a creator?

Because it would be magical if this universe didnt have a creator and it would be magical if there was a "no time" time period.

Actually, I have. I have been in the middle of a dream and realized it was a dream, without waking up. Occasionally, I have even "dreamed I woke up". It is an odd feeling.

Ive had that too. However, since you perceived this, you werent really sleeping. I better example is if you can say "I am dead."

However, as you certainly know, the transition from "asleep" to "awake" is usually a gradual one..

Thanks for that ;)

Any chance of you commenting on Franko's creation story?

yeah, it's awesome
:cool:

[wraith]

Originally posted by evildave


It's all in how you encode it.
2<SUB>3</sub>+2<SUB>3</sub>=11<SUB>3</sub>
2<SUB>4</sub>+2<SUB>4</sub>=10<SUB>4</sub>

Another possibility is if you have two mirrors, and carelessly toss them into a dumpster, and then carelessly throw in two more mirrors, you will get thousands of little mirrors.

If you are so inclined to wait for the outcome, add two {healthy, intact} male rabbits and two {healthy, intact} female rabbits to an empty field and wait a couple of years. Is it still four rabbits?

Start with two atoms of plutonium-238. Add two more. Oops. One picked this moment to decay. Now you've got three atoms of plutonium-238 and one of uranium-234.

Why is it that some people think that the world is just so cut and dry that a bit of kindergarten arithmetic explains everything for all cases? I suppose it could be that experimentation and verification of assertions takes effort.

dave did you see my "coding"?

2 + 2 = 4

do you see any subscripts there?
:eek:

by the way, kindergarten maths is very good ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
no time?
How is there "no time"?
I've explained it to you twice. Time is measured by a sequence of events. If no events occur, then there is no time. Make that three times.


Can you think of a timeless period?

How about when you're waiting for the bell to ring to end class? ;)

Seriously, "timeless period" is an oxymoron. The word 'period' implies a length of time. It is hard to conceive, but if you open your mind to difficult concepts, you can do it.


What about a 4 sided tri? ;)
( you still have to show me this btw :cool: )
And you have still not agreed to give me something in return. I promise you, I can deliver. Make it worth my effort.

Because it would be magical if this universe didnt have a creator and it would be magical if there was a "no time" time period.
And yet, you have a creator that doesn't have a creator. Why is that not magical? Is everything that you cannot conceive automatically magical?


Ive had that too. However, since you perceived this, you werent really sleeping. I better example is if you can say "I am dead."
Of course I was asleep. There are various levels of sleep. Remember when you were young, you used to have scary nightmares? That was because you were too inexperienced to tell the difference between dreams and reality. As you grew older, you learned not to be scared by dreams (usually). This has to do with learning to recognize your various levels of consciousness. It is something most adults have learned.

Also you might notice that dream monsters no longer scare you. The things that scare you now are the things that are close to reality, perhaps like nuclear war. The closer your dreams are to reality, the more they affect you.


yeah, it's awesome
:cool:
LOL. Well, actually I was hoping you might dispute or (in my dreams :D) support some of the points I had made. It really does no credit to you if you behave like a "yes man". Let us know what YOU think. Don't act like a sock puppet.

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith


dave did you see my "coding"?

2 + 2 = 4

do you see any subscripts there?
:eek:

by the way, kindergarten maths is very good ;)

It's all in the assumptions. Just because you use a base-10 convention, it doesn't mean anyone else has to.

The 2₁₀ + 2₁₀ = 4₁₀ uses implied 10. And this is only because it's the convention you're used to.

Even the operation of "addition" is an implied meaning. Just because a couple of squiggles on flat lines, a pair of crossed lines, a pair of parallel lines and another pair of crossed lines with an angle across one quarter mean something to you, does not mean they mean the same thing to others.

Want a four-sided triangle? A tetrahedron has four faces.

Want a five-sided triangle? Cut one out of paper and notice it has a top and bottom, as well as three sides.

Or you can simply redefine "triangle" to mean "quadrilateral". Once you make claims and draw conclusions about time and space based on "2+2=4", you may as well just jump the rest of the way in.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The deterministic cosmology presupposes that time has not existed always. Determinism claims that the present is derived from the past, in other words, the conditions existing in THIS second are caused by the conditions existing in the previous second (or microsecond, or whatever resolution you prefer). Of course, the conditions of one second ago were created by the conditions two seconds ago, etc. etc. etc. all the way back to the initial state. But if TIME did not start somewhere, there is no initial state, and consequently no basis for the conditions leading to THIS second.

Franko's cosmology tries to get around this by claiming that it took a lot of time (since for some reason he rejects the notion of time starting at some point), but this will not do. Its like those perpetuum mobiles that pretend that if you let water (or steel balls or whatever) run up a very obligue slope, they wont notice they run upwards. You cant be a little bit pregnant, and you cant have SOME determinism.

Hans

In other words....the past is not based on the present?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

I've explained it to you twice. Time is measured by a sequence of events. If no events occur, then there is no time. Make that three times.

So how long did the "no-event" period last for? :eek:

Seriously, "timeless period" is an oxymoron. The word 'period' implies a length of time. It is hard to conceive, but if you open your mind to difficult concepts, you can do it.

So you can imagine a timeless period?

And you have still not agreed to give me something in return. I promise you, I can deliver. Make it worth my effort.

then do it!

And yet, you have a creator that doesn't have a creator. Why is that not magical? Is everything that you cannot conceive automatically magical?

Youre the one with a "no-time" idea ;)

Of course I was asleep. There are various levels of sleep. Remember when you were young, you used to have scary nightmares? That was because you were too inexperienced to tell the difference between dreams and reality. As you grew older, you learned not to be scared by dreams (usually). This has to do with learning to recognize your various levels of consciousness. It is something most adults have learned.

again, can you say "I am dead" when youre dead? ;)

LOL. Well, actually I was hoping you might dispute or (in my dreams :D) support some of the points I had made. It really does no credit to you if you behave like a "yes man". Let us know what YOU think. Don't act like a sock puppet.

your points mean nothing to me :)

[wraith]

Originally posted by evildave


It's all in the assumptions. Just because you use a base-10 convention, it doesn't mean anyone else has to.

The 2₁₀ + 2₁₀ = 4₁₀ uses implied 10. And this is only because it's the convention you're used to.

Even the operation of "addition" is an implied meaning. Just because a couple of squiggles on flat lines, a pair of crossed lines, a pair of parallel lines and another pair of crossed lines with an angle across one quarter mean something to you, does not mean they mean the same thing to others.

So if you assume something different, then the whole thing is pointless.
So if we did assume the same thing, then there is still a probability of one of us being wrong in terms of this example?

Whats the probability of 2₁₀ + 2₁₀ equaling 4₁₀?

Want a four-sided triangle? A tetrahedron has four faces.

I said "sides" not "faces" for starters....
and I said "triangle" not "tetrahedron" :rolleyes:

Want a five-sided triangle? Cut one out of paper and notice it has a top and bottom, as well as three sides.

The triangle itself has 3 sides...;)

Or you can simply redefine "triangle" to mean "quadrilateral". Once you make claims and draw conclusions about time and space based on "2+2=4", you may as well just jump the rest of the way in.

well then, it should be hard for you to show me your free-willy god then :eek:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
So how long did the "no-event" period last for? :eek:
Hmm... how long did something with no time last for? My guess is at least two blartfuncts. :D

Originally posted by wraith
So you can imagine a timeless period?
Yes, I can imagine it. All it takes is a good imagination. You should be able to manage it easily, since you believe in the Logical Goddess. Evidently, you have an excellent imagination.

Originally posted by wraith
then do it!
Nope. The secret of the four-sided triangle will remain a secret until you give me good reason to reveal it. As good reason, I will accept your admission that humans have free will. If you want to bargain for something else, well, I am open to reason.

Originally posted by wraith
Youre the one with a "no-time" idea ;)
And your the one with the double standard. You criticize atheists for positing a beginning with no creator, but you also have a beginning with no creator. What created the "Progenitor Solipsist"? I am waiting for a reasoned response.

Originally posted by wraith
again, can you say "I am dead" when youre dead? ;)

Nope. Dead means that there is no consciousness remaining. If you want to test this, try sounding a large alarm clock next to a dead body. If they wake up, then I am wrong. If you can give me any evidence of consciousness in a corpse, then I am wrong. If you decide to test this, please be considerate of the feelings of the bereaved.

but if you test this on a sleeping person, I'll bet you'll find that there is some consciousness remaining. I'll also bet that you'd better haul ass if you have just woken this "consciousness" up for no reason other than that you wanted to test it's consciousness. It might not care for your method of scientific inquiry. :D

Originally posted by wraith
your points mean nothing to me :)
Alas. I was hoping that you might be an intelligent, independant, reasoning human being. It grieves me to hear you declare that this is not the case.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

Hmm... how long did something with no time last for? My guess is at least two blartfuncts. :D

it's ok Tricky ;)

Yes, I can imagine it. All it takes is a good imagination. You should be able to manage it easily, since you believe in the Logical Goddess. Evidently, you have an excellent imagination.

OH YOU CAN?
....if you think so ;)
I take it that you can be aware when youre pushing daisies? ;)


Nope. The secret of the four-sided triangle will remain a secret until you give me good reason to reveal it. As good reason, I will accept your admission that humans have free will. If you want to bargain for something else, well, I am open to reason.

Ill be right :)


And your the one with the double standard. You criticize atheists for positing a beginning with no creator, but you also have a beginning with no creator. What created the "Progenitor Solipsist"? I am waiting for a reasoned response.

Unlike yourself Tricky, I dont believe in a "no-time" period ;)

Nope. Dead means that there is no consciousness remaining. If you want to test this, try sounding a large alarm clock next to a dead body. If they wake up, then I am wrong. If you can give me any evidence of consciousness in a corpse, then I am wrong. If you decide to test this, please be considerate of the feelings of the bereaved.

but if you test this on a sleeping person, I'll bet you'll find that there is some consciousness remaining. I'll also bet that you'd better haul ass if you have just woken this "consciousness" up for no reason other than that you wanted to test it's consciousness. It might not care for your method of scientific inquiry. :D

You just said that you can imagine "no-time". Surely, when youre pushing daisies, you can still say "I am alive." :eek:

Alas. I was hoping that you might be an intelligent, independant, reasoning human being. It grieves me to hear you declare that this is not the case.

Sorry that I didnt agree with you
;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
You just said that you can imagine "no-time". Surely, when youre pushing daisies, you can still say "I am alive."

Honestly, wraith, I truly wish you would address the points that people make. Your short "clever" answers are not even remotely like a debate. You seldom even bother to take a position.

But in response to the one intelligible thing you asked, the answer is no. When you are dead you cannot say anything. This is why I say that when you are asleep, you still have some consciousness. If you have zero conscousness, then you are dead, and cannot communicate at all.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

Honestly, wraith, I truly wish you would address the points that people make. Your short "clever" answers are not even remotely like a debate. You seldom even bother to take a position.

But in response to the one intelligible thing you asked, the answer is no. When you are dead you cannot say anything. This is why I say that when you are asleep, you still have some consciousness. If you have zero conscousness, then you are dead, and cannot communicate at all.

So how can you say "I am asleep" when youre sleeping?

Even if you were dreaming, and you knew that you were asleep, youre still awake in your dream.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
So how can you say "I am asleep" when youre sleeping?

I gave you examples, and you agreed the same thing had happened to you. Do you not even believe yourself?


Even if you were dreaming, and you knew that you were asleep, youre still awake in your dream.
Then you admit that you can be conscious, even while dreaming. What is the point that you are trying to make?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

I gave you examples, and you agreed the same thing had happened to you. Do you not even believe yourself?

You have missed what I am trying to say. So I used the "I am dead" line. You missed that point aswell ;)

Can you say "I am unconscious"?

Then you admit that you can be conscious, even while dreaming.

Yes. Why wouldnt I?
Just how are you able to recall these dreams if youre not aware of them? :rolleyes:

What is the point that you are trying to make?

That you cant think of "no-time".

[whitefork]

The existence of the past:

Originally posted by wraith


In my head

Just then ;)

I am aware of my past

How long are you able to stop "present time" without calling lapsed time the past?

So, the past exists as memory. But memory exists in the present. If you forget something, you've destroyed the past? If you remember it, you've recreated it? If two people have contrary memories of the same event, which actually occurred?

If the present is the result of the past, and the past exists as your memory, you are the creator of the present. Sounds like that old time solipsism to me. Magic.

So many questions....

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
You have missed what I am trying to say. So I used the "I am dead" line. You missed that point aswell ;)

No I didn't. I responded to it two posts ago. I realize, though, that you have a very poor memory, so I will repeat it
Tricky said
When you are dead you cannot say anything. This is why I say that when you are asleep, you still have some consciousness. If you have zero conscousness, then you are dead, and cannot communicate at all.
Wraith said:
Can you say "I am unconscious"?

Sure, but not truthfully. Reminds me of one of those "Funniest things ever said in court" pieces of spam I saw once.

Judge: Was the defendent conscious or unconscious
Witness: He was pretending to be conscious, but he wasn't really.

Wraith said:
Yes. Why wouldnt I?
Just how are you able to recall these dreams if youre not aware of them? :rolleyes:
Well, then I don't see your point. I'm arguing that you are still slightly conscious when you are sleeping, but not at all when you are dead. You don't seem to be contesting these points.

Wraith said:
...you cant think of "no-time".
Actually, I can. I can think of it as a concept, just as I can think of infinity as a concept. I am surprised that you cannot. Really, I thought you had more imagination than this.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


In other words....the past is not based on the present? Mostly, but not entirely.

If it was based entirely on the past, it could never be more complicated than the past (it might be more fragmented but not more complicated). So the initial state would have to be more complicated than the present state, and things could only devolve. However, this is not what we observe.

In your own logic: 2+2 can only become 4. Possibly, it could be 1+3 or 1+1+1+1, but never more complicated.

Cheers,
Hans

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith



well then, it should be hard for you to show me your free-willy god then :eek:

Well, if you want to imagine I have a "free-willy god", then I should be free to imagine you have an inflatable girlfriend.

[wraith]

Originally posted by whitefork
So, the past exists as memory. But memory exists in the present. If you forget something, you've destroyed the past?

at least youre recollection of events

If you remember it, you've recreated it? If two people have contrary memories of the same event, which actually occurred?

I think that this speaks for itself :rolleyes:

If the present is the result of the past, and the past exists as your memory, you are the creator of the present. Sounds like that old time solipsism to me. Magic.

Creator of the present?

Perhaps youre thinking me up right now?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky
Sure, but not truthfully. Reminds me of one of those "Funniest things ever said in court" pieces of spam I saw once.

Judge: Was the defendent conscious or unconscious
Witness: He was pretending to be conscious, but he wasn't really.

How does this answer my question? :rolleyes:


[QUOTE][B]Well, then I don't see your point. I'm arguing that you are still slightly conscious when you are sleeping, but not at all when you are dead. You don't seem to be contesting these points.

hence my point
you cant say "I am not conscious"

Actually, I can. I can think of it as a concept, just as I can think of infinity as a concept. I am surprised that you cannot. Really, I thought you had more imagination than this.

you can imagine "no time"? What does it feel like? Describe it to me ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Mostly, but not entirely.

If it was based entirely on the past, it could never be more complicated than the past (it might be more fragmented but not more complicated). So the initial state would have to be more complicated than the present state, and things could only devolve. However, this is not what we observe.

In your own logic: 2+2 can only become 4. Possibly, it could be 1+3 or 1+1+1+1, but never more complicated.

Cheers,
Hans

Are you saying that a simple event cant yield a complex one?

Are you saying that as we gain information, we become less complex?

[wraith]

Originally posted by evildave


Well, if you want to imagine I have a "free-willy god", then I should be free to imagine you have an inflatable girlfriend.

Judging by your avatar davey, it's not me that has an inflatable girlfriend.
;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith


Are you saying that a simple event cant yield a complex one?

Are you saying that as we gain information, we become less complex?
According to Logical Deism, yes. LD says that an entity MUST be less complex than it's creator. Of course, this is bollocks, but that is what Franko insists you believe. Are you going to dispute him on this matter? Can I watch?

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith


Judging by your avatar davey, it's not me that has an inflatable girlfriend.
;)

Seems to me someone who keeps changing their imaginary avatar probably has bigger self image issues than someone with a real image that stays the same.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


Are you saying that a simple event cant yield a complex one?

Are you saying that as we gain information, we become less complex? No, Frank, that is what YOU are saying. That is the unavoidable result of determinism.

How could a complex event come from a simple one? Where should the extra information come from? In determinism, the present is based entirely on the past, no new information is generated.

How can we gain information, if the only information that exists is the INITIAL STATE?

A totally deterministic universe works like the second law of thermodynamics; entrophy can only increase. Locally, information may be concentrated, so some systems might become more sophisticated, but overall, the system can only devolve, because no new information is created.

You are so fond of the Mandelbrot set (at least you have frequently referred to it). The Mandelbrot set is a good example of this: After each iteration, it appears to become more complex, but in reality it just becomes more fragmented. No information enters the system except that contained in the original formula.

I'm sorry, but this is simple and plain logic: If you want to believe that the universe is deterministic, then this is the only way it can work. If you start assuming that information is generated along the way ("evolving"), then it is no longer deterministic.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

According to Logical Deism, yes.

According to my understanding, you couldnt be more wrong...

LD says that an entity MUST be less complex than it's creator. Of course, this is bollocks, but that is what Franko insists you believe. Are you going to dispute him on this matter? Can I watch?

How does this conflict with anything that I have said?

[wraith]

Originally posted by evildave


Seems to me someone who keeps changing their imaginary avatar probably has bigger self image issues than someone with a real image that stays the same.

My current avatar is the only one that Ive used actually ;)

besides, I dont want to cause a fight among the ladies by using my face as an avatar muhaha!

deary me :cool:

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
No, Frank, that is what YOU are saying. That is the unavoidable result of determinism.

How could a complex event come from a simple one? Where should the extra information come from? In determinism, the present is based entirely on the past, no new information is generated.

If you were going back in time, then this is the case.
How can you not obtain new information if youre moving forward in time?

How can we gain information, if the only information that exists is the INITIAL STATE?

?
Only the initial state existed?
As in, there is a "no-time" period at this point?

A totally deterministic universe works like the second law of thermodynamics; entrophy can only increase. Locally, information may be concentrated, so some systems might become more sophisticated, but overall, the system can only devolve, because no new information is created.

How can information not be obtained if youre moving forward in time?

You are so fond of the Mandelbrot set (at least you have frequently referred to it). The Mandelbrot set is a good example of this: After each iteration, it appears to become more complex, but in reality it just becomes more fragmented. No information enters the system except that contained in the original formula.

I am not that familiar with the mandlebrot set.
Does being more fragmented mean "not more complex" according to you?


I'm sorry, but this is simple and plain logic: If you want to believe that the universe is deterministic, then this is the only way it can work. If you start assuming that information is generated along the way ("evolving"), then it is no longer deterministic.

So we evolve because of free-will?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
According to my understanding, you couldnt be more wrong...

Then you need to read your Lexicon again. You obviously are ignoring large portions of Franko's teaching.

How does this conflict with anything that I have said?
You say information enters the system and makes it more complex. Logical Deisim says things always move from higher complexity to lower complexity. I agree with that complexity increases, but this is directly in conflict with LDeism. Careful, Wraith. You are in grave danger of being excommunicated, and having your graviton rerouted towards the abyss.:eek:

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith


My current avatar is the only one that Ive used actually ;)

besides, I dont want to cause a fight among the ladies by using my face as an avatar muhaha!

deary me :cool:

I seem to recall you just had the spot before you added the batman wings, more recently.

Yes, I quite agree there could be humanitarian reasons for not posting your own likeness. I'm sure we wouldn't want them all fighting at the stampede for the nearest exit. There might be another brawl for who gets to vomit in the restroom, instead of in public as well.

Ha, I only kid. I'm sure you have an absolutely mediocre face in every way.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

Then you need to read your Lexicon again. You obviously are ignoring large portions of Franko's teaching.

Perhaps you can give my a link that supports your claim?

You say information enters the system and makes it more complex. Logical Deisim says things always move from higher complexity to lower complexity. I agree with that complexity increases, but this is directly in conflict with LDeism. Careful, Wraith. You are in grave danger of being excommunicated, and having your graviton rerouted towards the abyss.:eek:

:rolleyes:
How is it in directly conflict with LD?

[wraith]

Originally posted by evildave


I seem to recall you just had the spot before you added the batman wings, more recently.

Youre recollection is wrong...the only addition made to the original was the word "Fatum".

Yes, I quite agree there could be humanitarian reasons for not posting your own likeness. I'm sure we wouldn't want them all fighting at the stampede for the nearest exit. There might be another brawl for who gets to vomit in the restroom, instead of in public as well.

That must have taken you 5 minutes to think that one up :rolleyes:

Ha, I only kid. I'm sure you have an absolutely mediocre face in every way.

LOL....whatever helps you sleep at night
;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith
If you were going back in time, then this is the case.
How can you not obtain new information if youre moving forward in time?

You can collect information, but no new information can be added to a deterministic system, because then it stops being deterministic.

?
Only the initial state existed?
As in, there is a "no-time" period at this point?

The initial state is what everything is built on. Thus, in determinism, what was not in the initial state, does not exist (information-wise)


How can information not be obtained if youre moving forward in time?

Again it might be concentrated, but it cannot be created, where should it come from?

I am not that familiar with the mandlebrot set.
Does being more fragmented mean "not more complex" according to you?

If you turn a house into rubble, is it more or less complicated?

Now, Franko has referred to the M set dozens of times. So now I need to ask: Franko has claimed that he is you. Will you confirm or deny this? Franko's credibility index is not exactly high, but since Wraith has not protested, I assumed that claim to be true. Now, here's a catch for you: If you deny being same person as Franko, then he is a liar. If you confirm it, then you are pretending not to know what you have earlier pretended to know. Which is it?



So we evolve because of free-will?

Things evolve because the Universe is not deterministic; this allows new information to be created. Free will has nothing directly to do with this, but once we accept a non-deterministic Universe, free will becomes a parsimonous explanation to observed data.

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith


LOL....whatever helps you sleep at night
;)

Well, I could imagine some pretty homely faces for you in my nightmares. But I usually only dream entertaining things.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
You can collect information, but no new information can be added to a deterministic system, because then it stops being deterministic.

You can collect information?
Yes, you cant collect new information? :rolleyes:

The initial state is what everything is built on. Thus, in determinism, what was not in the initial state, does not exist (information-wise)

?
Im not saying that this universe did not have a beginning

Again it might be concentrated, but it cannot be created, where should it come from?

What do you mean by creating information?

If you turn a house into rubble, is it more or less complicated?

define complicated
it could be said to be more or less complicated...depending on how you look at it

Now, Franko has referred to the M set dozens of times. So now I need to ask: Franko has claimed that he is you. Will you confirm or deny this? Franko's credibility index is not exactly high, but since Wraith has not protested, I assumed that claim to be true. Now, here's a catch for you: If you deny being same person as Franko, then he is a liar. If you confirm it, then you are pretending not to know what you have earlier pretended to know. Which is it?

whats that?

Things evolve because the Universe is not deterministic; this allows new information to be created.

So things evolve out of free-will?
What do you mean by new information being created?

Free will has nothing directly to do with this, but once we accept a non-deterministic Universe, free will becomes a parsimonous explanation to observed data.

How?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


You can collect information?
Yes, you cant collect new information? :rolleyes:

There is no new information, in determinsm, all information is determined by the inintial state

?
Im not saying that this universe did not have a beginning

Yes "you" did. At least thats a dogma of LD, the way somebody named Franko explains it. According to LD time did not have a beginning.

What do you mean by creating information?

Adding information not previously existing (what else?).

define complicated
it could be said to be more or less complicated...depending on how you look at it

My difinitions are ALWAYS dictionary definitions. Actually, the rubble of a house could be both more or less complicated than the house. It would depend on how much information about the original house was retained. I was thinking of REAL rubble, unrecognizable fragments. But it was not the best metaphor I ever made.

whats that?

Just answer the question. Are there any words you dont understand?

So things evolve out of free-will?

One more time: No.

What do you mean by new information being created?

Simplest example: A random function (remember, according to Franko/Wraith determinism, nothing is truly random). But a truly random function will create new information; before it was invoked, the outcome was unknown, afterwards, it is known.


How?

[B]Free will is parsimonious because it skips the middle man, or to be precise, the top man.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith


Perhaps you can give my a link that supports your claim?

:rolleyes:
How is it in directly conflict with LD?
I'm surprised, wraith. Don't you read the LD notes? Your teacher has explained the rule of diminishing complexity (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=309678&highlight=cannot+more+complex#post309678) many times. You must not be a very fast graviton.:p
Originally posted by Franko
TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious and complex than CAR, TLOP is more conscious and complex than YOU.

[Franko]

Q-Source:

Time is a creation of the Big Bang. Time exists within the Universe.
Before the BB, there was no time as you perceive it.

So how long did the Timeless period before the Big Bang last? Did it last for a long long time, or are you claiming that there was absolutely NOTHING, and then suddenly and magically the universe appeared from the void?

How about TLOP? Did the Laws of physics just spring from the Abyss fully formed?

Why is it that you’re a-Theism is suddenly sounding a lot like the Egyptian creation myth?

And who created this consciousness?
Did it come out of nothing?
Was there something before the PS?

The Progenitor Solipsist was Time. I realize that you believe Time is also a non-conscious entity, but you are incorrect. All consciousness is a manifestation of Time. We do not (can not) exist without Time, and Time cannot exist without us.

Gravitons are made out of Time.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko

The Progenitor Solipsist was Time. I realize that you believe Time is also a non-conscious entity, but you are incorrect. All consciousness is a manifestation of Time. We do not (can not) exist without Time, and Time cannot exist without us.

Gravitons are made out of Time.

LOL!

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
There is no new information, in determinsm, all information is determined by the inintial state

I dont see how no new information can enter ;)
The universe is determined by that initial state and so you have the result of "now" because of cause and effect...

Yes "you" did. At least thats a dogma of LD, the way somebody named Franko explains it. According to LD time did not have a beginning.

ahhh I said "this universe"
this universe had a beginning
Time existed before this

wraith: So things evolve out of free-will?

Hans: One more time: No.

so it's determined?

Simplest example: A random function (remember, according to Franko/Wraith determinism, nothing is truly random). But a truly random function will create new information; before it was invoked, the outcome was unknown, afterwards, it is known.

whats an example?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm surprised, wraith. Don't you read the LD notes? Your teacher has explained the rule of diminishing complexity (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=309678&highlight=cannot+more+complex#post309678) many times. You must not be a very fast graviton.:p


That doesnt conflict with anything that I have said
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by evildave


LOL!

Cant handle it davey boy?
hahaa

[MRC_Hans]

I realize this is a waste of time....

Originally posted by wraith
I dont see how no new information can enter ;)
The universe is determined by that initial state and so you have the result of "now" because of cause and effect...

Look up Determinism. If everything is caused by the previous state, where does new information come from? -- Now answer the question, before asking a new one.

ahhh I said "this universe"
this universe had a beginning
Time existed before this

So the universe appeared magically in your cosmology too?

so it's determined?

no

whats an example?

Am I to understand you dont know the meaning of the word "example"? I just gave you an example of one ;)
Might I recommend this: www.dictionary.com



Hans

[Q-Source]

Franko said:
So the PS is around for a long time. And he is evolving, he is becoming more and more self aware. He understands himself and what he is (Time) better and better. He is perceiving Time better and better over the course of Time. Eventually he comes to the realization that he is alone.




Then I asked:
How could he perceive that he was alone if he had no reference to know that he was alone?
How do you know that something exist if you have NEVER seen it before?

Would you answer this time?



Franko:
So how long did the Timeless period before the Big Bang last? Did it last for a long long time, or are you claiming that there was absolutely NOTHING, and then suddenly and magically the universe appeared from the void?

There was absolutely no TIME before the Big Bang because time was created with this Universe.

I don't know how the BB appeared, but it has already been proved that time had a beginning and will probably have an end.
(See Hawking and Penrose).

[Franko]

MRC:
Look up Determinism. If everything is caused by the previous state, where does new information come from? -- Now answer the question, before asking a new one.

You ever seen a fractal? Ever heard of the Mandelbrot set?

Fractals are based on a very simple algorithm, yet they constantly generate a larger, more elaborate pattern.

But if you are really curious as to where new information comes from (how information grows over Time) ask the Elephant about Wolfram.

MRC:
So the universe appeared magically in your cosmology too?

No, not at all. The Logical Goddess makes this universe. It’s only slightly more “magical” then creating a universe for your Dungeons & Dragons game.

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

The Source:
[The PS …] How could he perceive that he was alone if he had no reference to know that he was alone?

It took him an eternity before he realized he was alone, and then it took him another eternity to figure out how to escape Solipsism.

[Keep in mind, In LD an Eternity is a very long long period of Time (not an “Infinite” period of Time). An Eternity is demarcated by a radical evolutionary improvement; essentially a vastly improved adaptation in the perception of Time. (An increase in self-awareness) ]

Source:
How do you know that something exist if you have NEVER seen it before?

You mean like Atoms … or photons?

What is the intrinsic color of a photon, Source? Suppose we had a big photon – the size of a basketball – what would it look like?

As for “seeing” the PS … there is a piece of him inside your head.

There was absolutely no TIME before the Big Bang because time was created with this Universe.

That’s what the pseudo-materialist will tell you anyway.

Time exist within the Omniverse, and this universe resides within the Omniverse (the Omniverse is the “greater universe” which surrounds this one). Time has existed as long as the Omniverse has existed (as long as a single consciousness (the PS)) has existed.

I don't know how the BB appeared, but it has already been proved that time had a beginning and will probably have an end.
(See Hawking and Penrose).

If by “proof” you mean that Hawking and/or Penrose claimed Time had a beginning and an ending then they “proved it”, but if you mean they actually proved it then I’d say you were very incorrect.

If you doubt this, then try and explain anything to me beyond the context of Time.

Source, you know what the foundation of Logic is? Do you know the One thing that you have to have before you can have Logic?? … It’s Time. Without Time, there is no Logic. Hawking and Penrose and other A-Theists like to talk about “Timeless periods” because when there is no Time (no Logic) you can have any kind of magic you want to happen … happen. And without their “magic” guys like Hawking are nothing but snake oil salesmen. (false prophets)

[MRC_Hans]

You ever seen a fractal? Ever heard of the Mandelbrot set?

Fractals are based on a very simple algorithm, yet they constantly generate a larger, more elaborate pattern.

But if you are really curious as to where new information comes from (how information grows over Time) ask the Elephant about Wolfram.
Actually I have studied the M set in quite some detail, and written several Mandelbrot plotters. It is a (fairly) simple formula that can be expressed in a very complex graphic manner, but no matter how many iterations you plot, no new information is added. All information is contained in the initial formula. The Mandelbrot set is a deterministic universe.

I am asking YOU where the new information enters the deterministic universe. Answer the question or admit that you dont know.

Hans

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith


Cant handle it davey boy?
hahaa

No, it's funny because it's the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

[Franko]

Evildaveyboy: (A-Theist Loser)
No, it's funny because it's the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

See that Wraith? I told you moron-boy never read his own posts.

[Franko]

MRC

Actually I have studied the M set in quite some detail, and written several Mandelbrot plotters. It is a (fairly) simple formula that can be expressed in a very complex graphic manner, but no matter how many iterations you plot, no new information is added. All information is contained in the initial formula. The Mandelbrot set is a deterministic universe.

Did Mandelbrot know what the fractal would look like before he plotted it? As you admit, the picture is “very complex”. How can it be “very complex” and yet hold NO NEW INFORMATION? It was a simple formula … and now it is a “very complex graphic” (a Graphic). That sounds like new information being created out of something small and simple.

But at least we both agree that it is deterministic. If only you could explain what Indeterminism means and why you believe our Universe acts “Indeterminstically” then you might be able to shed your image as a mystic.

I am asking YOU where the new information enters the deterministic universe. Answer the question or admit that you dont know.

Every time the fractal gets bigger you have new information (Energy) entering the Universe/Omniverse. Simple algorithm … grows (evolves) over Time. You are use to hearing people pretend that things are more complicated than they are, because it is in their best interest to prevent you from actually understanding what is going on.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko


See that Wraith? I told you moron-boy never read his own posts.

My, see what a sweety Frankie is? So cuddly cute, like a care bear.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I realize this is a waste of time....

.....if you see it that way.... ;)

Look up Determinism. If everything is caused by the previous state, where does new information come from? -- Now answer the question, before asking a new one.

The new state is the "new information"

So the universe appeared magically in your cosmology too?

negative
I believe that it is being generated by a Higher Power

Am I to understand you dont know the meaning of the word "example"? I just gave you an example of one
Might I recommend this: www.dictionary.com

I dont think so ;)
please restate

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko


See that Wraith? I told you moron-boy never read his own posts.

Target in sight ;)

[evildave]

Originally posted by wraith


Target in sight ;)

I love it when you kids get into the name calling, and egging on loop.

Come on, is this all you can dredge up? I know Franko had to work all week on that weak little "come-back".

Or are we waiting for the "coin is tails up" dreck to spew forth as a backed up toilet is prone to?

Or perhaps more of "the car is driving you", or the ever so favorite "destined for the abyss" thing.

I haven't even seen a "score' tally of who's damned in months.

At least if you're going to repeat yourself like a useless (predetermined) recording, dredge up some of the old favorites.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith

.....if you see it that way.... ;)

But, I'm patient (I just had 10 minutes to kill).

The new state is the "new information"

Nope, the new state can be deduced (predicted, if you will) from the previous state = no new information.

negative
I believe that it is being generated by a Higher Power

How is that different from magic?

I dont think so ;)
please restate

Cut and paste? Sorry, not my style. Use your scroll button.



Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
MRC



Did Mandelbrot know what the fractal would look like before he plotted it? As you admit, the picture is “very complex”. How can it be “very complex” and yet hold NO NEW INFORMATION? It was a simple formula … and now it is a “very complex graphic” (a Graphic). That sounds like new information being created out of something small and simple.

But at least we both agree that it is deterministic. If only you could explain what Indeterminism means and why you believe our Universe acts “Indeterminstically” then you might be able to shed your image as a mystic.



Every time the fractal gets bigger you have new information (Energy) entering the Universe/Omniverse. Simple algorithm … grows (evolves) over Time. You are use to hearing people pretend that things are more complicated than they are, because it is in their best interest to prevent you from actually understanding what is going on. I dont know what Benoit Mandelbrot knew, but I assume he had a good idea what it would be like. When he "invented" the formula, even simple plots took days or weeks.

No, there is no new information added by new iterations, all is determined by the initial state. You can predict exactly what state any coordinate will have at any number of iterations. The iteration number is information too, of course, but that is also available from the start.

The universe is non-deterministic (“Indeterminstically” is not in my dictionary, sorry) because there are random factors. You could add random factors to a Mandelbrot plotter, and the result would be non-deterministic (and probably less pretty).

Every time a random event occurs, new information is added to the system, namely the outcome of that event. Quantum Physics explain how random events occur in the universe, and is backed up by observation. I am aware that you reject QP, but I have not seen any evidence from you on this (it has to be pretty solid evidence to weigh against half a century of scientific research).



Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Nope, the new state can be deduced (predicted, if you will) from the previous state = no new information.

If you were told that you won the lotto tomorrow, I take it that you would not be surprised?
You already knew it right? :rolleyes:

wraith: negative
I believe that it is being generated by a Higher Power

Hans: How is that different from magic?

haha!
If you think that consciousness is magic then go right ahead ;)

Cut and paste? Sorry, not my style. Use your scroll button.

not your style?
oh god :rolleyes:
If you dont, Ill just take it that you dont want to ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith

If you were told that you won the lotto tomorrow, I take it that you would not be surprised?
You already knew it right? :rolleyes:

I would be very surprised indeed, since I dont play lotto. But what's your point?

haha!
If you think that consciousness is magic then go right ahead ;)

I think some consciousness creating the universe would require magic. Or, at best, it wouldnt be a better explanation than saying it appeared all by itself.

not your style?
oh god :rolleyes:
If you dont, Ill just take it that you dont want to ;)

You got it!



Hans

[Franko]

MRC:
No, there is no new information added by new iterations, all is determined by the initial state. You can predict exactly what state any coordinate will have at any number of iterations. The iteration number is information too, of course, but that is also available from the start.

No, there is new information generated. You need iterations (Time) to generate the new information, but you are correct in that it is DETERMINED by the INITIAL STATE.

[MRC_Hans]

Frank, I suggest you read a bit about information theory. If state n+1 is determined by state n, then no information entered the system between state n and state n+1 . In the fractal display, it becomes visible in a new way, but it was there all the time.

Let's take a simpler example: Imagine a counter. Presently it says 347. Increment it three times, what will it say? 350, of course. But you dont really need to increment it to know this. The information is already given in the rules governing counters.

Hans

[Franko]

MRC:
If state n+1 is determined by state n, then no information entered the system between state n and state n+1 . In the fractal display, it becomes visible in a new way, but it was there all the time.

So fractals exist before they are even plotted?

Or are you claiming that state n and state n+1 are the same thing? If they are different then they are not the same, and that is new information.

Let's take a simpler example: Imagine a counter. Presently it says 347. Increment it three times, what will it say? 350, of course. But you dont really need to increment it to know this. The information is already given in the rules governing counters.

That’s right … simple rules breed complexity over Time …

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

So fractals exist before they are even plotted?

Doh! Of course they do! Are you claiming that the M set didnt exist till Benoit Mandelbrot wrote down the formula?? Or that the Earth was flat till we figured out it was round??

Or are you claiming that state n and state n+1 are the same thing? If they are different then they are not the same, and that is new information.

Frank, take two pices of paper and write two numbers on them. This is your information. Put them in a box. Are they alike? Does any new information (except the initial numbers) enter the box?

Same with the states of the fractal and the counter: They are all there from the start.


That’s right … simple rules breed complexity over Time …

Nope, the complexity is in the rule. n=n+1 ... very simple, but infinitely long.


Hans

[Franko]

MRC: (Fanatical A-Theist)
Doh! Of course they do! Are you claiming that the M set didnt exist till Benoit Mandelbrot wrote down the formula?? Or that the Earth was flat till we figured out it was round??

So the Mona Lisa actually existed in prior to Da Vinci painting it?

Are you claiming that the M set didn’t exist till Benoit Mandelbrot wrote down the formula??

Yeah, MRC, I am claiming that things aren’t invented or created until they are invented or created. That isn’t the same as claiming that the Earth was Flat before we determined it was round, it just means that we thought the Earth was flat before someone figured out that it was round.

Kind of the way that TLOP functions even if you don’t fully comprehend TLOP.

Frank, take two pices of paper and write two numbers on them. This is your information. Put them in a box. Are they alike? Does any new information (except the initial numbers) enter the box

MRC are you claiming that humans know no more today then they did 10,000 years ago? What are you claiming? In any event, if you doubt what I am saying I suggest you go read Wolfram, I am not going to explain the basics to you, and you already seem to have a lot of difficulty with the simple concept of Determinism as it is.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

So the Mona Lisa actually existed in prior to Da Vinci painting it?

Well, if you can point out a deterministic formula for the Mona Lisa, then ......

Yeah, MRC, I am claiming that things aren’t invented or created until they are invented or created.

So 2+2 was not 4 till somebody "invented" it??

That isn’t the same as claiming that the Earth was Flat before we determined it was round, it just means that we thought the Earth was flat before someone figured out that it was round.

Kind of the way that TLOP functions even if you don’t fully comprehend TLOP.

And the Mandelbrot set functions whether we know about it or not.

MRC are you claiming that humans know no more today then they did 10,000 years ago?

Nope.

What are you claiming?

That no information is created in a deterministic system.

In any event, if you doubt what I am saying I suggest you go read Wolfram, I am not going to explain the basics to you, and you already seem to have a lot of difficulty with the simple concept of Determinism as it is.

Stephen Wolfram? But he's a proponent of QM. Are you sure thats an authority you want to appeal to?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, what we are talking about is three concepts:

Discovery. The disclosing of something that exists (has "always" existed). Examples: Heliocentric solar system, laws of thermodynamics, fractals.

Invention. The devising of new uses for existing things. The basis has always existed, and the invention could be done by "anybody". Examples: Internal combustion engine, electric generator, microchip.

Creation. The doing of something that has never been done before, and which could not be predefined by existing parameters. This would typically be works of art.

Hans

[Franko]

MRC,

Franko:
So fractals exist before they are even plotted?

MRC:
Of course they do! Are you claiming that the M set didnt exist till Benoit Mandelbrot wrote down the formula?? Or that the Earth was flat till we figured out it was round??

Franko:
So the Mona Lisa actually existed in prior to Da Vinci painting it?

MRC:
Well, if you can point out a deterministic formula for the Mona Lisa, then ......

You forget what you were arguing MRC? For a minute there it almost sounded like you were arguing that Determinism is True.

Franko:
Yeah, MRC, I am claiming that things aren’t invented or created until they are invented or created.

MRC:
So 2+2 was not 4 till somebody "invented" it??

Until someone defined:

“2” to mean x x
and
“4” to mean x x x x

Are you seriously contending otherwise?

Franko:
That isn’t the same as claiming that the Earth was Flat before we determined it was round, it just means that we thought the Earth was flat before someone figured out that it was round.

Kind of the way that TLOP functions even if you don’t fully comprehend TLOP.

MRC:
And the Mandelbrot set functions whether we know about it or not.

So you are claiming that the Mandelbrot set was Preordained??

What preordained it MRC? It was TLOP and the Initial State (IS) … wasn’t it?

Prior to Mandelbrot “discovering” fractals, how many entities existed other then TLOPIS knew what a fractal looked like?

Prior to humans discovering that the Earth was a sphere, TLOPIS knew – didn’t She MRC?

Franko:
MRC are you claiming that humans know no more today then they did 10,000 years ago?

MRC:
Nope.

I want to make sure I understand you clearly.

So you are claiming that NO – humans do not know any more about the universe today than they did 10,000 years ago.

Is that what you are saying A-Theist?

Franko:
MRC are you claiming that humans know no more today then they did 10,000 years ago?

MRC:
Nope.

Franko:
What are you claiming?

MRC:
That no information is created in a deterministic system.

What is your basis for reaching this conclusion? (what evidence do you have that “no information is created in a deterministic system?”)

Do you understand ANYTHING at all about computers MRC?

You do realize that computers are deterministic systems – don’t you?

Discovery. The disclosing of something that exists (has "always" existed). Examples: Heliocentric solar system, laws of thermodynamics, fractals.

Invention. The devising of new uses for existing things. The basis has always existed, and the invention could be done by "anybody". Examples: Internal combustion engine, electric generator, microchip.

Creation. The doing of something that has never been done before, and which could not be predefined by existing parameters. This would typically be works of art.

Excellent!

I can agree with your definitions of Discovery and Invention, but I am a bit unsure of your definition of “Creation”?

What is the specific difference between Mandelbrot “Creating” a beautiful fractal pattern, and Da Vinci “Creating” the Mona Lisa?

When a computer programmer designs and Creates a computer program, how is that any different then a architect designing and Creating a beautiful building (a work of art)? The process that the programmer and the architect go through is almost identical. The main difference is the material (medium) the two work in.

In other words, I am having problems distinguishing between your definition of “Creation” and your definitions of “Invention” and “Discovery”. Your definition of “Invention” seems to cover “creation” already.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
MRC,


You forget what you were arguing MRC? For a minute there it almost sounded like you were arguing that Determinism is True.

Determinism is true, in the sense that some things are deterministic. Evidence shows that not all things are deterministic, however

Until someone defined:

“2” to mean x x
and
“4” to mean x x x x

Are you seriously contending otherwise?

'2' and '4' are the symbols we happen to use, but thats irrelevant. 2+2 would be 4 no matter want symbols we used. 2+2=4 is deterministic, its a discovery.

So you are claiming that the Mandelbrot set was Preordained??

What preordained it MRC? It was TLOP and the Initial State (IS) … wasn’t it?

Prior to Mandelbrot “discovering” fractals, how many entities existed other then TLOPIS knew what a fractal looked like?

The Mandelbrot set has "existed" as long as the universe. It was discovered by humans about half a century ago. TLOP defines it, but TLOP doesnt "know" anything. That requires consciousness.

Prior to humans discovering that the Earth was a sphere, TLOPIS knew – didn’t She MRC?

Provided you believe TLOPIS is a conscious entity, yes. That, however, is not my belief.

I want to make sure I understand you clearly.

So you are claiming that NO – humans do not know any more about the universe today than they did 10,000 years ago.

Is that what you are saying A-Theist?

You asked "Do you claim --etc.". Answer:"No" I do NOT claim that. Human knowledge has changed, and as a whole, we surely know more than primitive Man, although there are things that he knew, which we dont. Rather obviously, it would seem, so I fail to get your point here.

What is your basis for reaching this conclusion? (what evidence do you have that “no information is created in a deterministic system?”)

Do you understand ANYTHING at all about computers MRC?

You do realize that computers are deterministic systems – don’t you?

Frank, I have been programming computers for money before you were born. You point out to me how information is CREATED in a deterministic system. Not moved, not transformed, CREATED. How, in a closed deterministic system, does information appear that wasnt there from the beginning in some form? Feel free to use computer programs as an example.



Excellent!

I can agree with your definitions of Discovery and Invention, but I am a bit unsure of your definition of “Creation”?

What is the specific difference between Mandelbrot “Creating” a beautiful fractal pattern, and Da Vinci “Creating” the Mona Lisa?

Determinism, unless you can show me the formula for Mona Lisa.

When a computer programmer designs and Creates a computer program, how is that any different then a architect designing and Creating a beautiful building (a work of art)? The process that the programmer and the architect go through is almost identical. The main difference is the material (medium) the two work in.

In other words, I am having problems distinguishing between your definition of “Creation” and your definitions of “Invention” and “Discovery”. Your definition of “Invention” seems to cover “creation” already.

A computer program might have a creative element, just like Mona Lisa required the (deterministic) discovery of paint

Hans

[Franko]

MRC:
Evidence shows that not all things are deterministic, however

Really, Like what?

Franko:
So you are claiming that the Mandelbrot set was Preordained??

What preordained it MRC? It was TLOP and the Initial State (IS) … wasn’t it?

Prior to Mandelbrot “discovering” fractals, how many entities existed other then TLOPIS knew what a fractal looked like?

MRC:
The Mandelbrot set has "existed" as long as the universe. It was discovered by humans about half a century ago. TLOP defines it, but TLOP doesnt "know" anything. That requires consciousness.

TLOP defines it means TLOP preordained it.

And how could TLOP preordain it if (as you claim) TLOP doesn’t “know” anything??? According to YOU TLOP created Fractals well before Mandelbrot ever discovered fractals – TLOP even created Mandelbrot himself. So how can the thing which created fractals be less conscious than the thing that merely discovered fractals?

Entity A makes Entity B, and then Entity A makes Entity C who goes on to discover Entity B, and we are suppose to just take your word for it that Entity A is the least conscious in the equation? Your math isn’t adding up MRC. You are claiming that 2 + 2 is not equal to 4, but you can’t seem to say why you believe it other than you don’t want it to be true.

Franko:
Prior to humans discovering that the Earth was a sphere, TLOPIS knew – didn’t She MRC?

MRC:
Provided you believe TLOPIS is a conscious entity, yes. That, however, is not my belief.

Ohhh I am WELL aware that is your belief A-Theist. Well aware!

But for over a year now I have been asking A-Theists WHY they believe this, and the fact is that they have no evidence for this belief at all. In fact, given the evidence for Determinism (FATE) it seems rather absurd and insane to believe that the thing controlling you is less conscious then you are.

It is EXACTLY like claiming that when you drive your CAR, since YOU are controlling the CAR, it is actually the CAR that is the more conscious entity.

That is utterly absurd. But I find it very amusing how dogmatically you and the other A-Theists religious fanatics cling to it and keep repeating it.

Franko:
I want to make sure I understand you clearly.

So you are claiming that NO – humans do not know any more about the universe today than they did 10,000 years ago.

Is that what you are saying A-Theist?

MRC:
You asked "Do you claim --etc.". Answer:"No" I do NOT claim that. Human knowledge has changed, and as a whole, we surely know more than primitive Man, although there are things that he knew, which we dont. Rather obviously, it would seem, so I fail to get your point here.

My point is that Human knowledge (our overall information database) is increasing over Time. You said that this was not True.

Frank, I have been programming computers for money before you were born.

I seriously doubt that.

You point out to me how information is CREATED in a deterministic system. Not moved, not transformed, CREATED. How, in a closed deterministic system, does information appear that wasnt there from the beginning in some form? Feel free to use computer programs as an example.

I already have. A fractal (like the Mandelbrot set) is a simple algorithm that uses recursion to generate an elaborate, ever changing, ever growing patterns of new (never before seen) information.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

(I claim evidence shows that all things are not deterministic)
Really, Like what?

Like quantum mechanics.

TLOP defines it means TLOP preordained it.

And how could TLOP preordain it if (as you claim) TLOP doesn’t “know” anything??? According to YOU TLOP created Fractals well before Mandelbrot ever discovered fractals – TLOP even created Mandelbrot himself. So how can the thing which created fractals be less conscious than the thing that merely discovered fractals?

It can't, in a deterministic universe. But the universe is not deterministic

Entity A makes Entity B, and then Entity A makes Entity C who goes on to discover Entity B, and we are suppose to just take your word for it that Entity A is the least conscious in the equation? Your math isn’t adding up MRC. You are claiming that 2 + 2 is not equal to 4, but you can’t seem to say why you believe it other than you don’t want it to be true.

Disregarding your 2+2 strawman, I believe in an evolving universe. Which is possible if it is not deterministic. If the universe is deterministic, however, as you claim, then the initial state has to be the most complex that ever existed.

Ohhh I am WELL aware that is your belief A-Theist. Well aware!

But for over a year now I have been asking A-Theists WHY they believe this, and the fact is that they have no evidence for this belief at all. In fact, given the evidence for Determinism (FATE) it seems rather absurd and insane to believe that the thing controlling you is less conscious then you are.

What evidence for determinism?

It is EXACTLY like claiming that when you drive your CAR, since YOU are controlling the CAR, it is actually the CAR that is the more conscious entity.

That is utterly absurd.

I quite agree, and I never saw anybody claim it.

But I find it very amusing how dogmatically you and the other A-Theists religious fanatics cling to it and keep repeating it.

I find it amusing how you use your energy on absurd strawmen.

My point is that Human knowledge (our overall information database) is increasing over Time. You said that this was not True.

No, I said that the total amount of information in a deterministic system does not increase. It might be moved around and concentrated in places, however.

However, I agree that human knowledge is increasing. In my cosmology, new information can be created.

(I observe that I have been working with computers for about 25 years)
I seriously doubt that.

Well, I could prove it, but since I won't give you personal information, you'll either have to take my word for it or test me.

(I ask for evidence of information created within a closed, deterministic system)
I already have. A fractal (like the Mandelbrot set) is a simple algorithm that uses recursion to generate an elaborate, ever changing, ever growing patterns of new (never before seen) information.

And you are wrong. Are you sure YOU understand computers? Could you write a Mandelbrot plotter?

Assume we write a Mandelbrot plotter, and compile it: Now we have a deterministic system. We start it and it plots the M set. Where does new information enter? All that happens is that the existing information (initial state) is processed and presented in a new way. The proof of this is that no matter how or by whoom the Mandelbrot plotter is written, the result is always the same. The "system" is preordained to give just this result.


I dont think you have quite realized the consequences of your own cosmology: The claim for total determinism implies total predictability. It means you cannot fart unless it was preordained from the dawn of the universe.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


I dont think you have quite realized the consequences of your own cosmology: The claim for total determinism implies total predictability. It means you cannot fart unless it was preordained from the dawn of the universe.

Hans

you have a problem with that? :rolleyes:
heaven forbid to have anything that is not magic in nature!

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I dont have a problem with it, because I dont believe it is true. But YOU have a problem with it, since you cannot at the same time claim that a system of reward and punishment makes sense.

You are the one claiming that Theists behave morally because they know that there are ultimate consequences for their actions. How can they behave better if every fart was preordained from the Initial State?

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, I dont have a problem with it, because I dont believe it is true. But YOU have a problem with it, since you cannot at the same time claim that a system of reward and punishment makes sense.

Well I can actually...
Do your emotions/desires come to you willy nilly?
I guess you being the materialist, our emotions just "pop" into our heads? We dont obey atoms according to you?

You are the one claiming that Theists behave morally because they know that there are ultimate consequences for their actions. How can they behave better if every fart was preordained from the Initial State?

well for one thing, they dont believe that they cease to exist once they "die" :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

MMmm, there seems to be noise on this line.:rolleyes:

Hans

[wraith]

it's not my ar5e
:rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith
it's not my ar5e
:rolleyes: If you say so. I have never been able to determine which end of you it came from.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
If you say so. I have never been able to determine which end of you it came from.

Hans

if my ar5e talks then your mouth 5hits... ;)
taking note here Trixy? :cool:

[MRC_Hans]

Well, if there is a Logical Deist out there who's not anal retentive, could we get back on topic?

Provide evidence that information can be created in a closed deterministic system.

Hans :rolleyes:

[Franko]

MRC:
It can't, in a deterministic universe. But the universe is not deterministic

What – exactly – is your evidence for this outlandish claim?

BTW – do you realize that even your buddy Trixy is now claiming that determinism is true? Perhaps you should have a talk with him?

Provide evidence that information can be created in a closed deterministic system.

I already have. A fractal (like the Mandelbrot set) is a simple algorithm that uses recursion to generate an elaborate, ever changing, ever growing patterns of new (never before seen) information.

Unless you want to claim that the Mona Lisa actually existed before Da Vinci painted it.

MRC:
I dont think you have quite realized the consequences of your own cosmology: The claim for total determinism implies total predictability.

Only if you had Total Information – which you don’t.

It means you cannot fart unless it was preordained from the dawn of the universe.

Yep, that is exactly right. You reading this Word at this precise moment was preordained from the moment of the Big Bang by TLOP and the Initial State.

Why ... are you claiming that is NOT the case? If it wasn’t TLOP and IS, then what causes your movements MRC? … magic powers??? :rolleyes:

What is your EVIDENCE for magic powers? You have no more evidence for your beliefs than a Scientologist does!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

(I claim that the unverse is not determinstic)
What – exactly – is your evidence for this outlandish claim?

Quantum Physics

BTW – do you realize that even your buddy Trixy is now claiming that determinism is true? Perhaps you should have a talk with him?

I'm talking to you.

I already have. A fractal (like the Mandelbrot set) is a simple algorithm that uses recursion to generate an elaborate, ever changing, ever growing patterns of new (never before seen) information.

Prove where information enters a Mandelbrot plotter. All information is there from the start.

Unless you want to claim that the Mona Lisa actually existed before Da Vinci painted it.

A work of art is not deterministic. You need to explain how Mona Lisa is created in a determinstic universe.

Only if you had Total Information – which you don’t.

Yep, that is exactly right. You reading this Word at this precise moment was preordained from the moment of the Big Bang by TLOP and the Initial State.

Sooo, how do you explain YOUR belief that reward and punishment can change preordained behaviour?

Why ... are you claiming that is NOT the case? If it wasn’t TLOP and IS, then what causes your movements MRC? … magic powers??? :rolleyes:

What is your EVIDENCE for magic powers? You have no more evidence for your beliefs than a Scientologist does!

Non-determinism is not magic.

Hans

[Franko]

MRC:
… the universe is not deterministic

Franko:
What – exactly – is your evidence for this outlandish claim?

MRC:
Quantum Physics

So you are claiming that QM PROVES that your actions are NOT based on a logical set of rules?

If your actions are not Determined by logical rules MRC, what EXACTLY does that mean? Your actions are simply “random”? Or are you claiming that your actions are magical?

What are you claiming (exactly) when you claim the universe isn’t deterministic. The fact is it’s pretty obvious you haven’t really given this much thought.

Franko:
BTW – do you realize that even your buddy Trixy is now claiming that determinism is true? Perhaps you should have a talk with him?

MRC:
I'm talking to you.

Yes … but do YOU realize that even your buddy Tricky (Your Dark A-Theist Lord and Master) is Now claiming that Determinism is True? How can you believe Determinism is FALSE if Tricky believes it is True?

Franko:
I already have. A fractal (like the Mandelbrot set) is a simple algorithm that uses recursion to generate an elaborate, ever changing, ever growing patterns of new (never before seen) information.

MRC:
Prove where information enters a Mandelbrot plotter. All information is there from the start.

So the picture of what the Mandelbrot set looked liked already existed before the program was entered, run, or plotted on the screen?

Do you mean just like the Mona Lisa existed from the start -- before Da Vinci got around to painting it?

Franko:
Unless you want to claim that the Mona Lisa actually existed before Da Vinci painted it.

MRC:
A work of art is not deterministic. You need to explain how Mona Lisa is created in a determinstic universe.

The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC? Is photography more evidence for indeterminism?

Franko:
Yep, that is exactly right. You reading this Word at this precise moment was preordained from the moment of the Big Bang by TLOP and the Initial State.

MRC:
Sooo, how do you explain YOUR belief that reward and punishment can change preordained behaviour?

TLOP is the set of rules that determines behavior. Without TLOP there wouldn’t be any Rewards and Punishment, and without Rewards and Punishment there wouldn’t be any TLOP.

Try and imagine a version of TLOP that would not also require a built in system of rewards and punishment. It can’t be done, and if you think it can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what TLOP and consciousness really are.

Non-determinism is not magic.

If that is True, then you can explain what precisely what “Non-Determinism” means, and precisely how it works.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
So you are claiming that QM PROVES that your actions are NOT based on a logical set of rules?

I can't speak for MRC, but I think what it proves is that nothing in the "rules" implies determinism.

Originally posted by Franko
Yes … but do YOU realize that even your buddy Tricky (Your Dark A-Theist Lord and Master) is Now claiming that Determinism is True? How can you believe Determinism is FALSE if Tricky believes it is True?
LOL. Care to show where I've said that? No? I thought not.

BTW, I am not MRC's master. In fact he has disagreed strongly with me on certain points recently.

Where the hell is Muscleman these days?

[Franko]

Tricky:
LOL. Care to show where I've said that? No? I thought not.

Yesterday in the Darned Physics thread …

Franko:
So you are conceding that the conclusion is True tricky-one?

YOU OBEY TLOP?

Tricky:
I told you that I accepted it a long time ago, Franko, depending on your definition of "obey".

Forget my definition of “Obey” Tricky. Using Your definition of “Obey” can you NOT OBEY TLOP for me?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

Forget my definition of “Obey” Tricky. Using Your definition of “Obey” can you NOT OBEY TLOP for me?
Nice try, Franko. Just so you can't claim I have never told you, here is a definition for you. In the context of "obeying" the laws of physics.

obey = operates within the limits of

It in no way implies determinism, just as "obeying the rules of baseball" does not suggest that the outcome of any given game is pre-determined.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

So you are claiming that QM PROVES that your actions are NOT based on a logical set of rules?

If your actions are not Determined by logical rules MRC, what EXACTLY does that mean? Your actions are simply “random”? Or are you claiming that your actions are magical?

My actions are probabilistic. I have repeatedly stated that I dont believe in magic.

What are you claiming (exactly) when you claim the universe isn’t deterministic. The fact is it’s pretty obvious you haven’t really given this much thought.

I is pretty obvious that you dont understand much. You cant handle complex math, you cant understand formal logic, you know nothing about information theory, your understanding of physics is very limited, and you dont seem to know much about programming. But you are good at straw men and at attributing weird standpoints to other people.

Why dont you try to repair your credibility just a little by actually trying to explain YOUR beliefs.?

Yes … but do YOU realize that even your buddy Tricky (Your Dark A-Theist Lord and Master) is Now claiming that Determinism is True? How can you believe Determinism is FALSE if Tricky believes it is True?

Ehhh, which buddy? If Tricky really believes in determinism, I'm looking forward to a good and sensible discussion with him, without evations, straw-men, ad hominem, lies, etc. But I'm not counting on YOU for knowing what people believe.

So the picture of what the Mandelbrot set looked liked already existed before the program was entered, run, or plotted on the screen?

Are you now asking me to explain YOUR cosmology? The M set is preordained. Deterministic. Predictable. Comprendo?

Do you mean just like the Mona Lisa existed from the start -- before Da Vinci got around to painting it?

Once more since you apparantly cannot read English: A work of art is not deterministic. Not preordained. Not predictable. Get it?

The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

Sad for you that you don't know the difference. But perhaps you can give me the formula for Mona Lisa?

How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC? Is photography more evidence for indeterminism?

Photograps are quite quite probabilistic. But you are not telling me you believe that they always show the truth?

TLOP is the set of rules that determines behavior. Without TLOP there wouldn’t be any Rewards and Punishment, and without Rewards and Punishment there wouldn’t be any TLOP.

Try and imagine a version of TLOP that would not also require a built in system of rewards and punishment. It can’t be done, and if you think it can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what TLOP and consciousness really are.

Reward and punishment are cultural concepts, they have nothing to do with the laws of physics. I have a fundamental disagreement with you on what TLOP and consciousness are.

If that is True, then you can explain what precisely what “Non-Determinism” means, and precisely how it works.

Since you cannot explain what you build your cosmology on, precise explanations from me are a tall order. Roll die. You will get a random figure bet 1 and 6. Thats non determinstic. ---

Or, go down to your local toy shop and buy some cheap "Glow in the Dark" toy. Maybe you already have one, they're all the rage right now. Take it into a dark room, bathe it in light from a lamp of flashlight (or a photo flash, that's really good). Turn out all lights. The object will now glow (mostly green). The glow will slowly diminish (half life appr. 5 minutes). After an hour or two, the glow will be faint but it will still be there.

Now, explain this phenomenon using only determinism.


Hans

(edited because my keyboard apparantly is also non-deterministic ;) )

[Franko]

My actions are probabilistic. I have repeatedly stated that I dont believe in magic.

obviously you don't understand probability either.

Without Determinism there won't be any probability nitwit.

MRC, what is the probability of a "coin" landing "heads" up?

Now, what is the probability of a "dosendocker" landing "kineset" up?

Since you claim that probability does not require determinism you should have no trouble solving this problem.

[MRC_Hans]

[i]Originally posted by Franko [/i

obviously you don't understand probability either.

Without Determinism there won't be any probability nitwit.

Right. Then there would only be randomness. Probabilistic events are partly deterministic, partly random.

MRC, what is the probability of a "coin" landing "heads" up?

50%

Now, what is the probability of a "dosendocker" landing "kineset" up?

Haven't the slightest idea.

Since you claim that probability does not require determinism you should have no trouble solving this problem.

I dont claim that, it just that you cant grasp the concept

Now, your turn: Explain phosphorescence using only determinism.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, if there is a Logical Deist out there who's not anal retentive, could we get back on topic?

Provide evidence that information can be created in a closed deterministic system.

Hans :rolleyes:

If you won the lotto tomorrow, you wouldnt be surprised?
You already know that you will or will not win the lotto ever?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


If you won the lotto tomorrow, you wouldnt be surprised?
You already know that you will or will not win the lotto ever? What's you point?

[Franko]

My actions are probabilistic. I have repeatedly stated that I dont believe in magic.

Explain how probability works without Determinism being True?

It wouldn’t.

I have a deck of cards with various different symbols on them. If I don’t tell you how many cards I have, or how many different symbols there are can you tell me the probability that you will draw a card with the “Ahnk” on it?

Without DETERMINED parameters there is no probability. You are being incredibly naïve and dogmatic MRC.

Do you know HOW you know the probability of getting HEADS when you flip a coin is 50%??? It’s because you have preDETERMINED that:

1) a coin has two sides which are mutually exclusive when the coin is flipped.
2) the likelihood of either side landing is approximately equal.

Franko:
Do you mean just like the Mona Lisa existed from the start -- before Da Vinci got around to painting it?

MRC:
Once more since you apparantly cannot read English: A work of art is not deterministic. Not preordained. Not predictable. Get it?

Explain why you believe that Fractals are not artwork?

Define Artwork. Explain why artworks are not predetermined, but the Mandelbrot set was?

Wasn’t the painting of the Mona Lisa preDETERMINED by what Mona Lisa (the person) actually looked like? How is the Mona Lisa ANY different then a photographic portrait MRC?

When you take a photograph of you wife does a different person ever show up when you have the film developed?

According to your view of reality are photographs deterministic like a fractal, or are they magical like “artwork”?

Franko:
The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

MRC:
Sad for you that you don't know the difference. But perhaps you can give me the formula for Mona Lisa?

The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC? Is photography more evidence for indeterminism?

Franko:
TLOP is the set of rules that determines behavior. Without TLOP there wouldn’t be any Rewards and Punishment, and without Rewards and Punishment there wouldn’t be any TLOP.

Try and imagine a version of TLOP that would not also require a built in system of rewards and punishment. It can’t be done, and if you think it can, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what TLOP and consciousness really are.

MRC:
Reward and punishment are cultural concepts, they have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Really?

Well I suggest you try jumping off the roof of a tall building or roll around in a large bon fire and then tell yourself that Reward and punishment are cultural concepts, they have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Let us know how it turns out.

If you want to make a fool of yourself for the sake of your religious dogma MRC, I’ll be more than happy to help you out.

[Franko]

Tricky: (A-Theist)
Nice try, Franko. Just so you can't claim I have never told you, here is a definition for you. In the context of "obeying" the laws of physics.

obey = operates within the limits of

It in no way implies determinism, just as "obeying the rules of baseball" does not suggest that the outcome of any given game is pre-determined.

Sure it is. It is pre-determined by the rules of baseball (and the players themselves).

I can prove it too, because I have watched a lot of baseball, and I have never seen anyone score a touchdown in baseball. I've never seen anyone teleport from 1st to 3rd base either. Everything that happens in a professional baseball game is according to the rules of baseball.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Sure it is. It is pre-determined by the rules of baseball (and the players themselves).

I can prove it too, because I have watched a lot of baseball, and I have never seen anyone score a touchdown in baseball. I've never seen anyone teleport from 1st to 3rd base either. Everything that happens in a professional baseball game is according to the rules of baseball.
Then why do the bookmakers give odds? Why don't they just tell us in advance who is going to win?

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
What's you point?

Thats the new information...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

Explain how probability works without Determinism being True?

It wouldn’t.

Its "determinism", not "Determinism". Of course deterministic functions exist. But I have challenged you to explain a simple, everyday observable phenomenon using ONLY determinism (phosphoroscence), and so far I hear only crickets.

I have a deck of cards with various different symbols on them. If I don’t tell you how many cards I have, or how many different symbols there are can you tell me the probability that you will draw a card with the “Ahnk” on it?

Without DETERMINED parameters there is no probability. You are being incredibly naïve and dogmatic MRC.

I quite agree that probability requires deterministic parameters (and I have not said otherwise). Now you show me YOU are not naïve and dogmatic, and explain how probability can exist without RANDOM factors?

Do you know HOW you know the probability of getting HEADS when you flip a coin is 50%??? It’s because you have preDETERMINED that:

1) a coin has two sides which are mutually exclusive when the coin is flipped.
2) the likelihood of either side landing is approximately equal.

Quite. And your point?

Explain why you believe that Fractals are not artwork?

I already did. DO read my posts. Tha fact that you dont understand the explanation doesnt mean that it isn't there.

Define Artwork. Explain why artworks are not predetermined, but the Mandelbrot set was?

I can explain that the Mandelbrot set is predetermined, but I cant prove a negative. YOU provide evidence that the Mona Lisa was predetermined.

Wasn’t the painting of the Mona Lisa preDETERMINED by what Mona Lisa (the person) actually looked like? How is the Mona Lisa ANY different then a photographic portrait MRC?

I would say that you are culturally deprived. I'm sorry, I neither have the ability nor motivation to educate you culturally. A photo can be art too, however.

When you take a photograph of you wife does a different person ever show up when you have the film developed?

I sure hope not. That might get me into serious trouble. ;)

According to your view of reality are photographs deterministic like a fractal, or are they magical like “artwork”?

Nothin is magical, but some art comes close, heheh. Photograps are less deterministic than fractals.

The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

I already have explained. And I have asked you to provide the formula for Mona Lisa. So what will Mona Lisa look like with one more iteration? Or one less?

How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC?

Well, if you insist on exposing your cultural poverty repeatedly, I shall not stop you.

Is photography more evidence for indeterminism?

Not especially, why?

Really?

Well I suggest you try jumping off the roof of a tall building or roll around in a large bon fire and then tell yourself that Reward and punishment are cultural concepts, they have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Let us know how it turns out.

That is logical consequences of actions. They are not the same as punishment. But I realize you dont understand the difference, and I really dont think I want to bother with trying to explain it to you.

If you want to make a fool of yourself for the sake of your religious dogma MRC, I’ll be more than happy to help you out.

Oh, well -- gee, thanks, Frank!



Hans

(Edited for some of the typos)

[wraith]

Hans

I can explain that the Mandelbrot set is predetermined, but I cant prove a negative. YOU provide evidence that the Mona Lisa was predetermined.

You said that the Mona Lisa was not predetermined...thats your claim...so it's up to you to support it

[MRC_Hans]

Wraith asks if I can predict the lottery.
I answer: What's your poit?

Originally posted by wraith


Thats the new information...

Ehr, yes ---- and? This is a problem for YOU, pal, not for me. You are the one with the totally deterministic cosmology, not I. In my cosmology, the lottery is a random event, and thus new information added to the world.

You said that the Mona Lisa was not predetermined...thats your claim...so it's up to you to support it Har, har, har. Nope, pal, YOU are the one touting total Determinism, and Mona Lisa was YOUR example, YOU do the proving.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Wraith asks if I can predict the lottery.
I answer: What's your poit?

Ehr, yes ---- and? This is a problem for YOU, pal, not for me. You are the one with the totally deterministic cosmology, not I.

How is this a problem for me?

In my cosmology, the lottery is a random event, and thus new information added to the world.

Yeah your belief is WACK. The present is not based on the past. Thats tops :rolleyes:

Har, har, har. Nope, pal, YOU are the one touting total Determinism, and Mona Lisa was YOUR example, YOU do the proving.

The painting did not exist till it was painted...any other brain busters? :eekL:

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith
How is this a problem for me?

Well if it isn't I suggest we forget it :rolleyes:

Yeah your belief is WACK. The present is not based on the past. Thats tops :rolleyes:

That was a reeealy good argument :rolleyes:

The painting did not exist till it was painted...any other brain busters? :eekL:

Ehh, what exactly are you arguing for here?:rolleyes:
Hans

[Franko]

Tricky:
Then why do the bookmakers give odds? Why don't they just tell us in advance who is going to win?

When a bookmaker gives odds ... the team they give the better odds of winning is the team that they are telling you is going to win.

[Franko]

Franko:
Well I suggest you try jumping off the roof of a tall building or roll around in a large bon fire and then tell yourself that Reward and punishment are cultural concepts, they have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

Let us know how it turns out.

MRC: (severely brainwashed A-Theist)
That is logical consequences of actions. They are not the same as punishment. But I realize you dont understand the difference, and I really dont think I want to bother with trying to explain it to you.

Explain the precise difference between a "logical coonsequence for action" and "punishment"?

If you murder someone, and I catch you and put you in jail, isn't that "punishment", AND "logical consequence for action"?

Face it MRC, all you are doing is creatively redefining words so you don't have to concede all of the ridiculous contradictions in your religious dogma.

I'm going to point out all of the holes and problems with your concept of "art" and "fractals" (Math), but I want to let you hang yourself on this one first ...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

When a bookmaker gives odds ... the team they give the better odds of winning is the team that they are telling you is going to win.
And are they always correct? (Hint: Remember the Superbowl?)

Actually, bookmakers don't give a ratsass (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=335393&highlight=ratsass#post335393) who wins. They set the point spread to get an equal number of people betting for both sides. That way, the losers pay the winners and the bookmaker takes his vigorish. But it is a risky profession. Lots of bookmakers lost their shirts on the Superbowl.

[Franko]

And are they always correct? (Hint: Remember the Superbowl?)

Why do they have to be correct 100% of the time to prove determinism True?

If determinism is False, then how would they ever do any better than 50-50?

Actually, bookmakers don't give a ratsass who wins. They set the point spread to get an equal number of people betting for both sides. That way, the losers pay the winners and the bookmaker takes his vigorish. But it is a risky profession. Lots of bookmakers lost their shirts on the Superbowl.

Never-the-less, their rate of accurate predictions is far better than can be accounted for by "random chance" alone.

So how do you account for it Tricky?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

Explain the precise difference between a "logical coonsequence for action" and "punishment"?
A logical coonsequence is to put all of your racoons in order of increasing size.

A logical consequence may be punishment, reward or neither. For example, if you mistreat your girlfriend, and she leaves you as a consequence, is that punishment or reward? Depends on your point of view, does it not?

[Franko]

Tricky it is very simple ...

A consequence you like is a Reward.

A consequence that you don't like is a Punishment.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Why do they have to be correct 100% of the time to prove determinism True?
May I remind you that you said (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=333392&highlight=professional+gamblers#post333392)
posted by Franko 02-11-2003
Uncertain from who's perspective?

Certainly not a bookmaker's, or a professional gambler's
If they don't know it 100%, then it is uncertain. Or are you going to redefine "uncertain" too?

Originally posted by Franko
Never-the-less, their rate of accurate predictions is far better than can be accounted for by "random chance" alone.

So how do you account for it Tricky?
The more you learn about something, the better you can predict it. But even if you learn more than everybody else in the world, you still can't make perfect predictions.

However, knowing the rules of football would in no way help you predict winners if you didn't know anything about the teams.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Tricky it is very simple ...

A consequence you like is a Reward.

A consequence that you don't like is a Punishment.
What about a consequence that you have mixed feelings or no feelings about? You need examples?

[Franko]

Tricky:
May I remind you that you said

Am I suppose to guess what you are referring to?

How is this a contradiction?

Franko: (from Tricky's link)
By the same token if you want to pretend that an incomplete understanding of TLOP means that you don’t actually OBEY TLOP then keep believing it.

Bookmakers don’t have a complete understand of TLOP either Trixy. But make no mistake, they run their business based on the notion that REALITY OPERATIVES BY AN OBJECTIVE FIXED SET OF LAWS. Probability and Statistics cannot exist unless determinism is True.

Tricky:
If they don't know it 100%, then it is uncertain. Or are you going to redefine "uncertain" too?

So you are once again claiming that if a person doesn’t have knowledge of TLOP, then TLOP does not function?

What you are claiming is that if you believe the Earth is Flat and motionless, the Earth really is Flat and motionless?


The more you learn about something, the better you can predict it.

Then why do you claim that this is not True for TLOP itself? Wouldn’t it be True that the better you understood TLOP the better you could predict what TLOP would do next? Tell me, how is that any different then predicting another persons actions?

Tricky:
But even if you learn more than everybody else in the world, you still can't make perfect predictions.

You are contradicting yourself again – why not?

Are you claiming that you can predict a strangers actions just as well as you can predict your wife or childrens’ actions?

Is it easier for you to predict the actions of young children, or is it easier for them to predict your actions? Explain your answer … Why is that the case?

Tricky:
However, knowing the rules of football would in no way help you predict winners if you didn't know anything about the teams.

Well, I’d say that you would have to know the rules of football in order to know what was important about the teams.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
How is this a contradiction?
Because you first say Bookmakers and Gamblers are not uncertain, then you say they are not always right. That's about as much of a contradiction as it is possible to make.



Bookmakers don’t have a complete understand of TLOP either Trixy. But make no mistake, they run their business based on the notion that REALITY OPERATIVES BY AN OBJECTIVE FIXED SET OF LAWS. Probability and Statistics cannot exist unless determinism is True.
Just the opposite is true. If determinism exists, then the probability of everything is 100% since there can be no deviation from what is preordained. The laws of probability are predicated on randomness.


So you are once again claiming that if a person doesn’t have knowledge of TLOP, then TLOP does not function?
Nope. You have once again mistaken your strawman for what I actually said.


Then why do you claim that this is not True for TLOP itself? Wouldn’t it be True that the better you understood TLOP the better you could predict what TLOP would do next? Tell me, how is that any different then predicting another persons actions?
If you really understand TLOP, you will understand probability and randomness. That will help keep you from the problem of gamblers ruin. (It's a statistics term. Look it up.)

Well, I’d say that you would have to know the rules of football in order to know what was important about the teams.
Very true, but knowing The Rules of Football perfectly, in and of themselves tell you nothing about who will win. You must have other knowledge.

In the same way, knowing The Laws of Physics perfectly in and of themselves does not predict the outcome of any given event. You must have other knowledge.

[Franko]

In the same way, knowing The Laws of Physics perfectly in and of themselves does not predict the outcome of any given event. You must have other knowledge.

That's right ... TLOP plus the Initial State.

And really the LG is not TLOP. TLOP is simply Her expressions. The LG is the initial state. Just like your initial state corresponds to your Graviton.

[Franko]

Trixy: (A-Theism Cult Recruiter)
Because you first say Bookmakers and Gamblers are not uncertain, then you say they are not always right. That's about as much of a contradiction as it is possible to make.

No I said that it is a FACT that the oddsmakers are correct more often then they are incorrect, if you are claiming that Determinism is False, then how do you account for this?

Some people are able to anticipate future events far better than others (adults generally tend to do it much better than children for example). How do you account for this if determinism is false. If determinism were true then you would expect that Time and experience would amount to an increase in information and thus predictions would become more accurate.

But you seem to be saying that this is False. You seem to be claiming that even if someone (God) had ALL information they would still not be able to predict things more accurately then you or I could.

So how do you explain it. (my prediction … Tricky won’t explain it, we’ll see more woo-woo stuff and evasions).

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


Explain the precise difference between a "logical coonsequence for action" and "punishment"?

If you murder someone, and I catch you and put you in jail, isn't that "punishment", AND "logical consequence for action"?

Face it MRC, all you are doing is creatively redefining words so you don't have to concede all of the ridiculous contradictions in your religious dogma.

I'm going to point out all of the holes and problems with your concept of "art" and "fractals" (Math), but I want to let you hang yourself on this one first ... Better get on with the math, Frank. But do your homework well. You know, math is a pretty concise discipline, no "lexicon" will help you there.

Consequence is nonconscious; if I drop a stone, it falls to the ground. If the drop is long enough, the stone breaks, but thats not punishment, thats just consequence.

Punishment is conscous. If you steal somethinG, your society has decided that it will not accept it, so (if caught) it punishes you to keep you from doing it again.

And, you will find overlapping examples, like if you run a red light, and meet a truck.

This is what i mean by the difference between consequence and punishment (and reward, of course). I realize such nuances probably dont exist in your cosmology, but thats not my loss.

Now what were you gonna teach me about fractals?

Hans

Edited to add: And you still owe me the Deterministic explanation for phosphoroscence.

[Franko]

MRC it is very simple ...

A consequence you like is a Reward.

A consequence that you don't like is a Punishment.

[MRC_Hans]

Posting that twice doesn't make it make more sense. But probably your mind IS that simple :rolleyes:

Hans

[Franko]

Your nothing woo-woo posts are more substantive?

When are you going to explain what YOU believe MRC?

What are you hiding?

So TLOP does not control YOU, what does that mean? Isn't your mind made of atoms? Are you saying that the laws of Physics are NOT determining your behavior?

Explain what you mean?

[Franko]

Franko: (Logical Deist)
So the picture of what the Mandelbrot set looked liked (the fractal) already existed before the program was entered, run, or plotted on the screen?

MRC: (A-Theist)
A work of art is not deterministic. You need to explain how Mona Lisa is created in a determinstic universe.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Do you mean just like the Mona Lisa existed from the start – before Da Vinci got around to painting it?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Once more since you apparantly cannot read English: A work of art is not deterministic. Not preordained. Not predictable. Get it?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Sad for you that you don't know the difference. But perhaps you can give me the formula for Mona Lisa?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC? Is photography more evidence for indeterminism?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Photograps are quite quite probabilistic. But you are not telling me you believe that they always show the truth?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Explain why you believe that Fractals are not artwork?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I already did. DO read my posts. Tha fact that you dont understand the explanation doesnt mean that it isn't there.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Define Artwork. Explain why artworks are not predetermined, but the Mandelbrot set was?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I can explain that the Mandelbrot set is predetermined, but I cant prove a negative. YOU provide evidence that the Mona Lisa was predetermined.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Wasn’t the painting of the Mona Lisa preDETERMINED by what Mona Lisa (the person) actually looked like? How is the Mona Lisa ANY different then a photographic portrait MRC?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I would say that you are culturally deprived. I'm sorry, I neither have the ability nor motivation to educate you culturally. A photo can be art too, however.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
When you take a photograph of you wife does a different person ever show up when you have the film developed?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I sure hope not. That might get me into serious trouble.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
According to your view of reality are photographs deterministic like a fractal, or are they magical like “artwork”?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Nothin is magical, but some art comes close, heheh. Photograps are less deterministic than fractals.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Well, if you insist on exposing your cultural poverty repeatedly, I shall not stop you.

So Hans-Job since you seem to be claiming to have superior art-detection abilities then I assume if I showed you some “artwork” – let’s say some landscapes – you could tell me which ones were done manually (“not deterministic” “Not preordained” “Not predictable” Get it?), and which ones were just fractals generated by a deterministic algorithm?

You seem to be making this claim, if not, then wouldn’t that constitute: the formula for Mona Lisa? where: Mona Lisa = Landscape Artwork

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


So Hans-Job since you seem to be claiming to have superior art-detection abilities then I assume if I showed you some “artwork” – let’s say some landscapes – you could tell me which ones were done manually (“not deterministic” “Not preordained” “Not predictable” Get it?), and which ones were just fractals generated by a deterministic algorithm?

You seem to be making this claim, if not, then wouldn’t that constitute: the formula for Mona Lisa? where: Mona Lisa = Landscape Artwork Well, we are getting off topic, but who cares? I only claim superior art detection capabilities compared to you, and you provided the evidence.

Yes, I suspect I would quite often be able to distinguish between (pictures of) landscapes created by artists and landscapes created by computer programs. Now the Mona Lisa is not a landscape, so maybe you should try for computer generated faces instead.

Ask yourself this: Has the Mona Lisa been celebrated and admired through centuries for its photographic likeness with the lady depicted? Or for something else? The question is rethoric: It is not the portrait qualities, because it is not even known for sure who was the model, much less how well the painting resembled her (although it probably did well).

Hans

[Franko]

MRC:
Well, we are getting off topic, but who cares? I only claim superior art detection capabilities compared to you, and you provided the evidence.

Yes, I suspect I would quite often be able to distinguish between (pictures of) landscapes created by artists and landscapes created by computer programs. Now the Mona Lisa is not a landscape, so maybe you should try for computer generated faces instead.

What difference does it make? What if I had an artist paint up something, or do an artwork on a computer that kind of looked like it might be a fractal? Are you telling me you could tell the difference? I thought you said it was easy to tell the difference because ART is NOT the result of deterministic Algorithms?

Have you ever seen any of those computer generated 3D holographic artworks? Is that art? ... because it wouldn't have been possible without a Deterministic computer algorithm.

Ask yourself this: Has the Mona Lisa been celebrated and admired through centuries for its photographic likeness with the lady depicted? Or for something else? The question is rethoric: It is not the portrait qualities, because it is not even known for sure who was the model, much less how well the painting resembled her (although it probably did well).

Ohhh, I understand exactly what you are saying MRC, as hard as it may be for you to believe it -- I understand what puts the “magic” in the Mona Lisa even better than you do.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko
What difference does it make? What if I had an artist paint up something, or do an artwork on a computer that kind of looked like it might be a fractal? Are you telling me you could tell the difference? I thought you said it was easy to tell the difference because ART is NOT the result of deterministic Algorithms?

Yes that is what I claim. Since art is undefinable, it is not always recognizable, so there might well be instances whre you could not destinguish between the result of a computer program and art. So what?

Have you ever seen any of those computer generated 3D holographic artworks? Is that art? ... because it wouldn't have been possible without a Deterministic computer algorithm.

Thats irrelevant. Paints and brushes are also rather deterministic. Brushes or computers, it's just tools.

Ohhh, I understand exactly what you are saying MRC, as hard as it may be for you to believe it -- I understand what puts the “magic” in the Mona Lisa even better than you do.

OOooh? Then do explain it.

Hans

[Franko]

MRC:
Yes that is what I claim. Since art is undefinable, it is not always recognizable, so there might well be instances whre you could not destinguish between the result of a computer program and art. So what?

So maybe it is ALL done by a computer program? Maybe you are part of the program, and therefore you only comprehend the greater program to a relative degree corresponding to your degree of self-awareness?

How is your not knowing if the Mona Lisa was generated by an Algorithm EVIDENCE that the Mona Lisa was not generated by an Algorithm?

You ever seen a scanner? You ever seen a large architecture plotter -- a computer printer that use colored pens or sprayed paint to produce very large sized documents and drawings? You ever seen one of those “paint-brush” filters in any of the slew of graphics programs on the market these days?

Suppose I set up a digital camera in some tourist area, I hook the camera to a computer. I have the thing set up so that someone can hit a button, and it will take their family’s picture in front of some local landmark. Okay, so now digital photo goes to computer, where a graphics program applies a filter algorithm to deterministically modify the image from photo realism to Renaissance Master’s style painting, then … using a slightly modified plotter, the image is painted onto a canvas with real brushes and real oil paints.

You gonna tell me that people wouldn’t be willing to shill out some bucks for these “hand-painted” art masterpieces? What if you hide the computer and plotter in a little shed, and tell them that you have a team of the world’s fastest reclusive artists whipping these things out at 1 every 15 minutes?

[MRC_Hans]

Ehr, yes. I'm sure you could fool some there. Like I say, it is not possible to define art. What about it? What are you arguing for?

So you ask if I'm sure we're not part of some great computer program. Well, basically no, but if we are, then it's a probabilistic program.

Hans

[Franko]

[b]Mrc:[/b[
So you ask if I'm sure we're not part of some great computer program. Well, basically no, but if we are, then it's a probabilistic program.

How specifically is your model of the Cosmos different then a great computer program? Aren’t all of your “models” of it literally on computers?

Suppose that you are a computer program MRC. Even if it were probabilistic, would that mean you were NOT bound by the laws (code) the program was written in?

Isn’t DNA a lot like computer code/data MRC? How is DNA unlike a computer program?