DarkBronzePlant

I'm not sure what creating "some thing from no thing" has to do with any thing.

But if the former was to discover that they were composed of patterns of two distinct types, then they have learned something. If the other group simply makes up stories, then they have learned nothing. The odds of them making up the correct story would be like, well, the odds of a tornado hitting a junkyard and creating a 747.

David Mathews

Hello DarkBronzePlant,

David: Of course, I am not saying that you are literally eternal, omniscient, omnipotent or even God. I am only speaking in relative terms as in making a comparison between your nature and the nature of those computer-based lifeforms which you created with the program.

Supposing the computer-based lifeforms speculated about the existence of a Creator without any direct access to the programmer nor any revelation from the programmer, they would undoubtedly form many false ideas about the nature of the creator. They would be wrong about a great many things, except for the existence of a creator outside and separate from their universe.

I suspect that even if the creator did directly or indirectly interact with his creatures, they still will form many different opinions about the naure, character and will of the Creator. They would all be wrong about a great many things, but correct in their belief in a Creator.

Therefore, applying the analogy to the present world: All of the religions could be wrong to some degree about God's identity, nature and character, but they may all be right in concluded that God exist and is ultimately responsible for the existence of the Universe and humankind.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

DarkBronzePlant

Yes, they would be right about there being a creator, but aside from sheer coincidence, they would have everything else so wrong, what would the point be? They can make up stories about how this creator they've written about demands that do certain things, that they act certain ways. That the creator loves them and--once power is no longer flowing to their memory address--will take them out of the computer to live in eternal bliss. All of which would be hogwash.

I assuming that you created this as an analogy to believing in god, or some similar supreme creator, with us as the little digital blips. Sure, something created us. I have no doubt that there is something out there that we could call our creator. Maybe that thing is similar to what we call "the universe". Maybe "nature" is an adequate name for our creator. Or maybe there is something out there akin to a god that created us.

Point is, all of the little theist blips here are making up stories about what our creator is, based on absolutely nothing... making "some thing out of no thing" to quote WJ. Whatever creator there might be out there, it is of no relevance to Yahwah or Allah or Zeus or Vishnu or any other god that the blips have manufactured.

lpetrich

They could decide that their universe had more than one creator, which would be a reasonable extrapolation from a complicated universe -- that it had had designers with different tastes. This is fairly self-evident from human design, that different designers make different decisions about design details.

They could decide that their universe is all of reality, out of the principle of parsimony, and that contrary hypotheses require positive evidence.

They could decide that the origin of their universe is an insoluble problem not worth wasting time on, which is essentially what the Buddha had believed -- the Buddha had compared asking about the origin of the Universe to asking about the origin of an arrow that soneone had shot you with; your first priority is to pull it out.

I think that David Mathews ought to study religions and philosophies very different from his to get some alternative perspectives -- and as he does so, he ought to consciously keep himself from projecting his beliefs onto others' beliefs.

The most that they would be agreeing on is a weak form of deism, which I think that DM would find theologically unsatisfactory.

And a more likely scenario is that they would learn a lot of other details about the external world as they discover that their universe had been created by inhabitants of that external world. So there would not be this disagreement on fundamental features.

And they would discover that they had effectively had more than one creator; in this scenario, you would likely have been part of some community of AI researchers, and you would have bought the host computer(s) from some computer makers, and so forth.

The idea of a community of deities may be hard for DM to picture, but many religions have featured exactly that.

Except that many religions do not feature any entity that exactly corresponds to the Christian God. Consider Hellenic or Norse paganism, for example. Or Hinduism. Or Buddhism.

Goliath

David Mathews,

First of all, in this scenario, I have created a computer program, not a universe. Secondly, since I am not a supernatural being, I would not be a god.

Eternal? No. If the computer was well taken care of, then the "beings" in the program would outlive me. Omniscient and omnipotent? No to both, since I must work within the constraints of a computer program.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "seamless" universe. However, it might be possible for these beings to observe me, merely with the use of a webcam.

No.

Well, that would depend on the properties of the "beings" in question, now wouldn't it? If the program that I created notified each and every being when I change/update the programming of their "universe," then no, I could not.

Absolutely not! Haven't you heard of 3D computer graphics? Many games nowadays utilize them, Mr. Mathews.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, you haven't provided enough information about these "beings." They might have no conception of magic or miracles.

Again, I'm unable to answer this until you give me more information on these "beings."

It would, yet again, depend on the specifics of the beings in question, and it would also depend on whether or not I was able to directly interact with them.

Again, maybe, or maybe not. They might not have a conception of a "mystical experience."

Sincerely,

Goliath

Ted Hoffman

REPOSTED
One question for David regarding his hypothetical situation:
Do those beings in your hypothetical universe have ANY good reason to believe that you(their creator) exists?

You have merely redacted Psacals wager and shifted the goalposts by actually creating a God and putting him in the scenario.

I would rather be wrong for a good reason than Happen to be right for no reason at all, because belief in the existence of a creator would involve abandoning reason and taking an irrational Leap of faith. If thats the case, we might as well all make our bets and let time tell who is gonna be right. It involves giving up hope in our abilities to determine our origins and abandoning reason as a tool of examining our existence.

I have always argued that a God who would push his creators to the point of having to become irrational(in the name of faith) in order to hold onto the idea that he exists, is either sick or inexistent (like the proverbial absentee landlord). Either way, such a God has no grounds for demanding his existence be recognised.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Typhon

1. Would you not be the God of that Universe which you created?

No. I would be a computer programmer or an engineer. Despite what both think, they are a far cry from gods, even over their own "creations."

2. From the standpoint of the beings in the computer, would you not be eternal, omniscient and omnipotent?

No. This is not a given. I for example work in the field of AI. It may well be possible in the very near future to create code and/or cognitive networks that possess "essentially intelligen(ce)." See the wonderful labs at MIT for good examples of some of the on-going direction of such research. Simply because I, a designer, or in the case of programmers, are able to create a network, computer, or adaptive system or code that thinks, does not mean even by its standards that we are "eternal, omniscient and omnipotent." It is well within the realm of possibility not to mention a standard of science-fiction writers to conceive of intelligent artificially created beings possessing free will and self awareness that may well eclipse the abilities and mortality of man. Even in a simpler scenario, your second point is not even remotely a given, and actually, seems rather implausible even within the scope and spirit of the experiment.

3. From the standpoint of the beings in the computer, would not the Universe be seamless and therefore they would not have any direct access to their creator, either to observe, perceive or verify your existence?

Heavens no. This is no means a certainty either. There is a great lab where AI robots are tested, in a sort of "robot survival" testing ground. Small robots with rudimentary learning abilities, compete for finite resources. Recently one amused visitor to the compound inadvertently ran over one such 'bot which had managed to escape the complex, and was on its way potentially to freedom before its flight was caught short. Now, these are very simple critters, and any beings possessed of the attributes you have set for this example, kept within the confines of a computer, would absolutely have the potential to discover the supporting superstructure of the system, and by extension, that some reality and in this case, intelligent beings existed beyond the enclosed substrate of the system. I can furthermore guarantee that should I be placed in just such a situation, I would very early on establish some degree of communication with my creations. This is an absolute, near-certainty.

4. From the standpoint of the beings in the computer: If they were to deny the existence of a Creator, would that mean that in fact you really do not exist?

Of course not. However, it would be very difficult to mask the true nature of the situation from any truly intelligent and resourceful creations. I would be hard pressed keeping the mice from becoming aware of the maze, and that the maze, was not a purely naturalistic state of the universe.

5. From the standpoint of the beings in the computer: Isn't it true that you could modify their reality without their perception, either changing their individual properties or the properties of their Universe without their having any means of detecting these changes?

It depends on what kind of beings they are, how they are linked to my interface, the sophistication of their routines and ability to detect tampering, and how keen their ability to sense and interact with their environment. I suspect that this would be very, very difficult to do in the scenario you have outlined.

6. Supposing you were to reveal yourself to some of those computer-based lifeforms, don't you imagine that your description of the three-dimensional physical world would be incomprehensible to meaningless to them?

Not at all. We are able to describe objects existing in two-dimensional space. We are able to describe and certainly at least imagine and speculate on objects existing in four, five, even n-dimensional space. If these had at least the intelligence and imagination we do, this would potentially be no problem at all. This is especially true, as I would be able to communicate with them by a means of my own choosing and planning, which I would have already factored this design element in, from before the project was started.

7. Supposing you were to modify their universe in a manner in which they might perceive, wouldn't the citizens of that computer based universe consider such acts either miracles or magic?

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. See the answer to question #5.

8. Those computer based lifeforms who observed these acts by yourself might not interpret them as acts of the creator. They might seek some sort of "natural" explanation within their own universe which would explain it without the activity of the Creator. Yes or No?

Perhaps yes, potentially no. Again, see my answer to question #5. From my own experience with systems, albeit nothing of this level, it would be hubris to think that both my control interface and the logical consistency and potential transparency of the supporting system structure would not almost certainly risk exposure and/or detection by the inhabitants, should they possess again the traits you have required for this experiment. Even passive observation might be difficult to mask from sufficiently intelligent and resourceful programs.

9. If the citizens of your universe decided to that they did not want, need or believe in the Creator, as the Creator you would not have any means of changing their mind without destroying their personality, character, individuality and free will. Yes or No?

Yes or No. This all depends on how the system and its inhabitants are designed, and how much influence I have over them once they are "independent." If I control their memory and perception of the system at all time, then I have a good chance of making changes without having to totally rewrite them and their subroutines. If not, then I have to resort to either directly affecting their environment to produce the necessary need, or even simpler, choose a much more honest approach and directly communicate with the entities, revealing my presence and the purpose behind their creation.

10. If somehow you transported one of those computer-based lifeforms into your own universe, wouldn't they interpret this universe as some sort of vision or mystical experience?

No. There is no reason to require this. If I have created a virtual environment which closely resembles the physical world, or if in transporting, their sensory input translates the observable environment into terms that they can perceive/experience through whatever rules and expectations they have in their own, there is no reason to definitely expect this. Also, if they are informed of the relationship between their natural environment and the one they find themselves in, they are likely, if they are intelligent and sufficiently educated, to understand at least as well as I, the creator.

Well, there you have it. I don't see what the point of this is though. You obviously don't know all that much about computer systems or research in the field of AI. Heck, this is even common fare for the newer Star Trek episodes, where holograms and rogue intelligent programs are escaping the confines of the holodeck every other show and taking over the ship. I'm curious where you were trying to go with all of this in the first place.

Hope this helps however,

.T.

DarkBronzePlant

LOL!

I, for one, am a programmer who knows that my computer, in fact, is the boss of me, not the other way around.

Koyaanisqatsi

By the way, since when does "creator of something" equal "right of destroyer of something?"

My parents, arguably, "created" me, but that doesn't mean they have any right whatsoever to either destroy me or punish me for wrongdoing (they do punish me, but they arguably have no right to punish me).

I so detest blatant logical inconsistencies in every single theist construct that ever tries to use logic.

In fact, come to think of it, there exist absolutely no logical constructs wherein a theist argument has ever been found to be sound (beyond the most trivial) that I can think of.

Anybody else? Nevermind, I think I'll start a new thread on that note...

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Icarus

I'm not sure where you were headed with this one David, but I'm guessing you were attempting to use the responses as evidence supporting the premise that God cannot, as opposed to will not, reveal himself to us in the concrete, verifiable manner demanded by some individuals you have encountered on this board (and elsewhere for that matter) as a prerequisite for becoming a Christian or at least acknowledging God's existance and sovereignty.

I make this inference--assuming an apological effort on your part--since your question and the subsequent responses would be equally powerless and meaningless otherwise. To simply draw an analogy between creator God and creative man, all the while making inquiries regarding a programmer's revelatory powers that could just as easily be answered 'yes' or 'no,' would be a feable attempt to justify any alleged God's lack of immanence in the world.

I apologize if I have grossly misrepresented your intentions, but I'm going to suppose you're contending that God does not reveal himself to us more clearly because he isn't able. I'll also grant your concept of 'relative omnipotence' as it pertains to your ability to manipulate or destroy anything within the system itself, quite apart from your limitations in the natural world.

With those considerations in mind, I'll grant that you may not be able to fully disclose yourself 'in all your glory,' so to speak, since any manifestation of your presence could only be transmitted via the matrix you've constructed. It must be supposed, for example, that specific, coherent messages must be constructed using the mathematical or linguisitc vernacular of the matirix and, as such, are generated from sources within the matrix. So long as you are confined to revelation that you expect your creatures to detect and comprehend, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that some or all of them would attribute your external interference to some so-called 'natural' pheonmenon.

So I'll grant that if God does exist, perhaps he cannot directly reveal himself or verify with emperical, materialistic regularity that which is immaterial to our senses. If I do that, however; what then? Are you willing to extend the implications of your analogy beyond what semi-complimentary concessions one might make about what is logically possible for a god?

For instance, if you were unable to fully disclose yourself to your creatures, would you recognize that the inherent limitation is yours alone to bear since the system is the product of your own design? How would you deal with them when the limited intelligences you gave them prompted them to dismiss you or motivated them to behave in ways you did not intend? As I see it, your analogy commends a God who appreciates the divide he cannot cross, and deals with his creation in a manner consisent with this sub-optimal arrangement.

In the end, the God of Christianity fails in a far more significant manner than simply being unable to prove his existence to us. He fails most terribly because we receive the blame for his weakness and are forced to assume responsibility for an unfortunate state that he will not face himself.

If I were the god of a computerized universe, I would not fault my creation for the inherent limitations in their perception and intelligence--limitations that I recognized, and therefore conceeded to, before I ever made them--since I would be the one responsible for constructing them exactly as they are. I wouldn't threaten them with punishment for denying me and certainly would't follow through with it if they did. Were I to behave in this way, I would relinquish all right to my creatures' respect and love. I might be able to destroy them in a single keystroke, but I could never expect them to acknowledge me with anything less than disgust.

So what is the point of this experiment? For me it is simply to conclude that three possibilities exist, all of which have little or no impact on the way I live or what I believe. One, God simply does not exist: in this case I keep on trucking just like I am now. Two, God does exist, cannot clearly communicate with us, and accepts this as being his problem: in this case I keep on trucking just like I am now. Three, God exists, cannot clearly communicate with us, and will torture me in hell forever because of this: in this case I keep on trucking just like I am now. My reasons for maintaining my beliefs and lifestyle will be different in each case, but the outcome is the same in all.

So the results of this experiment are nil, IMO.

Icarus

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Icarus ]</p>