Is god a computer programmer?

[☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ]

mmm dang it feels so delicious to read your guys replies , tastes like citrus n mango

Edited December 2, 2017 by ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ
mmmmm d

[Anodyne]

I never noticed that I had a centre-justify button. This is great!

ooh, and a right-justify as well!

and I know the left one is just the default that we see all the time, but I'll include it just to be nice _{albeit in a pretty condescending way}

COLOURS!

I never use those either.

• okay, I'm running out of buttons now

1. can someone build some more for me to play with ^{pretty please}?
2.  

 

1 hour ago, Inyan said:

Is god peanut butter?

Well, I mean, it sounds a bit silly when you put it like that, but yes, this is essentially what I personally

_{(in a totally unscientific way, as a fallible & biased human being, which I feel should go without saying but apparently it doesn't because we just had a whole discussion about this being a big issue)}

have decided to believe:

Thou art god, I am god, all that groks is god.

Because if you can't know for sure, then it's best to just treat everything as if it's divine, right?

 

 ...I guess that I can't be sure peanut butter "groks", but better to be safe, rather than risk offending my maybe-creator by dissing it. It's a good thing I like peanut butter. This will be a lot harder for Spam.

[☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ]

when i saw god he didnt have acompooooter thing , he smiled well tho and all kindsa light was like emitting from the frog faced awesomeness , like sunshine light , almost too bright but not painfully  - I could tell he was a boy even though it's hard to tell with anurans , .. maybe it was just similar features ? defo green tho

if not anuran , maybe toads were made in the image of their creator and perhaps these space toads were the shit hot programmers that operated like a colony and thus one super being .. like ants n shit

 

if he is a programmer then that rocks , maybe can make a good virus to immunize us from twats - or accidentally being without realizing ... and only realizing much later if at all

 

maybe he's working on a virus to make him uimumimimimimfknmune from twats first

dyu think he likes drum n bass? or acid trance? I reckon metal's on the list

 

maybe all of life is "breathed into existence " is a complex master code?

when i french kissed some german soil from a cactus yesterday nothing "brothe" into life so maybe I'm not god afterall? ... yeah right

 

so as god I command you to stop! and then carry on and yeah that be excellent to eachother really stuck cuz that's the right thing to say at that particular moment if you were a god and you had the idea that they might be a nice shit hot programmer, like those super helpful to help you up the ladder by teaching you how to build a pc and stick an OS on it or dual boot n overclock as a fun thing and is never boring or old despite it probably being the krillionth one

 

if im god then maybe not a programmer , if someone else is a programmer and also fits the i am we are all glove then the answer would be yes

 

so a state of yes and no

yeo .. or nes is the real question ?

 

most "state of being yes and no" I've come across has been maybe

Edited December 2, 2017 by ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ

[☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ]

30 minutes ago, Anodyne said:

I never noticed that I had a centre-justify button. This is great!

ooh, and a right-justify as well!

and I know the left one is just the default that we see all the time, but I'll include it just to be nice _{albeit in a pretty condescending way}

COLOURS!

I never use those either.

• okay, I'm running out of buttons now

1. can someone build some more for me to play with ^{pretty please}?
2.  

 

Well, I mean, it sounds a bit silly when you put it like that, but yes, this is essentially what I personally

_{(in a totally unscientific way, as a fallible & biased human being, which I feel should go without saying but apparently it doesn't because we just had a whole discussion about this being a big issue)}

have decided to believe:

Thou art god, I am god, all that groks is god.

Because if you can't know for sure, then it's best to just treat everything as if it's divine, right?

 

 ...I guess that I can't be sure peanut butter "groks", but better to be safe, rather than risk offending my maybe-creator by dissing it. It's a good thing I like peanut butter. This will be a lot harder for Spam.

that one was particularly nice thanks and feels good

 

spam as in a can? or spam as in like ebay send you every time one of their sellers coughs or blows their nose?

[nothinghead]

9 hours ago, Anodyne said:

Wait, who the hell are these "people" who claim that science is without bias? Huge chunks of the process (peer review, as Crop already mentioned, and also statistical analysis - which basically exists to help keep our own over-active pattern-finding in check) are built entirely around the understanding that everyone IS biased. So these checks are put in place to attempt to minimise that (or at least balance it against some opposing biases ). And of course those attempts are also subject to bias, and so on down the rabbithole we go. To steal a line from Heinlein: it's a poor system, the best thing that can be said about it is that it's about eight times as good as any other method we've tried.

 

Such a good point. I'm not even a scientist or nothing, and I often hear people shrilling "DID YOU KNOW? SCIENCE IS BIASED" in the context of any topic that doesn't fit their preconceptions about reality. No shit. Is the fact that bias exists in any pattern of human thought really a revelation for so many people? Sadly, that thought often gets extrapolated into some totalitarian form of relativism that seems to be able to answer any question. "Well, that's just like, your opinion, man" becomes an unironic terminal response to anything difficult.

 

Quote

And how a lot of people right now seem to see "science" is as a untrustworthy villain. They are throwing out the rational-thinking-baby with the pharmaceutical-scandal-bathwater, and so we end up with creationism in public schools and climate-change-deniers setting energy policies. Or people dismissing the entire field of biotech just because Monsanto are cunts. You can be critical of how scientific ideas are applied, without abandoning the good bits (like rational thinking, peer review & testing your theories) entirely and rejecting the whole enterprise. Just as I can respect the "be excellent to each other" portions of religion, rather than judging them all on the basis of a few crazy chapters & pedo priests. I just hope that people who see Science as a villain consider the alternative: that it has become a victim of capitalism, like so many other ideals.

 

More gold. The number of times people have assumed I am anti GMO foods because I criticise Monsanto is amazing. Sometimes these people are likely shills. But their tactics seem to work, since Joe Blow on the street so often makes the same ridiculous leap in logic.

 

Stu is absolutely right that peer review isn't a magic bullet for personal biases and blind spots. The problem's even worse with structural directions in scientific research due to funding sources and procedures, the directions those resources push research into, the ways they delimit it, and the way research is valued (high impact) etc. etc. As Ano points out, capitalism and science aren't always synergistic. Especially when the form of capitalism is late, or neoliberal. That doesn't mean that science is totally useless, or that the scientific method is fundamentally flawed. A good example is the climate change "debate." Probably any honest any scientist working on climate can point to a metric fuckin tonne of distinct, peer reviewed research that proves climate change is both happening and anthropogenic. Climate deniers overwhelming rely on a paper by, or secondary sources relying on, the aptly named Susan Crockford: a climate denier who has never actually published peer reviewed research on climate change, nor even researched some of the topics she publishes on. No prizes for guessing correctly whether the peer reviewed papers are, by a convincing fucking margin, more accurate than the vanity press, well funded think tank, or Susan Crockford style published ones. 

 

Wish I could now finish with a nice ^playful and good spirited post like Anodyne. But i ain't spendin any time on it, coz every three months my soul is ripped to shreds by my own bitterness about the state of global politics. 

 

 

ResponsibleChoice: Cacked me out just for the record. The responses to this thread are gold SAB imo./config_lifehack.exe  

 

Possibly the most relevant post in this entire thread. 

[freakazoid]

15 hours ago, Anodyne said:

 

Thou art god, I am god, all that groks is god.

 

 

 

 

"Solipsism and Pantheism. Teamed together they can explain anything. Cancel out any inconvenient fact, reconcile all theories, and include any facts or delusions you care to name. Trouble is, it's just cotton candy, all taste and no substance - and as unsatisfactory as solving a story by saying: '-and then the little boy fell out of bed and woke up; it was just a dream." Jubal Henshaw.

 

[Anodyne]

^^

You don't even really need the pantheism, do you? If you accept that your reality is self-generated, that everything IS you, then isn't the pantheon just another thing that is you, and therefore covered by the solipsism?

[freakazoid]

^ That's brilliant. As was Valentine's religion/cult/hippy commune with a creche run by a Boa Constrictor.

 

but I'm going off topic....

[☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ]

what about pantheo-chameleonism? just for the colours ..

[Sallubrious]

I normally wouldn't waste any brain cycles on something as nonsensical as this, it's one of those what came first discussions the troll or the bridge it lives under.

 

Anyway I can't bring anything deep and meaningful to the table but when I think of it like an actual programmer would, the argument in the positive starts to become quite unreasonable.

 

If we think of the order of taxonomy in the real world and apply that to a parallel world on a computer simulation there would have to be some way to classify things in the simulation.Even if the simulation is using a greatly simplified system of classifying objects, like say java or C++ does where we have objects that fit into classes and take that as our taxonomic standard we are still presented with an almost unfathomable complex array of classes, sub classes and objects.

 

Considering that our computers today are still in a rudimentary stage of development and "god" would have a much better computer than we ever would, the taxonomic complexity could be overcome.

 

But for me that's where problem starts
Classes and objects always have rules that are both common to classes and somewhat more flexible at the object level but in general (not always) objects inherit the ruleset of the class they belong to.

 

Then it starts to get really complex as every object in the simulation is inheriting the underlying ruleset of the simulation in some way.

 

So we have this top down taxonomic/classification system.

 

Then when we investigate a biological entity or anything built of atoms really we come to find that there is another underlying rule set that also applies to everything in the real world on a quantum level. So we could assume the physical world is really built from the bottom (quantum level).

So we are left with a conundrum, we have to classify our objects that all inherit some variation of the base rule set and then we would have include a contradictory set of rules to every object that exists in that space. So what becomes the base ruleset, the physical or the quantum ?

 

It would seem the easiest way to achieve this would be to have the quantum rule set underpinning the taxonomic rule set but it becomes the perfect paradox because everything contained in that (quantum) class ie taxa would have to contradict the base rule set.

 

Any programmer worth his salt wouldn't try to build a program based on two contradictory rule sets that operate simultaneously. Good programmers are somewhat lazy and efficient, they start with a concept and try to achieve that end a simply as possible.

 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Sallubrious

[Anodyne]

8 hours ago, Sallubrious said:

So what becomes the base ruleset, the physical or the quantum ?

It would seem the easiest way to achieve this would be to have the quantum rule set underpinning the taxonomic rule set but it becomes the perfect paradox because everything contained in that (quantum) class ie taxa would have to contradict the base rule set.

Okay, I know virtually nothing about computer programming so this may be a dumb question, but does a system has to be designed with rule sets that apply this way? I mean, is that the only way to build a vaguely-efficient complex simulation? Or is that just how we have been doing it?

 

Knowing nothing about the mechanics, it seems like it should be possible to build this kinda thing where objects are described by the quantum rules, and then the various results are sorted into taxonomical classes - without actually being defined by them. As an analogy think of DNA for the "bottom-up" ruleset that you mentioned, and Linnaean taxonomy as the "top-down" one. A creature's characteristics can be described and classified using either or both, but the only the DNA ruleset actually contributes to them. There is no causative link from the creatures classification, to its characteristics. And so if the Linnaean classification contradicts the DNA evidence (as it so often has) - that doesn't actually matter, because the taxonomy is arbitrary - this ruleset is not applied to the objects, it is defined by the objects. And so there is no conflict - there can't be.

 

This is a genuine question as I don't really understand the fundamental rules computers operate by. But if I go back to the system you described where there are conflicting rulesets... this is a situation I run into a lot at work (database managing stuff) - sometimes these conflicts cause errors, but more often what happens is that one ruleset will be prioritised.

 

So if we applied that concept to a simulation with contradictory quantum/physical rulesets, mightn't that explain things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle & waveform collapse? And maybe just quantum effects in general? One set of rules says the object is a wave, the other set says it's a particle, but only one of these can apply.

 

(and yes, that last sentence should totally be read in a dramatic "only one can win!" WWF-commentator voice: "Schrödinger's Box: two paradigms enter, but only one will leave" )

[Sallubrious]

51 minutes ago, Anodyne said:

Okay, I know virtually nothing about computer programming so this may be a dumb question, but does a system has to be designed with rule sets that apply this way? I mean, is that the only way to build a vaguely-efficient complex simulation? Or is that just how we have been doing it?

 Someone picked it up. No it doesn't have to work like that and in reality it's not really the way programming works

 

Loosely speaking the class is just where the object sits (a gross oversimplification) with the individual object defining the properties of the object.

 

That post above was my way of playing devils advocate (see what I did there) and stirring the pot.

 

I noticed bluntmuffin (CBL) was back and I was trying to bait him into the discussion. That post was based on a false premise and deliberately full of technical inaccuracies.

 

Sorry about that Anodyne

[Inyan]

What if life were just a bad game of sims? What if heaven could be here on Earth? 

 

[Anodyne]

12 hours ago, Sallubrious said:

I noticed bluntmuffin (CBL) was back and I was trying to bait him into the discussion

Lol, collateral trollage. Want me to delete my post so you've still got a chance at hooking CBL? I mean, I'm sure mine has all kinds of flaws as well, but they weren't tailor-made for him like yours were.

[Sallubrious]

Nah just leave it there @Anodyne , that way everyone will be able to see my bullshit for what it is and maybe have a laugh.

 

I really shouldn't post when I'm on acid.

 

I would have been disappointed if no-one called bullshit.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Sallubrious

[DiscoStu]

Question is this the first universe god has made? Like his hello world universe

[sharxx101]

There is some gold posts here .

 

I was reading this today. Thought it might be worth posting here. 

 

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page

 

Mathematics is the universal language and life may be a illusion a test to see if we are ready for the next level of being?

 

I think we are just here for the experiences we have in life we all play our part in the show.

 

Maybe if you believe in God there will be god in your own truth and in your own perception of this universe and how it works. If there is no belief in god most people turn to science for explainations.

 

May be god is the energy that can be everything and can be nothing. Light and dark all forms of matter ( well there is more dark matter in the universe than anything). 

 

Just my thoughts on this today.

 

Peace

[etherealdrifter]

36 minutes ago, sharxx101 said:

There is some gold posts here .

 

I was reading this today. Thought it might be worth posting here. 

 

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page

 

Mathematics is the universal language and life may be a illusion a test to see if we are ready for the next level of being?

 

I think we are just here for the experiences we have in life we all play our part in the show.

 

Maybe if you believe in God there will be god in your own truth and in your own perception of this universe and how it works. If there is no belief in god most people turn to science for explainations.

 

May be god is the energy that can be everything and can be nothing. Light and dark all forms of matter ( well there is more dark matter in the universe than anything). 

 

Just my thoughts on this today.

 

Peace

too bad you're not coming i was really looking forward to givein you ;a squeezn

 

[ThunderIdeal]

12 hours ago, sharxx101 said:

 ( well there is more dark matter in the universe than anything). 

 

 

 

Naw

 

As i mentioned theorised dark matter is being scrapped it seems and rightly so.  Well some are still chasing grants to continue the search (dont think theyll find it) but now there are models explaining galactic rotation without the need to conjure any extra mass.  It probably helps that we've found more legitemate sources of mass, including hard to see gas/dust clouds and red dwarfs plus changing estimates of planet numbers including rogue planets.

 

Ive been shitting on dark matter here for a few years so i'll be pleased to hear the last of it.

 

Not sure how proponents of the lambda cold dark matter theory (prevailing big bang model) will like that but who cares.

Edited December 7, 2017 by ThunderIdeal

[Yeti101]

Lots going on here, so it might take me a while to figure out what (if anything) I can add to it that's actually worthwhile. Fucking epic thread though, have really enjoyed binge-reading it all in one hit. 

[☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ]

17 hours ago, ThunderIdeal said:

Not sure how proponents of the lambda cold dark matter theory (prevailing big bang model) will like that but who cares.

dang maybe I hacked off some of my programming or hacked some on..

I read lambada and now I can't get that classic kaoma tune out of my head from 89..

did you see what god just did to me maaan? 

[sharxx101]

I remember watching a doco on aya and one man made the statement "man is just a religous animal" i like this statement as animals act upon instinct and it seems that humans in society don't really act upon instinct anymore.

[sharxx101]

On 12/7/2017 at 10:00 PM, etherealdrifter said:

too bad you're not coming i was really looking forward to givein you ;a squeezn

 

I would love to come mate but I cant this year. Will try for next year

[ThunderIdeal]

Check out what assange is saying about ai being used to manipulate our perceptions

 

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-keeps-warning-of-ai-censorship-and-its-time-we-started-listening-e05d371ef120

 

So assange ia talking about opinions being influenced on the internet, but im trying with the idea of full spectrum AI deception.

 

Reminds me of a mega trip ive described here several times where a machine (the universe) prevented a huge number of souls/gods from directly witnessing one another ie themselves, from moment to moment, in a very intricate fashion.  An illusion machine, a self-camouflager.

 

Well its possible that knowledge of self would break ones "imprisonment" in "maya".  Also possible that it would break a simulation.  

 

Somebody help me with this.  Isnt it trippy?  The idea that reality is actively obscured by something perhaps impossible or nearly impossible to overcome.  For what purpose then?  Did we consent?  is our continued consent manufactured since we are totally and utterly played?

 

[Siggor]

Just speaking through my ass here, the universe is the sandbox, we are the input algorithms, at the end of our experience is the output to be injected into a new sandbox.