5 ms·

If you start a computer program, that runs evolutionary algorithms, you become their god, and you will be omnipotent (to them, at least). It's easy to write the

If you start a computer program, that runs evolutionary algorithms, you become their god, and you will be omnipotent (to them, at least). It's easy to write the story off as fiction, but in fact, it would explain a lot, I think.

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
to any program you write you are god. You are expecting the result of that program to behave in a specific way, the program never ran but at any point of the program you can predict what will happen to the logic of the program. But to the program you are an omnipotent god, yet in reality you may have made some mistakes, gota kill and restart see if it works better after a bug fix. The only question is: to the program, does it matter that you are god? Does it make any bit of a difference if it believes in you or not? Will the outcome change depending on that fact? Do you care if the program worships you? (unless you wrote a program to worship you)
- tom_ilsinszki 17y ago
  That's exactly my point. I will never understand God's plans (because there is no feedback from him, or I can't sense them), so I should be focusing on the problems that face me everyday. Thus, I don't think God (if he exists) wants us to believe in him. (The same way, I don't care if a program or and ant worships or believes in me).
- richardw 17y ago
  "The only question is: to the program, does it matter that you are god?" Well, if you program it to worry about that stuff then yes. If you don't, then no. My current program couldn't care less about me. I'm okay with that.
sovande 17y ago
Nick Bostrom has written a paper about just that, arguing that we may be living inside a computer simulation. It's an interesting read. See http://www.simulation-argument.com/ http://www.simulation-argument.com/
doki_pen 17y ago
I will be omnipotent? Huh, that's a stretch. I can barely understand the relatively simple programs I write. If there is a human being who understands his own code completely, in a large system, I'd like to meet him.
- donaq 17y ago
  Well, you don't need to understand your code fully to effect changes in the simulation. The point is that it is a simulation, and you control the code. So you'd be omnipotent, just not omniscient. You know, that scenario would actually explain a lot about this world. The reason why evil exists is because God did create a rock too heavy for Him to lift, and that rock is us. Be patient, he may be in the process of debugging the system. :p
yesimahuman 17y ago
Let's say you believe that our existence can be attributed to a 'divine engineer' who developed said program and our physical laws are a by product of his engineering. How do atheists respond to such an statement? I am just having a hard time defining myself spiritually (not that I feel the need to). Atheists seem to say "there is no God", but the 'divine engineer' theory would say there is a God, just not one in the traditional sense.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Such a theory is useless because it does not explain where the divine engineer comes from, or what is his nature. So it is just dodging the relevant questions.
  - yesimahuman 17y ago
    Please explain yourself, because no atheist argument that "there is no god" has ever convinced me that the lonely, yet repeatable physical laws we observe weren't created by something higher than ourselves.
    - richardw 17y ago
      I'm sure if there is a God he wouldn't have resorted to anything as crude as 'creating' the laws. It's more beautiful that they weren't sledgehammered into existence. It gives them some substance, instead of just a proxy for something we couldn't possibly understand. Besides, we're been explaining anything inexplicable as the work of the gods for thousands of years. This conversation could have happened in Greek times and you would still have been convinced at the existence of Apollo at the end of it.
      - yesimahuman 17y ago
        I'm sorry, but as sure as atheists are that there is no god, you have convincede to belive it
        17y ago

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago

to any program you write you are god. You are expecting the result of that program to behave in a specific way, the program never ran but at any point of the program you can predict what will happen to the logic of the program. But to the program you are an omnipotent god, yet in reality you may have made some mistakes, gota kill and restart see if it works better after a bug fix. The only question is: to the program, does it matter that you are god? Does it make any bit of a difference if it believes in you or not? Will the outcome change depending on that fact? Do you care if the program worships you? (unless you wrote a program to worship you)

tom_ilsinszki 17y ago
That's exactly my point. I will never understand God's plans (because there is no feedback from him, or I can't sense them), so I should be focusing on the problems that face me everyday. Thus, I don't think God (if he exists) wants us to believe in him. (The same way, I don't care if a program or and ant worships or believes in me).
richardw 17y ago
"The only question is: to the program, does it matter that you are god?" Well, if you program it to worry about that stuff then yes. If you don't, then no. My current program couldn't care less about me. I'm okay with that.

sovande 17y ago

Nick Bostrom has written a paper about just that, arguing that we may be living inside a computer simulation. It's an interesting read. See http://www.simulation-argument.com/ http://www.simulation-argument.com/

doki_pen 17y ago

I will be omnipotent? Huh, that's a stretch. I can barely understand the relatively simple programs I write. If there is a human being who understands his own code completely, in a large system, I'd like to meet him.

donaq 17y ago
Well, you don't need to understand your code fully to effect changes in the simulation. The point is that it is a simulation, and you control the code. So you'd be omnipotent, just not omniscient. You know, that scenario would actually explain a lot about this world. The reason why evil exists is because God did create a rock too heavy for Him to lift, and that rock is us. Be patient, he may be in the process of debugging the system. :p

yesimahuman 17y ago

Let's say you believe that our existence can be attributed to a 'divine engineer' who developed said program and our physical laws are a by product of his engineering. How do atheists respond to such an statement? I am just having a hard time defining myself spiritually (not that I feel the need to). Atheists seem to say "there is no God", but the 'divine engineer' theory would say there is a God, just not one in the traditional sense.

Tichy 17y ago
Such a theory is useless because it does not explain where the divine engineer comes from, or what is his nature. So it is just dodging the relevant questions.
- yesimahuman 17y ago
  Please explain yourself, because no atheist argument that "there is no god" has ever convinced me that the lonely, yet repeatable physical laws we observe weren't created by something higher than ourselves.
  - richardw 17y ago
    I'm sure if there is a God he wouldn't have resorted to anything as crude as 'creating' the laws. It's more beautiful that they weren't sledgehammered into existence. It gives them some substance, instead of just a proxy for something we couldn't possibly understand. Besides, we're been explaining anything inexplicable as the work of the gods for thousands of years. This conversation could have happened in Greek times and you would still have been convinced at the existence of Apollo at the end of it.
    - yesimahuman 17y ago
      I'm sorry, but as sure as atheists are that there is no god, you have convincede to belive it
      - 17y ago