5 ms·

What's confusing about it?

• redmaple 8y ago
  that there is no God. Hail Satan!
• stochastic_monk 8y ago
  What is a deity from the perspective of quantum computing? It seems to be forcing one’s own opinions on essentially an imagined character.
  • zaarn 8y ago
    A debugger. It can change state arbitrarily, introspect all the data and step forward in execution.
  • squirrelicus 8y ago
    All abstraction is imagined. When someone uses the word God in this context, it's obvious the abstraction is about the root forces that cause reality to manifest. There is no controversy here.
    • Retra 8y ago
      If there is no controversy, then there is nothing being said.
      • coldtea 8y ago
        That's controversial. If there's no controversy, you can still say tautologies :-)
      • squirrelicus 8y ago
        Wat We can say things that aren't disagreements. We can even disagree without controversy.
    • smhost 8y ago
      Clearly, the controversy is about whether reality needs a cause in order to manifest.
      • coldtea 8y ago
        Why wouldn't it? Everything else does...
        • smhost 8y ago
          Why would it? "Everything else" may behave the way it does because it's embedded within reality. But reality in itself isn't "in" anything, so it may or may not have the same properties as ordinary objects. So it may or may not be legitimate to carry out that final inductive step. Who knows. Who cares.
          • coldtea 8y ago
            Reality though consists of many tons of "everything else".
            • smhost 8y ago
              But in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. I mean, our rules of reasoning about objects realiably break down when we try to apply induction to objects even at the fringes of our ability to observe. What makes you so sure that we can reach the supernatural realm with reason?
              • coldtea 8y ago
                >But in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. In terms of proof, we also don't know whether reason can be applied to things within nature -- it's still depending on axioms. But we still believe it to be true and to be applicable everywhere inside nature regardless of specific context, and I see no reason (pun intended) not to extend this belief even outside nature.
  • pluto9 8y ago
    Do you ask that question when you hear Einstein's quote, "God doesn't play dice"? I suspect not, because everyone understands that it's a poetic way of expressing the belief that the universe isn't random. So why do you have such a pedantic and uncharitable interpretation of GP's comment, which obviously uses the word "God" in a similar way? You seem to be having a knee-jerk reaction to the word "God". Your personal preference for the most secular language possible is not a valid reason to pick apart GP's phrasing.
    • stochastic_monk 8y ago
      First, he was wrong, and second, he said that in a very different culture. This isn’t the 1920s.
      • pluto9 8y ago
        Wow, this discussion is going nowhere fast. > First, he was wrong I agree. And that's completely and totally irrelevant. I have no idea why you even mention it. Obviously what matters is that his meaning is clear. > Second, he said that in a very different culture. This isn't the 1920s. So your objection to GP's phrasing, in spite of it being completely inoffensive and having a perfectly clear meaning, is "because it's $CURRENT_YEAR".
        • akvadrako 8y ago
          Totally irrelevant but I wouldn’t agree Einstein was wrong. QM without collapse is actually a fully deterministic theory. And it makes sense that the universe doesn’t play dice - because there is no source of randomness available. It’s a functional language.
          • pluto9 8y ago
            Yes, I suppose saying Einstein was wrong is too strong. It's more correct to say there's no evidence (so far) that he was right. Quantum collapse certainly appears random, but if we eventually find a deterministic cause, Einstein will be vindicated. It's impossible to prove that a process is random. > there is no source of randomness available I think that's going beyond what we can be sure of. We have no evidence that there is randomness, be we also have no evidence that there isn't. QM may be fully deterministic if we disregard collapse, but as far as I'm aware, we can't do that. Collapse is still something we have to contend with given the current state of our knowledge.
  • qubex 8y ago
    I’m an atheist and even I get what his meaning and am I unperturbed by his choice of terminology.