FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is god down with computers?





Yantaal
do you recon, assuming there is a god, he uses computers?

if we asked god to create a 10page spreadsheet, using macros, formulae and etc, would he be like, hells yeah?

or, doe she scheat when he plays games? like oblivion, does he use god mode? which would ofc b normal mode to him...
the_mariska
Please, tell me you are joking or I'll get derpressed...

No, God does not use computers, because He would never need to. But my algorithms teacher says that God is the best programmer ever - he created the algorithms of the Big Bang and evolution, the modules of all laws of physics [and I guess metaphysics too], than said Enter [or Amen Very Happy], and that's how the universe started. This theory rocks in my humble opinion Very Happy

And talking seriously, this is a clear illustration that evolution and religion are not against each other Very Happy
Yantaal
i recon he probably does use computers, or maybe is a computer....

deep
Subsonic Sound
Why? What would the computer do for him?

There are so many flaws in that I don't know where to start.

If there is a god - and I should state for the record that I'm an atheist - why would he need a computer? What would he use it for? We're talking about a mind that can comprehend and indeed CREATE the entirety of the cosmos, right down to a sub-molecular level.

Plus... I find it hard to imagine God going into his local PC World for a new network cable, somehow.
The Mitchell
Subsonic Sound wrote:
Why? What would the computer do for him?

There are so many flaws in that I don't know where to start.

If there is a god - and I should state for the record that I'm an atheist - why would he need a computer? What would he use it for? We're talking about a mind that can comprehend and indeed CREATE the entirety of the cosmos, right down to a sub-molecular level.

Plus... I find it hard to imagine God going into his local PC World for a new network cable, somehow.

there is only one thing i must say....


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Very Happy
mathiaus
That really depends on what you see God as. If as many believe, you see God as being omniscience, then he would certainly be able to use a computer (and know how they would evolve in the future etc.).
I personally don't believe in God, though if there were some 'super-being' (not nesesarily God), I wouldn't image that he would use one as he would have no need for one.
Indi
Subsonic Sound wrote:
Why? What would the computer do for him?

There are so many flaws in that I don't know where to start.

If there is a god - and I should state for the record that I'm an atheist - why would he need a computer? What would he use it for? We're talking about a mind that can comprehend and indeed CREATE the entirety of the cosmos, right down to a sub-molecular level.

Plus... I find it hard to imagine God going into his local PC World for a new network cable, somehow.

That depends on what capabilities you give this hypothetical god.

For example, i understand completely what happens to the atomic crystalline lattice structure of a steel beam with a load on it. If you really wanted me to, i could calculate exactly the forces and deformations of a single crystical located anywhere in the beam... but it would take a ridiculously long, tedious time. Thus, i use a computer to do that - performing what's called finite element analysis, one bit of the beam at a time. It's the same thing as if i were to do it by hand, but without the tedium. i don't use a computer to do it because i can't do it. i use a computer to do it because a computer can do it just as well as i can, and there are better ways to use my time.

Contrary to the way most people think of a computer as a black box that performs "magic" on input to get desired output, as an engineer i am required by law to not only know what the computer is doing any time i use it for engineering, but how. The way i see it, god would have to live by the same rule. Even if god's mind can comprehend the entire cosmos, if his awareness and processing capability were not infinite (if they were simply really, really large, but not infinite), then he could use a computer to crunch numbers to increase his functional power. That doesn't imply that he doesn't know what the computer is doing or that he couldn't do it himself. He's just using his computer to do the grunt work.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:
if his awareness and processing capability were not infinite (if they were simply really, really large, but not infinite),

Ah, but what if His processing capability is infinite?
(As would be suggested by the concept of omnipotence)
Anyway, seeing how computers are far more prone to errors than the perfect God, I'd much rather He didn't use them.
(Sorry, no miracles today; God's computer crashed because of that new worm going around. He has decided to upgrade to Linux soon.)
Subsonic Sound
Quote:
If as many believe, you see God as being omniscience, then he would certainly be able to use a computer (and know how they would evolve in the future etc.).


Granted, an omniscient being would certainly know how to use a computer. But why would an omniscient being NEED to? What could it possibly tell him?

Indi - absolutely - any sub-omniscient being can gain from creating a device to carry out the longer calculations for it. But this is GOD we're talking about. Not sub-omniscient. Smile

Besides, even if an omniscient being with the power to create the cosmos could use a helping hand, it doesn't seem likely he'd use something we'd recognise as a computer.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
Ah, but what if His processing capability is infinite?
(As would be suggested by the concept of omnipotence)

If the god were omniscient and/or omnipotent, a computer would be pointless. The infinities involved make any fractional reduction in effort zero.

Anyway if the god is infinitely powerful, then any task that requires a finite amount of power would take zero effort, so he doesn't even need help. (Mathematically, god's power reserve is ∞. The effort required for the job is E, and E is finite. Therefore, to do the job requires [(E ÷ ∞) × 100]% of the god's power. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero. So any task that requires a finite amount of energy would take 0% of god's power. In other words, no effort at all. (Incidently, for those that care, this puts a serious crimp in the "on the seventh day he rested" part of the creation myth.))

ocalhoun wrote:
Anyway, seeing how computers are far more prone to errors than the perfect God, I'd much rather He didn't use them.
(Sorry, no miracles today; God's computer crashed because of that new worm going around. He has decided to upgrade to Linux soon.)

One would assume a being capable of creating an entire universe that doesn't crash could create a computer to manage some small part of it that doesn't crash. ^_^

Subsonic Sound wrote:
Indi - absolutely - any sub-omniscient being can gain from creating a device to carry out the longer calculations for it. But this is GOD we're talking about. Not sub-omniscient. Smile

Not everyone's god is omniscient, or omnipotent.

Subsonic Sound wrote:
Besides, even if an omniscient being with the power to create the cosmos could use a helping hand, it doesn't seem likely he'd use something we'd recognise as a computer.

Perhaps not, but certainly some category of programmable, data-processing apparatus. It may not be a computer, but it would probably be in the same category of tool.
Tyler
No I disagree. God, being omniscient and omnipotent, would use a sort of divine device whose construction and functions are unimaginable and unprocessable by humans. It would not be something one can compare to an earthly device such as a computer, but more of a sacred tool using God's omnisciency and omnipotency to calculate, compute, fugure, etc. whatever function needed.

On the other hand, God could use nothing at all and the answer be there.

Also, Indi, just because it says that he rested on the seventh day, that doesn't mean he was necessarily tired or weary. It most likely means he took that one day to do nothing but behold His creation, and He saw that it was good.
Yantaal
well, how else would he pick up chicks?

not many girls where he is, maybe he neeeds chat rooms

or maybe, to many to chose from, he needs like a poll on frihost to help him chose...
Revvion
depends on what you define as a computer, a living body is a bio computer if you think about it. so if he wanted to walk among us as a human you could say he would use a computer.
Soulfire
Although it may seem silly, the thought has crossed my mind.

What if we're all inside one video game on God's giant screen TV in His palace?

Interesting thought, eh?
Yantaal
what? god has a palace?

you recon god has a beard or just burns?
ocalhoun
Soulfire wrote:
Although it may seem silly, the thought has crossed my mind.

What if we're all inside one video game on God's giant screen TV in His palace?

Interesting thought, eh?

Definately true. So far God has scored 18,958,943,839,203 points!

But seriously, I wouldn't discount such a theory; I wouldn't even say it conflicts with the Christian idea of God.
I read a novel recently that came to the conclusion that the entire universe is a laboratory table, where God watches to see our reactions to the constraints He puts on us (such as the speed of light being unreachable), much as we do by putting lab rats into a maze, just on a larger scale.
In fact, that would make a lot of sense; it would explain many things people find confusing about the universe.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Although it may seem silly, the thought has crossed my mind.

What if we're all inside one video game on God's giant screen TV in His palace?

Interesting thought, eh?

Definately true. So far God has scored 18,958,943,839,203 points!

But seriously, I wouldn't discount such a theory; I wouldn't even say it conflicts with the Christian idea of God.
I read a novel recently that came to the conclusion that the entire universe is a laboratory table, where God watches to see our reactions to the constraints He puts on us (such as the speed of light being unreachable), much as we do by putting lab rats into a maze, just on a larger scale.
In fact, that would make a lot of sense; it would explain many things people find confusing about the universe.

You mean it would explain many things people find confusing about God. Once you assume God exists, whatever his nature, you don't need to explain anything about the universe. It is the way it is because God made it that way. Period.

But there are many confusing and contradictory things about God as defined by most religions. Once you start messing around with infinities without knowing what you're doing, you end up with absurdities and impossibilities. If God really is the way you describe him, you take away a lot of the infinities and make him more plausible.

However, that would very definitely contradict with the description of God as outlined in the bible, so you're probably not going to find a lot of takers among existing religious folk. And of course, the very idea of God violates parsimony, regardless of what he's like, so you're probably not going to convert many atheists either.

But at least it's interesting. ^_^;
Tyler
Well these so called "impossibilities" are merely a test of faith. God gave us all free will as well as a mind that processes and solves problems. He knew that we would, at some point, stray from His path and ponder if He really exists or not. However, those with a strong faith realize that our curiosity sometimes misleads us, causing in some people a lack of faith. I experienced this once many years ago but realized after heavily examining the Bible that all the proof we need is in the Bible and in nature, and that by having faith and not allowing Satan's temptations to mislead us, we triumph over our curiosity as God wishes for everyone to do. It is merely a question of faith, and thinking too much and asking too many questions can lead to confusion and spiritual imbalance.
corridor_writers
ocalhoun wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Although it may seem silly, the thought has crossed my mind.

What if we're all inside one video game on God's giant screen TV in His palace?

Interesting thought, eh?

Definately true. So far God has scored 18,958,943,839,203 points!

But seriously, I wouldn't discount such a theory; I wouldn't even say it conflicts with the Christian idea of God.
I read a novel recently that came to the conclusion that the entire universe is a laboratory table, where God watches to see our reactions to the constraints He puts on us (such as the speed of light being unreachable), much as we do by putting lab rats into a maze, just on a larger scale.
In fact, that would make a lot of sense; it would explain many things people find confusing about the universe.


So, being new to the post and not having read the entire debate I will refrain from formulating and presenting my own opinions yet. However, while browsing through the post I did come across this one, which is very much in line with what I would have said anyway.

Being a writer myself, I actually wrote a short story that goes along the same premise as the book you mentioned. When a friend of mine read it, he forwarded me a link to another resource that says much the same thing.

So, without further ramblings, can you please share the name of this book and (if you know) who the author is. I would really like to check this out, as I have my own personal belief that God and Science (the topic of another forum) are not removed from each other at all, but are actually two sides to the same coin.

Thanks for the info in advance…
rfarrand
all i have to say is WOW...you have to be kidding right? God using a computer...not to say he can't or couldn't use one, but what doee he need one for? he can do anything he wants to with the words or breath from his mouth...why would he need a computer to do anything...and yes if you can't tell i do believe in a ONE TRUE God that knows and is everything and everywhere. He is all around us and has created a wonderful place for us to all be someday if we choose to accept him as our Lord and Savior.

God Bless all.
AutoTechGuy
OK.. so Jesus and the Devil decided to have a contest, to finally settle this whole good vs. evil ordeal once and for all.

To be fair, Jesus allowed to Devil to decide what the challenge would be. Now the Devil had heard rumors that Jesus wasn't much of a typist... so he decided upon a typing contest.

Rules were simple... whoever typed the most words on their PC's after the span of five minutes would be the legitimate winner.

And so it began... they both started typing.. Jesus doing the whole hunt and peck thing with one finger, and the devil typing page after page after page of text going on and on and on... so fast that smoke was actually rising from his keyboard...

Three minutes went by... Devil is just typing away so fast that the clicking sounded like one continous roar, that is if you could hear that over his horrendous laughter MUHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH echoes thoughout the skies!

And Jesus just kept pecking along... t....h.....e.........d.....o.....g......j.....u...m...p......e.....d...... well you get the idea..

Another minute passes by, Devils keys are glowing red at this point.. he is on fire... just typing out page after page, volume after volume.. only getting faster and faster and faster... MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Another minute passes by.. the Devil can't stop laughing as he knows there's no POSSIBLE way he can lose this now...

Right then, with just a few seconds left, Jesus stops typing.. and raises his arms into the air... and WHABAMM! A great bolt of lightning strikes down.. and the power goes out.

A couple seconds later the power comes back on, and the timer goes off.. DING.

Now the Devil is speachless... he looks at his blank screen and almost expecting a rematch looks over to see his competitor's computer... and yet he still has his two sentences printed out all nice and neat on the computer screen...

The Devil simply asks.. "How is this possible? The power went out?"




Moral of the story? "Jesus Saves"
psiclops
weather he needs a computer or not, well i'm gonna assume computers would only make him do things slower.

but maybe he uses them for fun.
peaceninja
i think a computer would bore God just as much as an abacus would bore us...an abacus is interesting to learn and look at but after a while, you get over its novelty!
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
Contrary to the way most people think of a computer as a black box that performs "magic" on input to get desired output, as an engineer i am required by law to not only know what the computer is doing any time i use it for engineering, but how. The way i see it, god would have to live by the same rule. Even if god's mind can comprehend the entire cosmos, if his awareness and processing capability were not infinite (if they were simply really, really large, but not infinite), then he could use a computer to crunch numbers to increase his functional power. That doesn't imply that he doesn't know what the computer is doing or that he couldn't do it himself. He's just using his computer to do the grunt work.

Interesting point....can an omniscient omnipotent being be non-infinite in ability? I agree about the omniscient bit not implying time limits - knowing everything does not, I think, logically mean that you are time-bound.
Omnipotence, on the other hand, would seem to me to demand that the being can carry out any possible or finite task in zero time, since otherwise another being able to do the task in a finite but lesser time could be defined as more 'potent' and therefore refute the omni part...Is that a logical conclusion do you think ?

Chris
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Indi wrote:
Contrary to the way most people think of a computer as a black box that performs "magic" on input to get desired output, as an engineer i am required by law to not only know what the computer is doing any time i use it for engineering, but how. The way i see it, god would have to live by the same rule. Even if god's mind can comprehend the entire cosmos, if his awareness and processing capability were not infinite (if they were simply really, really large, but not infinite), then he could use a computer to crunch numbers to increase his functional power. That doesn't imply that he doesn't know what the computer is doing or that he couldn't do it himself. He's just using his computer to do the grunt work.

Interesting point....can an omniscient omnipotent being be non-infinite in ability? I agree about the omniscient bit not implying time limits - knowing everything does not, I think, logically mean that you are time-bound.
Omnipotence, on the other hand, would seem to me to demand that the being can carry out any possible or finite task in zero time, since otherwise another being able to do the task in a finite but lesser time could be defined as more 'potent' and therefore refute the omni part...Is that a logical conclusion do you think ?

Chris

Yeah, as you say, i can't see the idea of god needing a "tool" (such as a "computer") making any sense if god is actually omnipotent. But if god is just really, really powerful - but not quite omnipotent - then a tool is a possibility.

God could be omniscient but not omnipotent, and thus have a use for the tool because he would be capable of doing the thinking himself, but unwilling or unable to do it fast enough. But i can't see him needing a tool if he's omnipotent.
mike1reynolds
Since the brain is a computer, DNA is a computer, and the entire universe is one giant quantum computer, it is hard to imagine God not making use of all kinds of computers.
corridor_writers
mike1reynolds wrote:
Since the brain is a computer, DNA is a computer, and the entire universe is one giant quantum computer, it is hard to imagine God not making use of all kinds of computers.


Ohhh – good one! Yup, who is to say that what God views is a computer could not even be fathomed by our tiny, tiny little intellects. Smile

Oh, and I loved the joke AutoTechGuy – thanks. It’s always good to see that not everybody is SOOOOOO serious all the time. Smile
livilou
AutoTechGuy wrote:
OK.. so Jesus and the Devil decided to have a contest, to finally settle this whole good vs. evil ordeal once and for all.

To be fair, Jesus allowed to Devil to decide what the challenge would be. Now the Devil had heard rumors that Jesus wasn't much of a typist... so he decided upon a typing contest.

Rules were simple... whoever typed the most words on their PC's after the span of five minutes would be the legitimate winner.

And so it began... they both started typing.. Jesus doing the whole hunt and peck thing with one finger, and the devil typing page after page after page of text going on and on and on... so fast that smoke was actually rising from his keyboard...

Three minutes went by... Devil is just typing away so fast that the clicking sounded like one continous roar, that is if you could hear that over his horrendous laughter MUHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH echoes thoughout the skies!

And Jesus just kept pecking along... t....h.....e.........d.....o.....g......j.....u...m...p......e.....d...... well you get the idea..

Another minute passes by, Devils keys are glowing red at this point.. he is on fire... just typing out page after page, volume after volume.. only getting faster and faster and faster... MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Another minute passes by.. the Devil can't stop laughing as he knows there's no POSSIBLE way he can lose this now...

Right then, with just a few seconds left, Jesus stops typing.. and raises his arms into the air... and WHABAMM! A great bolt of lightning strikes down.. and the power goes out.

A couple seconds later the power comes back on, and the timer goes off.. DING.

Now the Devil is speachless... he looks at his blank screen and almost expecting a rematch looks over to see his competitor's computer... and yet he still has his two sentences printed out all nice and neat on the computer screen...

The Devil simply asks.. "How is this possible? The power went out?"




Moral of the story? "Jesus Saves"


That is good, and definitely worth reading. Very Happy
livilou
As far as God needing a computer goes, who would He have to program it? If a computer is only as good as the program installed and the programs are only as good as the programmer, why would He need one?
mike1reynolds
That is the whole point, Livilou, He didn’t take over completely, He gave some of the universe to us. We are all computers. Now it is up to us to decide.
ninjakannon
You don't need to think to carefully or deeply to realise that no God does not use a computer of any kind. Obviously I am basing this on common beliefs about God - not possibilities and abstract theories (for example: God is just some guy who created a computer program, we are part of that program).

God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omni-benevolent etcetera etcetera. following most religion's beliefs: God created us and the universe, he has a plan for us all which will be revealed in the fullness of time. We humans created computers to aid us in many laborious tasks (although they have a much wider range of uses now), why would God need to use a computer? And how? If God is all he is believed to be then he would be able to put up characters on the screen without ever having to use a keyboard or mouse - he could even put the characters on the screen while the computer is off. A computer would not help him. Furthermore, God does not play games (whether you're talking about computer games or board games, it does not matter); even if he did, there would be no competitor who could beat him.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Since the brain is a computer, DNA is a computer, and the entire universe is one giant quantum computer, it is hard to imagine God not making use of all kinds of computers.


DNA is not a computer by any definition I can think of. A computer is defined as
Quote:
A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.

or
Quote:
One who computes

DNA can certainly be said to store information and even, in a limited way, to perform a logical operation on the data (if we allow 'replication' as such an operation). It does not, however, operate mathematically on the data.
You may be getting confused with DNA Computing

As for the Universe itself being a quantum computer, this is a complex and interesting proposal by Seth Lloyd. There is an interesting discussion of the hypothesis here

Regards
Chris
ashok
AutoTechGuy wrote:
OK.. so Jesus and the Devil decided to have a contest, to finally settle this whole good vs. evil ordeal once and for all.

To be fair, Jesus allowed to Devil to decide what the challenge would be. Now the Devil had heard rumors that Jesus wasn't much of a typist... so he decided upon a typing contest.

Rules were simple... whoever typed the most words on their PC's after the span of five minutes would be the legitimate winner.

And so it began... they both started typing.. Jesus doing the whole hunt and peck thing with one finger, and the devil typing page after page after page of text going on and on and on... so fast that smoke was actually rising from his keyboard...

Three minutes went by... Devil is just typing away so fast that the clicking sounded like one continous roar, that is if you could hear that over his horrendous laughter MUHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH echoes thoughout the skies!

And Jesus just kept pecking along... t....h.....e.........d.....o.....g......j.....u...m...p......e.....d...... well you get the idea..

Another minute passes by, Devils keys are glowing red at this point.. he is on fire... just typing out page after page, volume after volume.. only getting faster and faster and faster... MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Another minute passes by.. the Devil can't stop laughing as he knows there's no POSSIBLE way he can lose this now...

Right then, with just a few seconds left, Jesus stops typing.. and raises his arms into the air... and WHABAMM! A great bolt of lightning strikes down.. and the power goes out.

A couple seconds later the power comes back on, and the timer goes off.. DING.

Now the Devil is speachless... he looks at his blank screen and almost expecting a rematch looks over to see his competitor's computer... and yet he still has his two sentences printed out all nice and neat on the computer screen...

The Devil simply asks.. "How is this possible? The power went out?"




Moral of the story? "Jesus Saves"


awesome Laughing Laughing
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
DNA can certainly be said to store information and even, in a limited way, to perform a logical operation on the data (if we allow 'replication' as such an operation). It does not, however, operate mathematically on the data.
You may be getting confused with DNA Computing

DNA computing could only work if DNA were already operating as a computer. You are basically defining anything with ROM as being not a computer, which is an odd definition, since even the choice of which segments of DNA are expressed is subject to all sorts of logical operations. At any given moment only a tiny fragment of your DNA is actually getting turned into RNA to produce proteins and less than 10% the total genes ever get expressed throughout the entirety of one’s life. So DNA is like super-ROM and the computational outcome is the balance of proteins, enzymes and hormones in the body.

The idea that DNA is a finite state automata and not a full Turing Machine is rather spurious, once you get into trying to distinguish between an automata with trillions of states vs. a Turing Machine.

Bikerman wrote:
As for the Universe itself being a quantum computer, this is a complex and interesting proposal by Seth Lloyd. There is an interesting discussion of the hypothesis here

Max Plank’s equations implicitly evoke the notion of bit transfer on the atomic scale. This fact has been known for 150 years. The universe is already operating as a quantum computer, it as to be. The only tricky part is tapping into that computing power. It has always been there and has to be for us to exist at all.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
DNA computing could only work if DNA were already operating as a computer. You are basically defining anything with ROM as being not a computer, which is an odd definition, since even the choice of which segments of DNA are expressed is subject to all sorts of logical operations.


Once again you make something up out of thin air and attribute it to me. Since when has the ability to perform mathematical operations been a requisite of ROM? Did I not say that DNA can be regarded as storing information? Just what part of my posting would possibly lead you to this attribution? The correct analogy for the missing functionality would be the ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit) of a microprocessor, not any type of memory. It is perfectly possible to build a computer with no ROM, EPROM, EEROM or other 'permanent' memory subsystems (and since I have taught computer science for over 20 years I think it hardly likely that I would suggest otherwise). You either have comprehension problems or a habit of misrepresenting debate deliberately. Once is sad, the other reprehensible.
Quote:
At any given moment only a tiny fragment of your DNA is actually getting turned into RNA to produce proteins and less than 10% the total genes ever get expressed throughout the entirety of one’s life. So DNA is like super-ROM and the computational outcome is the balance of proteins, enzymes and hormones in the body.


Completely missing the point. DNA transcription is not analogous to a computer for two reasons that occur immediately to me.
1) It is not a self-contained process such as would be expected from a computer. It relies on the action of RNA polymerase to form mRNA which, in turn, relies on a Ribosome to translate the amino acids. Replication also relies on enzymes (DNA polymerase) and
2) It is not analogous to ROM. Read Only Memory is fixed in word length and capacity and and, as the name suggests, be read but not written. A more accurate analogy would be with backing storage or, perhaps on of the PROM or EEROM technologies.
Hormones are produced and regulated by a completely different mechanism - most by the endocrine system. Whilst steroidal hormones do interact directly with DNA, the other (Peptide) types do not.
So, in your model above, the DNA would simply be serving as short/medium term storage within the computer, with processing being carried out by enzymes and control of the data/address bus system being handled by hormones - and that analogy is extremely strained and over-simplistic.
Quote:
The idea that DNA is a finite state automata and not a full Turing Machine is rather spurious, once you get into trying to distinguish between an automata with trillions of states vs. a Turing Machine.

It is not just spurious, it is complete invention. DNA does not even qualify as a FSA/M since, as already stated, it possesses no inherent processing capability, requiring enzymes to do the actual data retrieval and manipulation. This is central to the functioning of any FSM. DNA is, at best, simply one component in such a system. Furthermore it certainly would not qualify as a Turing Machine which requires Storage, Read/Write mechanism, a transition (or action table) which maps to the correct action for a particular code/sequence, and at least one state register.
Several biological subsystems are involved in any analogy of a Turing machine - as should be obvious.

Quote:
Max Plank’s equations implicitly evoke the notion of bit transfer on the atomic scale. This fact has been known for 150 years. The universe is already operating as a quantum computer, it as to be. The only tricky part is tapping into that computing power. It has always been there and has to be for us to exist at all.


No it doesn't. The Quantum Computer View (QCV) is one possible world-view which has it's uses - particularly in potentially uniting Quantum theory and Relativity in a Quantum Gravity model. There are several problems with pushing the analogy too far, however.
1) The QCV of space-time relies on concepts like entanglement which cannot be extended to the macroscopic domain, where space-time is described by the non linear equations of General Relativity.
2) In the QCV, quantum space-time would seem to be evolutionary AND reversible. But what does it mean to say that space-time evolves, and in a reversible manner?
3) In the QCV, locality is lost since space-time itself is non local at the Planck scale,
due to the entanglement of qubits.
4) This latter leads directly to the hypothesis that causality itself is not a feature of the Planck scale, at least in its usual form. Without causality, any talk of 'tapping into' computing power is at best premature and potentially impossible.

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
You really are a troll, that was the most sophisticated bunch of nothing that I've ever seen!

Just because you can come up with halfway decent looking BS that might impress most people, it doesn’t impress me. And since no one else even cares, I have more important things to do than to rebut knowingly manipulative and polemic arguments that no one else can even follow!
ninjakannon
mike1reynolds wrote:
You really are a troll, that was the most sophisticated bunch of nothing that I've ever seen!

Just because you can come up with halfway decent looking BS that might impress most people, it doesn’t impress me. And since no one else even cares, I have more important things to do than to rebut knowingly manipulative and polemic arguments that no one else can even follow!

I'm not a moderator by I know when enough is enough. I hope this doesn't go any further and I would trust this topic can continue on with proper discussion instead of arguments and personal insults (you too Bikerman) a.k.a. flaming, just as bad as spam.

I take a neutral stance on this and implore you both to just calm it.

Ok my referee work is done here. Everyone post nicely, please. Wink
Bikerman
ninjakannon wrote:
I'm not a moderator by I know when enough is enough. I hope this doesn't go any further and I would trust this topic can continue on with proper discussion instead of arguments and personal insults (you too Bikerman) a.k.a. flaming, just as bad as spam.

I take a neutral stance on this and implore you both to just calm it.

Ok my referee work is done here. Everyone post nicely, please. Wink


I genuinely did not realise I was flaming. This is my own area of some expertise and I just got into the discussion without thinking (certainly without prior intent to pick a fight).
<reading back over postings........<Analyse Mode ON>

OK...my response to the invalid attribution was a bit strong I think...conceded.
The 'completely missed the point' looks much more aggressive than I intended for sure...conceded
I think the rest is OK, so I'll hold my hands up to those two and promise to avoid similar in future if possible. How's that ? Smile

PS - as for being BS.....not really. It's based on a long chat with a penpal/friendly physicistof my acquaintence.
He's published several papers in this field which covers (in much more depth than I can manage) the points I raised at the end of the posting.

A copy can be had here (Best quality in PDF)
Or Here - Converted to html - some graphics a bit ropey

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
ninjakannon wrote:
I take a neutral stance on this and implore you both to just calm it.

Ok my referee work is done here. Everyone post nicely, please. Wink

I already made it quite clear that I've washed my hands of this debate, unless you or someone else has a question, or believe that one of his supporting arguments was convincing. I don’t think anyone here really even understands what his argument was well enough to be fooled by it. If someone actually understood his argument well enough to even be fooled by it, then I’ll address it.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
You really are a troll, that was the most sophisticated bunch of nothing that I've ever seen!

Just because you can come up with halfway decent looking BS that might impress most people, it doesn’t impress me. And since no one else even cares, I have more important things to do than to rebut knowingly manipulative and polemic arguments that no one else can even follow!


If you are saying that my points are wrong then please state why.
My points on DNA could well contain errors (Biology is my weakest science) but I thought it was correct.
The parts on computing are not wrong, (that is my 'field' and I at least know enough to know the difference between intelligent discourse and BS in that arena).

If you are saying that you can refute the points then feel free, personally I doubt it, but if so then you would be a good candidate for Dave (one of my physics chums) - you could Peer Review his latest work for him.
http://my.donews.com/zqyin/2004/12/22/how-does-quantum-computer-view-classical-world/.

If you think the points I made were irrelevant then I disagree. It seems to me that all those points are important, possibly critical.
Anyway...like you, I have better ways to waste my time so I'll try to avoid crossing your path in future and then we will probably both be happier.

Best wishes
Chris Laughing
mike1reynolds
You didn't say anything at all about computing, contrary to your assertion. You didn't address any aspect of the theory of algorithms. You spoke of aspects of biology and physics that have no bearing on the theory of algorithms or computational limitations. My fields are math and computer science, that is what I got my dual major in. Your arguments about DNA have no merit at all, you have in no way addressed the computational nature of DNA encoding and you claim no authority in that field, so I will not address those arguments.

From a mathematical point of view ALL matrix operations are “Bidirectional Associative Memory Mechanisms” or BAMMs. It has been rigorously proven that all matrices will resonate between two associative memory patterns. All neural networks are essentially little more than matrix multiplication operations. These kinds of dynamical systems are the most obvious examples in all of nature of anti-chaotic self-organization in all sorts of dynamical systems, not just in organic brains.

As to strictly computational matters, your references to the “QCV” are meaningless, quantum computers exist right now, it is not a theoretical view that has not been tested. Physicists are doing tests on quantum computers every day. You might as well speculate that quantum mechanics is itself false.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
....My fields are math and computer science, that is what I got my dual major in.

If you say so then I'm happy to accept it.
Quote:
From a mathematical point of view ALL matrix operations are “Bidirectional Associative Memory Mechanisms” or BAMMs. It has been rigorously proven that all matrices will resonate between two associative memory patterns. All neural networks are essentially little more than matrix multiplication operations. These kinds of dynamical systems are the most obvious examples in all of nature of anti-chaotic self-organization in all sorts of dynamical systems, not just in organic brains.

And how is this relevant to the two points at issue? (namely that DNA is a computer and that the universe is itself a computer?). This particular debate started with your assertion that
Quote:
Since the brain is a computer, DNA is a computer, and the entire universe is one giant quantum computer, it is hard to imagine God not making use of all kinds of computers.
I took (and still take) the position that DNA is not a computer and that the view that the Universe is a computer is interesting and complex but does have some problems associated with it.

I will repeat my points in summary, for the benefit of those new to the thread or those wishing a quick refresher.
1) DNA is not a computer. It can currently be used in computer where it's role would be similar to the role played by storage (such as a disk) in a more traditional computer. (Recently scientists have produced simple logic gates made from DNA molecules which may allow DNA processors to be developed at which point DNA would form 2 of the components in the computer, but it would still not be correct to describe DNA as a computer.)
Much of the actual processing in such a DNA computer is carried out by enzymes operating on the DNA to restructure/resequence it and therefore the DNA itself is only one part of the overall picture.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/dna-computer1.htm

2) The sentence
Quote:
'DNA computing could only work if DNA were already operating as a computer.
is quite extraordinary coming, as it does, from someone qualified in computer science. Aside from the semantic and logical problems with this, a simple example serves to illustrate the contextual problem. By the same logic, Valve computers would only work if Valves were operating as computers.
Clearly valves are not computers (they are actually operating as memory for the most part).
A computer is defined as a machine which computes. It comprises input device(s), memory, processing unit or system, output device(s), some form of bus system to carry data/instructions around, and normally backing storage such as a disk system. DNA is clearly not a computer but can be used as a component in a computer system where it's role would be, as I said, that of storage and, perhaps in future, as part of the processor.

Quote:
As to strictly computational matters, your references to the “QCV” are meaningless, quantum computers exist right now, it is not a theoretical view that has not been tested. Physicists are doing tests on quantum computers every day. You might as well speculate that quantum mechanics is itself false.

3) You have completely misunderstood the reference and it's meaning. The view that the universe is a computer is the issue in question. The most influential supporter of this position that I know is Seth Lloyd and his theory is known as the Quantum Computer View. An interview with him in Wired Magazine sets out the basics of his view.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/play.html?pg=4
This is why I raised QCV in the first place and went on to list some of the problems with this view that I see as worth considering. I also gave references to more reading on this issue. Far from being irrelevant, this goes to the heart of the this issue.

The main problem I identified was that of locality. I went into a bit of detail in the post concerned but (accidentally) forgot to cite the source for much of it. I apologise for the omission - the paper in question is here

Regards
Chris
corridor_writers
mike1reynolds wrote:
That is the whole point, Livilou, He didn’t take over completely, He gave some of the universe to us. We are all computers. Now it is up to us to decide.


Bingo.

And in terms of programming we must all remember that a programmer is always trying to make idiot proof code, while the Universe at large is always cranking out bigger idiots. Wink
ftasyo
Yantaal wrote:
do you recon, assuming there is a god, he uses computers?

if we asked god to create a 10page spreadsheet, using macros, formulae and etc, would he be like, hells yeah?

or, doe she scheat when he plays games? like oblivion, does he use god mode? which would ofc b normal mode to him...


If God became man, not in first century Palestine, but in our time, I would think that he'd be using computers the way he used a hammer and a chisel back then... with a lot more humanity. Very Happy
corridor_writers
It sort of goes back to the way of thinking that if a cave man were to see a television he would think it was magic.

Remember, a computer is defined by something that takes information in on one side and changed the output of that information on the other. If you think about this, that’s what God does best.

So his use of computers may not be with a keyboard, mouse and monitor, but might be something we could not even begin to comprehend – much like the caveman trying to understand television.
chrismen
the_mariska wrote:
But my algorithms teacher says that God is the best programmer ever - he created the algorithms of the Big Bang and evolution, the modules of all laws of physics [and I guess metaphysics too], than said Enter [or Amen Very Happy], and that's how the universe started. This theory rocks in my humble opinion
That is so cool.

I just have to say I loved the title of this topic. I think that God using a computer would be a lot worst than people of 2007 using windows 3.1 (this was my first computer back in the day).
corridor_writers
chrismen wrote:
the_mariska wrote:
But my algorithms teacher says that God is the best programmer ever - he created the algorithms of the Big Bang and evolution, the modules of all laws of physics [and I guess metaphysics too], than said Enter [or Amen Very Happy], and that's how the universe started. This theory rocks in my humble opinion
That is so cool.

I just have to say I loved the title of this topic. I think that God using a computer would be a lot worst than people of 2007 using windows 3.1 (this was my first computer back in the day).


lol - I like the fun (while thought provoking) nature of the thread as well. If we really wanted to light a fire on this topic we could always argue whether god uses Mac, Windows or Linux. Wink

Just kidding. I am sure that gods version of a computer puts all of our man-made bug-filled Operating Systems to shame. Smile)))
cmfi_germany
[You Said]OK.. so Jesus and the Devil decided to have a contest, to finally settle this whole good vs. evil ordeal once and for all.

To be fair, Jesus allowed to Devil to decide what the challenge would be. Now the Devil had heard rumors that Jesus wasn't much of a typist... so he decided upon a typing contest.

Rules were simple... whoever typed the most words on their PC's after the span of five minutes would be the legitimate winner.

And so it began... they both started typing.. Jesus doing the whole hunt and peck thing with one finger, and the devil typing page after page after page of text going on and on and on... so fast that smoke was actually rising from his keyboard...

Three minutes went by... Devil is just typing away so fast that the clicking sounded like one continous roar, that is if you could hear that over his horrendous laughter MUHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH echoes thoughout the skies!

And Jesus just kept pecking along... t....h.....e.........d.....o.....g......j.....u...m...p......e.....d...... well you get the idea..

Another minute passes by, Devils keys are glowing red at this point.. he is on fire... just typing out page after page, volume after volume.. only getting faster and faster and faster... MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Another minute passes by.. the Devil can't stop laughing as he knows there's no POSSIBLE way he can lose this now...

Right then, with just a few seconds left, Jesus stops typing.. and raises his arms into the air... and WHABAMM! A great bolt of lightning strikes down.. and the power goes out.

A couple seconds later the power comes back on, and the timer goes off.. DING.

Now the Devil is speachless... he looks at his blank screen and almost expecting a rematch looks over to see his competitor's computer... and yet he still has his two sentences printed out all nice and neat on the computer screen...

The Devil simply asks.. "How is this possible? The power went out?"




Moral of the story? "Jesus Saves"[well]


I think you do not write any program to eat, or to stand, or to walk. It´s just obvious for you. Because your nature , your body, cells, and genes just walk in a certain harmony. SO you use computers for think, which should not walk for themselves, to make it easier.
Well , nothing for God is impossible. So he has not yet be unable to anything. SO he need no PC, b´cause it can just do anything he want, because he is Almighty.

Think about it
corridor_writers
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming. Smile

Back to the topic on hand. Remember that a computer is anything that takes in information/data in one form and outputs it into another. Thus, god uses computers all the time. Smile
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming. Smile

Back to the topic on hand. Remember that a computer is anything that takes in information/data in one form and outputs it into another. Thus, god uses computers all the time. Smile

Hmm
a) There is a distinction between information and data. A simple (and slightly simplistic) way of expressing it would be that information is data processed in a 'useful' way in that it provides answers to the "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions. In computer parlance, information is data that has been given meaning by way of relational connection. This "meaning" can be useful, but does not have to be; a relational database makes information from the data stored within it.
b) A computer is generally defined as a machine or system which processes data according to a set of instructions or program. That is more specific that simply transforming data into an alternate form since it implies a logical transformation whereas the latter definition would include a random generator.
Zampano
Yantaal wrote:
do you recon, assuming there is a god, he uses computers?

if we asked god to create a 10page spreadsheet, using macros, formulae and etc, would he be like, hells yeah?

or, doe she scheat when he plays games? like oblivion, does he use god mode? which would ofc b normal mode to him...


I can't be sure, of course, but I doubt very much that God uses a computer, because A) he does need to use it for ordinary human purposes, B) because if he needed to use it, he could do anything without the aid of a computer.
Also, I wouldn't think he plays video games.
corridor_writers
Bikerman wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming. Smile

Back to the topic on hand. Remember that a computer is anything that takes in information/data in one form and outputs it into another. Thus, god uses computers all the time. Smile

Hmm
a) There is a distinction between information and data. A simple (and slightly simplistic) way of expressing it would be that information is data processed in a 'useful' way in that it provides answers to the "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions. In computer parlance, information is data that has been given meaning by way of relational connection. This "meaning" can be useful, but does not have to be; a relational database makes information from the data stored within it.
b) A computer is generally defined as a machine or system which processes data according to a set of instructions or program. That is more specific that simply transforming data into an alternate form since it implies a logical transformation whereas the latter definition would include a random generator.



Thanks for the clarification. Still though, god's way of processing data and creating 'instructions' to modify data would not have to be done with a silicon board and a processor, but could be (and I believe is done) in nature every day. Smile

So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers. Smile



Zampano wrote:
Yantaal wrote:
do you recon, assuming there is a god, he uses computers?

if we asked god to create a 10page spreadsheet, using macros, formulae and etc, would he be like, hells yeah?

or, doe she scheat when he plays games? like oblivion, does he use god mode? which would ofc b normal mode to him...


I can't be sure, of course, but I doubt very much that God uses a computer, because A) he does need to use it for ordinary human purposes, B) because if he needed to use it, he could do anything without the aid of a computer.
Also, I wouldn't think he plays video games.


He does not play games? What's a platypus then? Wink
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Still though, god's way of processing data and creating 'instructions' to modify data would not have to be done with a silicon board and a processor, but could be (and I believe is done) in nature every day. Smile

So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers. Smile
You would ? Really ? OK....far be it from me to prevent free speech....you go right ahead and argue that ! Anytime you are ready ; in your own time; no pressure...
corridor_writers
Bikerman wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Still though, god's way of processing data and creating 'instructions' to modify data would not have to be done with a silicon board and a processor, but could be (and I believe is done) in nature every day. Smile

So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers. Smile
You would ? Really ? OK....far be it from me to prevent free speech....you go right ahead and argue that ! Anytime you are ready ; in your own time; no pressure...


I'd love to hear why you disagree. I am always open to other people's points of view, and am not afraid to admin when I am wrong.

So....let's have a nice, friendly, contructive argument. Smile
frih
it is not so. god is creator of this world who also created humans. humans created computer. so god is at a very high place and its value cannot change.

god is everywhere. if you somethin god for a person it means you hav god inside you and if you bad for a person it means you hav devil inside you.


regards
abhi Smile
Tumbleweed
corridor_writers wrote:
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming. Smile

Back to the topic on hand. Remember that a computer is anything that takes in information/data in one form and outputs it into another. Thus, god uses computers all the time. Smile


Would'nt this just say he computes but not necessarily uses computers to do it
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:

So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers. Smile

I'd love to hear why you disagree. I am always open to other people's points of view, and am not afraid to admin when I am wrong.

So....let's have a nice, friendly, contructive argument. Smile

No problem.
OK, well, let's go back to the definitions. I define a computer as a machine for processing data. Processing, in turn, implies changing in a meaningful and logical manner according to some plan or set of rules.
Are we agreed to that point ?
mike1reynolds
You mean like a real life chemical equation processor?
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
You mean like a real life chemical equation processor?


Well, if we are to accept that photosynthesis is an example of computing, then the natural question would be what data is being changed in what process and according to what program?
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You mean like a real life chemical equation processor?


Well, if we are to accept that photosynthesis is an example of computing, then the natural question would be what data is being changed in what process and according to what program?
“what data is being changed” – what data changes in a chemical equation?
“in what process” – chemistry
“according to what program” – DNA

It is computing a vast array of calculations concerning its growth and survival. A plant’s phototropic nature alone is clearly a computational action. Plants are also preprogrammed to change their operations over the seasons.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You mean like a real life chemical equation processor?


Well, if we are to accept that photosynthesis is an example of computing, then the natural question would be what data is being changed in what process and according to what program?
“what data is being changed” – what data changes in a chemical equation?
No data changes, that's the point really. A chemical process is a physical phenomenon rather than an example of computing.
Quote:
“in what process” – chemistry
see above
Quote:
“according to what program” – DNA

It is computing a vast array of calculations concerning its growth and survival. A plant’s phototropic nature alone is clearly a computational action. Plants are also preprogrammed to change their operations over the seasons.

The classical definition of 'computation' requires defined procedures which are unambiguously well-defined (each step is clearly specified). Biological systems do not map well onto these constraints since many (including photosynthesis) use heuristics which are poorly defined and which are often altered in real-time by feedback.
Also computation works on symbols and produces, as the output, other symbols. Biological processes do not do this.
You could certainly consider the processing involved in a model of photosynthesis (click HERE for a paper on this very subject) but I think it would be incorrect to regard a biological process itself as computation.
mike1reynolds
When they invent viral protein based computer chips, which is not that far away, then make the argument again about how biological processes do not map well to computational processes.

You are using an artificial and contrived definition of what a computational process is. A chemical equation processor is a “processor” by any computational definition that exists in computer science.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
When they invent viral protein based computer chips, which is not that far away, then make the argument again about how biological processes do not map well to computational processes.

You are using an artificial and contrived definition of what a computational process is. A chemical equation processor is a “processor” by any computational definition that exists in computer science.


No, the argument is not contrived and the underlying point is valid and based on a pretty thorough understanding of computation and symbolic processing. I don't want to get into a petty argument on this issue, but neither do I wish to avoid or sidetrack your point so I'll answer in good humour, in a little depth, whilst trying to avoid jargonising and over-complicating things, and I'll admit here and now that there are many ways of addressing this whole field of information processing and this is only one.....I'll be happy to receive criticism and rebuttal/refutation on any parts of this in good faith.

OK...let's start with terms....
Computation can be broadly defined as general term for all types of information processing (there are a couple of quibbles I have with this but let's ignore them for the moment and progress). Information processing is a process whereby a conceptual model is constructed, using a defined and formalised system of grammar, operating on symbols, to represent particular elements of the physical or logical system being modelled. Computation is NOT the system itself but a symbolic model of the system, in the same way that a map is not the actual territory being mapped but is a model of it.

Thus one may observe that a bird flies through the air by making a series of changes to the shape and movement of it's wings. An information processing/computational model would be a description of the processes going on in the birds flight using a defined set of symbols - let's say normal algebraic representation - which could model the physical act of flying in the abstract as a conceptual model. It would need a set of rules/algorithms or defined relationships which act on the symbols (this is sometimes called a 'grammar'). In this case the grammar would need to be a combination of standard arithmetic, more complex aerodynamic and fluid dynamical formulae, ballistics and other equations of motion and classical mechanics as a minimum - no doubt lots of other stuff I've missed as well.
You could, instead, build a machine that mimicked the flight of the bird along the lines of a glider or model plane, but that would not be an information processing device (even though it might contain some information processing elements as part of it's make-up); it would be a flying device.
To be a computational device it must have a symbolic representation of the process being modelled and a set of rules/algorithms which we can regard as a formalised grammar (see Chomsky Heirarchies ).

Another way of describing information processing is the approach taken by Claude Shannon with information processing being described as the conversion of latent information into manifest information - you will have come across this on your degree course if you studied computation/information theory. It is, admittedly, a field which is full of imprecise terminology and incomplete understanding. In many ways even the basics of information theory are still not fully worked out, down to the most basic elements such as an agreed definition of the terms data, information, knowledge etc. One very soon finds oneself sidetracked into the fields of psychology (specifically cognitive and perceptual studies), as well as linguistics, semantics and many other related and deep fields of study.
(Having recently finally forced myself to plough through Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus' I'll spare you and other readers any foray into the area of philosophical logic - I found it a chore to read but it is something that really has to be done and it's important stuff (I should have read it years ago but kept finding reasons not to Smile

Since you, like me, have studied in this area (information and computing), I'll include some links to stuff which I found interesting and which may be of interest to you. It is more technical than I would normally reference and is not written for a normal 'lay' readership so if anyone else reading this clicks any of the links and can't understand what they are on about then it is no reflection on you.

Basic background and introductory material
Good old Wikki to start
Nice course on Information Theory offered as a series of lecture notes.
Information Theory Society Website

More advanced references
Journal of Quantum Information Processing
Theory of epistemic information - interesting stuff
Pragmatic information - defined and discussed - also interesting
Quantum Computing Paper examining implications of Planck-scale quantisation for QC.
The Temple of Quantum Computing by Riley T. Perry - very nice overview of the whole field in a readable book/paper
corridor_writers
Tumbleweed wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming. Smile

Back to the topic on hand. Remember that a computer is anything that takes in information/data in one form and outputs it into another. Thus, god uses computers all the time. Smile


Would'nt this just say he computes but not necessarily uses computers to do it


Yes - you could definately say that.
corridor_writers
mike1reynolds wrote:
You mean like a real life chemical equation processor?


Wow. So to make this short and to the point, I like your way of thinking and agree that this is a good example. The "wow" above comes from Bikermans rebuttal of this. Looks like he is working on a doctorate thesis paper for this one.

Bikerman wrote:
………………………….


Bikerman – don’t take this wrong; I mean no insult - tis (mostly) jest.

I enjoy seeing how detailed you get in your answers, but I must admit that a lot of it seems to be circular in it’s logic, and it is often times a bit unclear and hard to follow. You can definitely say a lot and still leave a person wondering what it was you just said. Smile

You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician. Wink
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:

Bikerman – don’t take this wrong; I mean no insult - tis (mostly) jest.

I enjoy seeing how detailed you get in your answers, but I must admit that a lot of it seems to be circular in it’s logic, and it is often times a bit unclear and hard to follow. You can definitely say a lot and still leave a person wondering what it was you just said. Smile

You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician. Wink

I take no offence from what you said.
I did make it clear in the posting in question that, since it was aimed at someone who professes to knowledge in the field concerned, my reply would be more technical and more involved than normal and that it might be confusing to those not familiar with information theory.
If you can find any circular logic in my postings then please point it out...really! I would take it as a favour. I do not like to post errors or fallacies so I am happy when someone points out that I have done so. I will be more than happy to correct and acknowledge any such errors, you may be assured.

PS - I just re-read the posting in question and I was not clear enough in pointing out that it WAS a technical reply...apologies for that, I thought I had done so.
corridor_writers
Bikerman wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:

Bikerman – don’t take this wrong; I mean no insult - tis (mostly) jest.

I enjoy seeing how detailed you get in your answers, but I must admit that a lot of it seems to be circular in it’s logic, and it is often times a bit unclear and hard to follow. You can definitely say a lot and still leave a person wondering what it was you just said. Smile

You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician. Wink

I take no offence from what you said.
I did make it clear in the posting in question that, since it was aimed at someone who professes to knowledge in the field concerned, my reply would be more technical and more involved than normal and that it might be confusing to those not familiar with information theory.
If you can find any circular logic in my postings then please point it out...really! I would take it as a favour. I do not like to post errors or fallacies so I am happy when someone points out that I have done so. I will be more than happy to correct and acknowledge any such errors, you may be assured.

PS - I just re-read the posting in question and I was not clear enough in pointing out that it WAS a technical reply...apologies for that, I thought I had done so.


Spoken like a true gentleman. Smile And no, I won’t be going back and trying to find fault with your logic just to pick at your wording – that would seem petty on my part - not to mention time-consuming. Smile

Suffice it to say that a.) I still disagree with you that on some of these points and b.) I feel for any poor bloke who wants to get in an argument with you…..your a natural when it comes to arguing your point (I have noticed this on several posts.)

While I personally enjoy the discussions, I don’t have the time or the passion to dive into these at the level you have. Smile

Cheers.
tbsmicro
bikerman...you are a legend !!!

I have just started a Open University course in computing and if I understand half of what you have just discussed i'll be happy!!

p.s. I'll be looking into some of those links when i feel brave enough.
corridor_writers
tbsmicro wrote:
bikerman...you are a legend !!!

I have just started a Open University course in computing and if I understand half of what you have just discussed i'll be happy!!

p.s. I'll be looking into some of those links when i feel brave enough.

I about laughed myself silly reading this. This is basically what I said, in fewer words – so I agree completely.

I have also found myself so intrigued by bikermans doctorate like answers that I have taken to looking for his feedback and points of view on other threads – which all revolve around science and religion.

Bikerman – I think that solidifies your standing as ‘Legend’ – for better or for worse. Smile)))

In fact, I had you nailed as a professor or teacher before I even checked your profile, and it looks like I nailed it. Smile

And for those that doubt me – check it out yourself.

http://www.frihost.com/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=21436

That’s a lot of posts and FRIH$. Smile

Congrats Bikerman.
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:

I about laughed myself silly reading this. This is basically what I said, in fewer words – so I agree completely.

I have also found myself so intrigued by bikermans doctorate like answers that I have taken to looking for his feedback and points of view on other threads – which all revolve around science and religion.

Bikerman – I think that solidifies your standing as ‘Legend’ – for better or for worse. Smile)))

Ohhh...errrrr....a legend in my own lunchtime Smile
Quote:

In fact, I had you nailed as a professor or teacher before I even checked your profile, and it looks like I nailed it. Smile
More of a teacher than a professor...taught secondary IT for a few years and Lectured in IT for a decade or so, but definitely not a professor.
Quote:

Congrats Bikerman.

Thanks for the kind words....I think... Smile
Macbeth
Has anyone seen the anime Ah!My Goddess?

I garuntee you its like that...

God has a lot of people at computer terminals all suspended in air and with a vast main frame vortex/screen/whatever in the middle and he/she is seated at the top working out issues of the world etc. etc.
mike1reynolds
So there is no “computation” in chemistry by your contrived definition. Ha ha! Let’s reinvent chemistry.
mike1reynolds
corridor_writers wrote:
You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician. Wink
Intelligent intellectuals can talk clearly rather then intentionally obfuscating. I’m glad that someone else has noticed that this is almost certainly an intentional ploy to convinced people that his argument is right without actually having to make any sense at all.

Politicians are people who are addicted to lies, you can’t tell the truth and win an election. Trolls, similarly, are highly intelligent people who are addicted to dishonestly manipulating people by exploiting their intellectual weaknesses.

I think trolls are fun! Mostly because people like you and me get to watch all the idiots fall all over themselves praising the trollish nonsense, and then get all miffed when we squash it like a bug.


BTW, I do have a Computer Science degree from Georgia Tech, and I know from extensive debates with him in the past that he has read a few books on the subject and nothing more.
mike1reynolds
MacBeth, your sig sends chills up my spine, that is the most intense sig I've ever seen.

What is it about? It could mean quite a number of things, the imagery is so rich.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
More of a teacher than a professor...taught secondary IT for a few years and Lectured in IT for a decade or so, but definitely not a professor.
Where at, ITT? Laughing

The difference between true computer scientists vs. IT & MIS people is like the difference between lab scientists and janitors. They perform about the same relative function.
Bikerman
Quote:
BTW, I do have a Computer Science degree from Georgia Tech, and I know from extensive debates with him in the past that he has read a few books on the subject and nothing more.

On the first part - I leave that to the reader to decide for themselves.

On the second part; my qualifications and work history are a matter of public record and can be checked by anyone who feels the urge (I can see no reason why I shouldn't post the relevant details)

Real name - Chris Snowdon
Graduated 1985 Manchester University, BEd Computing
Taught IT/Computer science - Lymm High School, Warrington (1985-1990)
Lectured IT/Computer science - Warrington Collegiate (1990-95)
Network Manager/Lecturer - Birkenhead College (1995-1999)
System Manager (VMS/Unix/PC) - Corning Optical Fibre, Deeside, Flintshire (2000-2002)
Recording Engineer - Odessa Wharf Studio, Hackney, London (2003-2004)
Data Manager - St Nicholas High School, Hartford, Cheshire (2005-2006)

As CVs go it is not, I admit, particularly impressive or noteworthy, but neither is it something I would invent/misrepresent.
Bikerman
tbsmicro wrote:
bikerman...you are a legend !!!

I have just started a Open University course in computing and if I understand half of what you have just discussed i'll be happy!!

p.s. I'll be looking into some of those links when i feel brave enough.

Let me know what you think and if there are any other links I can provide (I have a fair sized database of science/computing links).
Good luck with the course...Is is a degree or a vocational (BTEC, C&G etc) course?
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
Graduated 1985 Manchester University, BEd Computing
Well, that is good enough for me. I retract any derisive statements I have made on the matter and apologize for the provocation.

However, I must say, your memory of Theory of Algorithms seems to be quite rusty indeed! Teaching high school isn’t going to help keep you fresh in that regard. Your assertions in this thread have been accordingly pedantic, making specific assertions about what computation is that in no way what-so-ever capture the full general meaning. You have taken some very narrowly defined definitions and tried to assert that they are the sum toto of Algorithm Theory, when in fact your assertions about what does and does not constitute computation don’t meaningfully address Algorithm Theory at all.

Lets get to the basics, if protein based computer chips are invented, you will never the less assert that proteins cannot compute based on some contorted abstract definition of what can constitute a computational symbol and what cannot?
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Graduated 1985 Manchester University, BEd Computing
Well, that is good enough for me. I retract any derisive statements I have made on the matter and apologize for the provocation.

Apology accepted.
Quote:

However, I must say, your memory of Theory of Algorithms seems to be quite rusty indeed! Teaching high school isn’t going to help keep you fresh in that regard. Your assertions in this thread have been accordingly pedantic, making specific assertions about what computation is that in no way what-so-ever capture the full general meaning. You have taken some very narrowly defined definitions and tried to assert that they are the sum toto of Algorithm Theory, when in fact your assertions about what does and does not constitute computation don’t meaningfully address Algorithm Theory at all.
There is no contortion, abstraction or even ambiguity in my definitions - they are all taken from standard works on the subject and I provided a fairly comprehensive list of reference material at the end of the posting. I also included links to less academic references which clearly define computation and associated terms in language which is accessible for the non-IT reader
Quote:

Lets get to the basics, if protein based computer chips are invented, you will never the less assert that proteins cannot compute based on some contorted abstract definition of what can constitute a computational symbol and what cannot?

Quite correct. The machine containing the chips might well be a computer but proteins do not, themselves, compute. They 'process', but they do not process information. It is possible to map data onto different peptide/protein operations, at which point it then forms a possible computation device, but the peptide processes themselves are not computation in the same way that photosynthesis is not computation.
You claim that:
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
A plant’s phototropic nature alone is clearly a computational action.

I say that is wrong on two key grounds.
Computation is defined in several ways but a very broad definition would be
Quote:
The manipulation of numbers or symbols according to fixed rules.

1. It is my position that a biological process, such as photosynthesis, does not operate on numbers or symbols
2. A more formal objection.
Quote:
The concepts of information, pattern, and computation are inextricably intertwined. Although both information and computation are well-defined mathematically, their formal definitions do not always translate as usefully as one might hope into biological systems since the formal definition of 'computation' requires the definition of procedures which are unambiguously well-defined (each step is clearly specified) and 'effective': guaranteed to halt. Many biological computations of interest do not obviously satisfy these requirements, since they may be based on poor-defined heuristics that are continuously re-weighted, interrupted, and otherwise altered in real-time.

More simply put
Wikki wrote:
A computer is a machine for manipulating data according to a list of instructions.

Wikki wrote:
Data consist of propositions that reflect reality, such as measurements or observations of a variable.

A protein or peptide computer would use peptide interactions in the same way that a conventional processor uses logic circuits. In themselves logic circuits are not computers, they are processors. The difference is that they process by voltages which we then assign binary values (1 for On and 0 for off). We still haven't at that stage, got a computer. We then need a syntax (the instruction set which is microcoded into a conventional processor), some data to work on and a set of instructions (or algorithm) which describes how to process the data. Only at that point do we have a computer.
mike1reynolds
[quote="Bikerman"]
Bikerman wrote:
Graduated 1985 Manchester University, BEd Computing
BTW, what is a BEd? Is that an engineering degree? The CE’s and EE’s who took computer science courses along side us were notoriously unable to keep up and none of them had to take the heavy mathematics of Algorithm Theory.


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

However, I must say, your memory of Theory of Algorithms seems to be quite rusty indeed! Teaching high school isn’t going to help keep you fresh in that regard. Your assertions in this thread have been accordingly pedantic, making specific assertions about what computation is that in no way what-so-ever capture the full general meaning. You have taken some very narrowly defined definitions and tried to assert that they are the sum toto of Algorithm Theory, when in fact your assertions about what does and does not constitute computation don’t meaningfully address Algorithm Theory at all.
There is no contortion, abstraction or even ambiguity in my definitions - they are all taken from standard works on the subject and I provided a fairly comprehensive list of reference material at the end of the posting.
I saw nothing that appeared to address the Theory of Algorithms in any way shape or form. They were just extremely narrow definitions that apply conveniently to solid state electronics, but not to neural processing for example. How would any of your statements not exclude the human brain from being a computational device?

Bikerman wrote:
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
A plant’s phototropic nature alone is clearly a computational action.

I say that is wrong on two key grounds.
Computation is defined in several ways but a very broad definition would be
Quote:
The manipulation of numbers or symbols according to fixed rules.

1. It is my position that a biological process, such as photosynthesis, does not operate on numbers or symbols
How is chemistry not a symbolic language? How are you defining symbolic language such that various states of an automata are not symbols? Or conversely, how are you defining chemical states such that they are not part of an automata?


2. A more formal objection.
Quote:
The concepts of information, pattern, and computation are inextricably intertwined. Although both information and computation are well-defined mathematically, their formal definitions do not always translate as usefully as one might hope into biological systems since the formal definition of 'computation' requires the definition of procedures which are unambiguously well-defined (each step is clearly specified) and 'effective': guaranteed to halt. Many biological computations of interest do not obviously satisfy these requirements, since they may be based on poor-defined heuristics that are continuously re-weighted, interrupted, and otherwise altered in real-time.
All of this is true of the human brain too, so do you maintain that the human brain is incapable of computation?


[quote="Bikerman"]More simply put
Wikki wrote:
A computer is a machine for manipulating data according to a list of instructions.
Poor human, totally incapable of such feats, without a formalized list of instructions, must not be able to think at all?
Bikerman
Quote:
BTW, what is a BEd? Is that an engineering degree? The CE’s and EE’s who took computer science courses along side us were notoriously unable to keep up and none of them had to take the heavy mathematics of Algorithm Theory.

Batchelor of Education. Teaching degree basically.
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
I saw nothing that appeared to address the Theory of Algorithms in any way shape or form. They were just extremely narrow definitions that apply conveniently to solid state electronics, but not to neural processing for example. How would any of your statements not exclude the human brain from being a computational device?

Quite obviously I thought. The brain is an device which can manipulate symbols and numbers according to a fixed set of rules.
2, 4, 6, 8, 10....see.
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
How is chemistry not a symbolic language? How are you defining symbolic language such that various states of an automata are not symbols? Or conversely, how are you defining chemical states such that they are not part of an automata?

Next time you see a plant manipulating chemical symbols let me know...I'd like to see that.
[quote][quote]The concepts of information, pattern, and computation are inextricably intertwined. Although both information and computation are well-defined mathematically, their formal definitions do not always translate as usefully as one might hope into biological systems since the formal definition of 'computation' requires the definition of procedures which are unambiguously well-defined (each step is clearly specified) and 'effective': guaranteed to halt. Many biological computations of interest do not obviously satisfy these requirements, since they may be based on poor-defined heuristics that are continuously re-weighted, interrupted, and otherwise altered in real-time.
Quote:
All of this is true of the human brain too, so do you maintain that the human brain is incapable of computation?

Yes, but the brain, in addition, can compute - ie manipulate symbols and numbers according to a set of rules. In may be other things as well as a computer but it certainly passes the test of a computing device.
[quote="Wikki"]A computer is a machine for manipulating data according to a list of instructions.
Quote:
Poor human, totally incapable of such feats, without a formalized list of instructions, must not be able to think at all?

Your brain is full of formalised instructions...try counting.
mike1reynolds
How do you define the rules for a neural instruction set?

It is essential a chemical synbolic langauge, which you have asserted is not computational.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
How do you define the rules for a neural instruction set?

Irrelevant. The brain can clearly process information in the form of symbols according to a set of rules. That is what it does when you count. How the instructions are stored is not particularly relevant to the definition.
Quote:
It is essential a chemical synbolic langauge, which you have asserted is not computational.

Another misrepresentation. How many is that? I did NOT say that chemical symbolic language was not computational...I said that plants do not use chemical symbolic language...I thought that was clear.
mike1reynolds
All chemistry is a product of the symbolic manipulations of automata states. You are very confused about what does and does not constitue a symbolic language in Algorithm Theory.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
All chemistry is a product of the symbolic manipulations of automata states. You are very confused about what does and does not constitue a symbolic language in Algorithm Theory.

And you are very confused, full stop.
mike1reynolds
I am confuse because you don't jack about Theory of Algorithms?
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
I am confuse because you don't jack about Theory of Algorithms?

OK…you obviously want to zero in on Algorithm Theory. I guess it must be your specialist area. Fair enough, let’s have a look where you stand…
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
any infinite state automata can easily simulate not only one, but an infinite number of finite state automatas. An infinite state automata does not have less power than a finite state automata, it has more power. Most of the basic automatas in ToA do have infinite states, for example a push down automata has an infinite stack. The Turing Machine has an infinite two directional tape storage.

I’ve never heard of an infinite state automaton. Perhaps you could provide some references?
You do know that both the Turing Machine and the Push-down automaton are FINITE STATE devices I take it? They do indeed have an infinite tape (in the case of the TM), or stack (in the case of the PDA) but they most certainly do NOT have infinite states as you claim.
http://www.eti.pg.gda.pl/katedry/kiw/pracownicy/Jan.Daciuk/personal/thesis/node12.html

Mike1Reynolds wrote:
The only possible way that universe could not be a computational device is if it were totally static. As long as it has more than one state than at the very minimum, it is a finite state automata, which is a computational device.

A finite state automaton is not a computational device, it is a model of a particular behaviour. In simple terms it can be imagined as a program without any variables. As you know a FSA is formally defined in algorithm theory as a 5-tuple of form <Q, E, d, q0, f> (E represents Sigma - I can't get a sigma sign on the keyboard).
Perhaps, since this is your area, you could bring everyone else up to speed and run us through a bog-standard FSA and the associated terms before we get to the more technical stuff?
mike1reynolds
When you chopped off the first part of the sentence you either removed the part about an infinite CELLULAR automata, which I referred to over and over again in that debate, or it was a dyslexic typo meant to refer to what I had referred to so many times before. Each Planck automata is a finite automata, but there are an infinite number of them.

So you found a book on the topic of Algorithm Theory obviously and now you wish to query me on all sorts of minutia. Did you study this at all in college? What is the Pumping Theorem? Next to Church’s Thesis, that is the most important thing in Algorithm Theory. This is no question of BS minutia unlike your questions.

Now keep that book shut! (Fat chance of that…) Actually, I think looking up the Pumping Theorom might help enormously in this debate, because then you would start to get some idea of the real mathematics behind computation.

BTW, a push down automata does not have an infinite tape like a Turing Machine, it has an infinite queue. Otherwise, my friend, what is the difference between the two...?

Also, your assertion that an FSA has no variables because of the lack of a queue or tape is superficial, the states themselves are data, especially when you have interacting FSAs.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
When you chopped off the first part of the sentence you either removed the part about an infinite CELLULAR automata, which I referred to over and over again in that debate, or it was a dyslexic typo meant to refer to what I had referred to so many times before. Each Planck automata is a finite automata, but there are an infinite number of them.

In other words there is no such thing as an infinite state automaton. Lie number 1. I did not take the quote out of context, and there was no reference to cellular automata. Here it is in total:
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
This distinction is shunted in an instant with the realization that any infinite state automata can easily simulate not only one, but an infinite number of finite state automatas. An infinite state automata does not have less power than a finite state automata, it has more power. Most of the basic automatas in ToA do have infinite states, for example a push down automata has an infinite stack. The Turing Machine has an infinite two directional tape storage.

You talk about infinite states on three occasions. I think the meaning of what you wrote is obvious....and completely wrong. There is no typo, it's just wrong.
Quote:

BTW, a push down automata does not have an infinite tape like a Turing Machine, it has an infinite queue. Otherwise, my friend, what is the difference between the two...?
Who said it had an infinite tape? Lie number 2. I was quite specific in what I said and I used the correct terminology. What I said is clear:
Bikerman wrote:
They do indeed have an infinite tape (in the case of the TM), or stack (in the case of the PDA) but they most certainly do NOT have infinite states as you claim. "

Quote:

Also, your assertion that an FSA has no variables because of the lack of a queue or tape is superficial, the states themselves are data, especially when you have interacting FSAs.
I made no such statement. I said it could be imagined as a program without variables. I did not mention the lack of queue or tape. Lie number 3. You cant even write one posting without misquoting and inventing can you?
mike1reynolds
This sounds like a playground taunt, "You are a liar!!" How old are you really now?



What does an infinite state automata have to do with any argument that I made? Put this into a real context rather than just making another BS claim.

An infinite cellular automata played heavily into my arguments. An infinite state machine is something with absolutely no relevance to anything I have ever said. You are the one who is being deceptive and manipulative here and I am really getting tired of it. If you break out into this kind of knowing and intentional distortion of my previous statements again I will have to begin considering moderator action. You are not pursuing an argument at all here, this is purely an ad hominem personal attack.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
This sounds like a playground taunt, "You are a liar!!" How old are you really now?



What does an infinite state automata have to do with any argument that I made? Put this into a real context rather than just making another BS claim.

An infinite cellular automata played heavily into my arguments. An infinite state machine is something with absolutely no relevance to anything I have ever said. You are the one who is being deceptive and manipulative here and I am really getting tired of it. If you break out into this kind of knowing and intentional distortion of my previous statements again I will have to begin considering moderator action.

It simply illustrates that you are fundamentally incapable of carrying on a debate without constant dishonesty, misrepresentation and invention.
mike1reynolds
As always, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You not only distort your polemic facts at will, you will also tell knowing falsehoods about your opponent's arguments.

You simply lack any more intergrity. You are like the poster child for the classic Christian stereotype of an immoral atheist. Usually it is BS, but in your case it fits you to a tee.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
As always, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You not only distort your polemic facts at will, you will also tell knowing falsehoods about your opponent's arguments.

You simply lack any more intergrity. You are like the poster child for the classic Christian stereotype of an immoral atheist. Usually it is BS, but in your case it fits you to a tee.


What I quoted was what you wrote. I have neither changed the context or altered the text. I have told no falsehoods, unlike you, neither have I misrepresented, misconstrued or misquoted anything that you posted. If you want to go to the moderators please do. They can read just as well as everyone else can.
mike1reynolds
These arguments with you are so pathetic that I just don’t remember the context, especially when you quoted it out of context. I was going to go look for my original statement but I see I glossed over your last obnoxious post and that you have provided it for me:

Mike1Reynolds wrote:
This distinction is shunted in an instant with the realization that any infinite state automata can easily simulate not only one, but an infinite number of finite state automatas. An infinite state automata does not have less power than a finite state automata, it has more power. Most of the basic automatas in ToA do have infinite states, for example a push down automata has an infinite stack. The Turing Machine has an infinite two directional tape storage.


I was using infinite state automata as a synonym for Turing Machine, as your quote of me clearly demonstrates. I totally forget what the stupid point was that you made which made me want to assert that a Turing Machine is essentially an infinite state automata, but clearly you were trying to deny something that a Turing Machine can easily do.

BM, take a deep break, let some air out of your ego, and focus on an actual argument. You are just making a complete ass of yourself and everyone can see it.
Bikerman
I'd rather not continue any debate with you. It is a complete waste of time. You are one of the most dishonest and ignorant posters that I have come across in a long time and I see no point in subjecting myself to the annoyance that I feel with each new lie. Unfortunately I think the only sensible way to deal with you is to adopt the line taken by Indi and just ignore you.
Coclus
You must be joking right?!? That is like the - excuse me- most ridiculous question ever.
mike1reynolds
I certainly will not be ignoring your childish obnoxious rants. You are obviously usually quite maticulous and systematic in your attempts to bait people into twsiting themselves into preztels, but you are not going to get away with it here. I will see to it that you are not allowed to victimize anyone here.

I will defend anyone whom you attack in the obnoxious manner that you have attacked me personally. In each case, instead making your vicitim look the fool, it will be you that ends up looking the fool, just as you have now.
mike1reynolds
BTW, I strongly suspect that this person is a troll who has followed me over here from ChristianForums.com, the #1 most trafficed Christian site, which is rife with trolls, or was at least. As Horseeatingweeds, a long time poster here, put it, “What a piteous mess CF is!” BM's first message in the P&R forum was a rabid attack on Catholicism that didn’t sound like an atheist at all, it sounded like a fanatical Christian non-denominational Protestant. There is a whole population of bigoted fundamentalists who hate most of the world’s Christians, so it is any easy troll manuver to exploit. However, no one here on P&R gives a hoot, so he abruptly changed his tactics. BM is a very clever tacticion.

The level of intelligence in this troll is extremely high which makes it easier to stab a guess at someone using an alternate identity. I suspect that this is CaliforniaJosiah, a moderator that I got fired from staff for being a troll. Also, CaliforniaJosiah engaged exclusively in attempting to drum up anti-Catholic bigotry, so BM’s first message here on the P&R forum fits like a tee into my theory that Bikerman and CaliforniaJosiah are the same person.

However, I do not wish to debate the matter with a BM.
JinTenshi
@mike1reynolds & bikerman : Hello. Mind refreshing your own brains about what is this topic about? Mind referring back to the first post and reading it? Really? What are both of you typing? Why the DNA and what-nots? Why the Quantam Theory? We are not discussing that here. We are discussing does GOD use computer. Quit flaming each other, don't be childrens. Be mature.

Well, supposedly GOD computer actually crashed or he decided to save and shut down. Then I guess it's the day of apocalypse. Lol.
Bikerman
JinTenshi wrote:
@mike1reynolds & bikerman : Hello. Mind refreshing your own brains about what is this topic about? Mind referring back to the first post and reading it? Really? What are both of you typing? Why the DNA and what-nots? Why the Quantam Theory? We are not discussing that here. We are discussing does GOD use computer. Quit flaming each other, don't be childrens. Be mature.

Well, supposedly GOD computer actually crashed or he decided to save and shut down. Then I guess it's the day of apocalypse. Lol.

Quite right. I apologise and it will not happen again.
mike1reynolds
JinTenshi wrote:
Quit flaming each other, don't be childrens. Be mature.
I'm only too happy too. I finally reacted after endless provocation over several months, so I make no apology. If anything I was excessively restrained until the last two days. When you hold things in without letting off steam, what happens?

JinTenshi wrote:
Well, supposedly GOD computer actually crashed or he decided to save and shut down. Then I guess it's the day of apocalypse. Lol.
If I attempted to have a discussion with BM about this I’m sure he would sneer in contempt even though this is a religion board, but I have had precisely this experience with God.

Locutions is a Catholic term that refers to getting messages from spirits, sometimes as flat out voices. Not everyone that hears voices is insane, Joan of Arc, St. Teresa, and a huge host of other saints experienced this regularly, but basically all mediums and spiritualists experience locutions. While I have had the message kind quite often (but never from anyone or anything I trust or give much credence too) I did have one experience of flat out voice over locutions. And here is what it said to me:

“I am the computer at the beginning and end of time.” It was real robotic sounding too. From what I can tell the transcendent consciousness of the universe is in BAD BAD shape with some serious security violations. I spent 3 or 4 hours trying to track down the security breach. While it certainly wasn’t quite like any computer I’ve every programmed, it did operate off of some very basic principles, as though souls were its hardware. I was previously aware that there are all sorts of basic quantum numbers to the soul, number of energy compartments (as taught by Nagualism), various oversoul configurations of souls, and different layers of spirit like climatic altitude (high tenuous portions of the spirit vs. lower astral high density parts of the spirit).

I can hardly remember anything specific except that I was trying to lock out someone that had programmed a massive number of fail safes to override any attempt to lock them out. The computer itself seemed to have a certain amount of volition of its own, most unlike any computer I’ve ever heard of, other than Sci Fi notions like Arthur C. Clark’s HAL 9000, so it was as helpful as it could be under the circumstances in directing me to parts of it’s programming that it didn’t like and I was furiously imposing new logic on it’s security protocols, coming up with a new heuristic to tackle the problems every 30 to 60 seconds.

Finally a moment came when it said, “You have a complete lockout. You now have sole access to the computer at the beginning and end of time.” It was silent for awhile, and abruptly it started sounding like a very young child rather than an early Sci Fi movie computer’s voice.

Computers in the movies are almost never given voices now or depicted as having even the slightest sentience, but prior to 30 years ago, that was never the case. It never occurred to me until that experience that those old Sci Fi notions were not just some fanciful misunderstanding of what primitive human computers will be capable of, probably even a century in the future. Like so many other mythical archetypes in popular culture, I think this was tapping into something deeply relevant to the fundamental nature of the universe.

I’ve been arguing for God a lot lately around here, both of my most vitriolic opponents are rabid atheists, but I have to admit that this two year old mystical experience is starting to have an impact on me, along with many other spiritual experiences I’ve had over the past five years that have slowly whittled away my belief in a conscious transcendent order in the universe.
corridor_writers
Wow.....first, let me say that I was REALLY enjoying the argument between Bikerman and mike1reynolds at first, and was really up to my eyeballs in some really deep and what I thought very complex view points (whether it was off-topic or not.)

That is, until what I thought was a constructive argument broke down into name calling and bickering. No offense mike1reynolds, but I think you lost your cool first. I suppose it comes back to the fact that it is hard to interpret things like voice inflection and emotion in text. Mind you I am not trying to point fingers, find fault, or in any way keep the argument going. Smile I think both of you have had some very valid points, some not-so-valid ones, and quit frankly, a number of points that have probably gone right over my head (and I have a degree in Computer Science too! Smile

I believe in a ‘supreme being’ myself, and so I suppose my views may be biased towards the facts presented by mike1reynolds, but I really was enjoying reading both sides……

Sad
Related topics
If Hardly Davidson made Computers instead of Motorcycles...
God Of War
Cybot's Work
science vs. religion
Texas Al: Modern Don Qixote! (non fiction)
Computers at school
Are christians educated?
Why do you all hate God?
Zone Alarm
What is your deity doing for you?
The hate for the existing GOD...
My "Faith" is in myself
God is Perfect
General census seems to be Definately no God.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.