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...
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 
], and that's how the universe started. This theory rocks in my humble opinion
And talking seriously, this is a clear illustration that evolution and religion are not against each other i recon he probably does use computers, or maybe is a computer....
deep
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.
| 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 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. | 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. | 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.) | 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. 
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. | 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. |
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.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.
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...
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.
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?
what? god has a palace?
you recon god has a beard or just burns?
| 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. | 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. ^_^;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.
| 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…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.
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"
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.
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!
| 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 | 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.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.
| 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.
Oh, and I loved the joke AutoTechGuy – thanks. It’s always good to see that not everybody is SOOOOOO serious all the time. | 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. 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?
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.
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.
| 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
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 | 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 
| 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. | 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
ChrisYou 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!
| 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. 
| 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. |
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 ?
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 | 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. |
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. | 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 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.
| 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 | 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. | 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. 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.
| 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). | 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.
Just kidding. I am sure that gods version of a computer puts all of our man-made bug-filled Operating Systems to shame. )))[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
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming.
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. | corridor_writers wrote: |
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming.
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. |
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. | 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. | 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.
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. |
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.
So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers.
| 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? | 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.
So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers.
|
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... | 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.
So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers.
|
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. 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 | corridor_writers wrote: |
Now that's a great laugh! As a gamer I am planning on using that same line in my gaming.
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. |
Would'nt this just say he computes but not necessarily uses computers to do it | corridor_writers wrote: |
| corridor_writers wrote: |
So I would argue that Photosynthesis is proof that god uses computers.
|
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. |
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 ?You mean like a real life chemical equation processor?
| 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? | 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. | 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.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.
| 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
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 | 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.
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. |
Would'nt this just say he computes but not necessarily uses computers to do it |
Yes - you could definately say that. | 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.
You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician. | 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.
You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician. |
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. | 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.
You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician. |
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. 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.
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.
Cheers.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.
| 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. )))
In fact, I had you nailed as a professor or teacher before I even checked your profile, and it looks like I nailed it.
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$.
Congrats 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. ))) |
Ohhh...errrrr....a legend in my own lunchtime
| 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.
|
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... 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.
So there is no “computation” in chemistry by your contrived definition. Ha ha! Let’s reinvent chemistry.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
| corridor_writers wrote: |
You are either a very intelligent intellectual or a politician.
|
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.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.
| 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?
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. | 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. | 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? | 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? | 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 -