How to Build a Computer Model of God

What I admire most about the author is the honest search for Truth. It is a rare individual that can approach this problem while relinquishing their biases. I can't count myself among their ranks. It seems the majority of people, believers and non-believers alike, tend to come to a decision about God after about an afternoon of thinking about it, at most.

And really, what philosophical question posed to us could be more important than the question of God? It seems that every human should spend some significant amount of time deciding where they fall on this problem before they do...well...anything else.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#6

Post by TheRevoltingX » Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 2:15 PM UTC

Kinda interesting, sorta reminds me of Knuth's book on bible verses.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#7

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 2:20 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#8

Post by jgrahamc » Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 2:32 PM UTC

"Like most people, questions about the existence of God and all things spiritual plague me frequently. I want to believe in such things, especially when it comes to continuity of my consciousness. I don’t like the idea of disappearing when I die."

One way to address this is to deal with these thoughts rather than entering a philosophical rat hole of trying to simulate our existence and find an analogy to the computer. Once you accept that an outside meta-influence is possible then you don't have to worry about all this "is there a God or not?" If God exists then God has powers that make Him imperceptible; if God doesn't exist then He's imperceptible. You can't tell the difference.

Oh well.

Better to live a life of good deeds and actions then worry about what's next.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#9

Post by _THE_PLAGUE » Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

Say I live in a set, set_1, that has some property p_1. I can think about other sets, like my own, say, set_n, with similar properties for those, say, p_n. I am confined to set_1 so I can only speculate about what goes on in the other sets, if, indeed, there be any other sets. I speculate that all these sets, s, reside in some big super-set, S, with it's own p-like property, P. But this does not have to follow. I could have an infinite series of sets s, with their own unique p properties, but a super-set to which they belong does not itself have to have its own super-p property. It might, but it might not.

This is my problem with "Simulationism". It assumes such a "super P" property for the "super-set containing all universes". This property of course is time. The entire universe could be describable by a bit-string (Tegmark, et al) but that does not mean it has to "run" on anything, any more than a super-set S of s worlds each with property p has to have its own "super-property" P. I think it is a common misconception but not easy to clear up for people who don't have a technical background.

Re: How to Build a Computer Model of God

#10

Post by kristaps » Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 2:36 PM UTC

padobson wrote: post #5

What I admire most about the author is the honest search for Truth. It is a rare individual that can approach this problem while relinquishing their biases. I can't count myself among their ranks. It seems the majority of people, believers and non-believers alike, tend to come to a decision about God after about an afternoon of thinking about it, at most. And really, what philosophical question posed to us could be m…

What does it matter if the answer cannot be known? If the question cannot be answered than "spending a significant amount of time deciding" is just waste.