A proof that gOd exists

[altexis]

Now this doesn't really have to do with php but I want to use the opportunity of being able to talk to some pretty intelligent and ingenious people in these forums :)

Some years ago I had this question in my mind: how can somebody proves that God either exists or does not exist. For lots of years now I like playing around with artificial intelligence and one of the implementations I once thought of is a big system providing an artificial world and many users logged in this world with virtual reality headsets. Something like Doom, or Quake, or Unreal, or any such game. Then I let my imagination fly (as usual) and here is what I came up with:

Imagine we have an extra-ultra-super fast computer equipped with DirectX v1000.0 that projects an amazingly realistic world. Also imagine you have a baby and implant on its head a virtual reality headset. This kid will grow up in an artificial world and it will never realise that the world it leaves into is 100% artificial.

Then imagine that AI is so much progressed that the computer can create characters with the ability to take input from the artificial word, each driven by artificial "instincts" and each one has a minor or major weakness in its software making the artificial character just like a human.

My first question is how can the kid ever understand it is of different kind than the other computer characters? What makes this virtual world more virtual than the one we leave in? And if you dare to answer this... also answer on how the dream world is different than the one we consider as real?

Now lets take the human out of there... lets stay only with the artificial persons in this imaginary world. Since we could have access to the mainframe we could see what each person thinks, how he/she decides on problems and we could also watch them growing and evolving. If we don’t ever intervene in this world we will see this world slowly developing technology and eventually becoming what we are now.

Ok... here I need you to have a really wild imagination:
This world will eventually improves its technology so much that it will sooner or later develop an artificial world in its own self. Meaning that they will create computers and an artificial world inside the already artificial world.

Did you make it so far???? If you did:
If you multiply this thought by infinity you will theoretically have the human race able to create a sub-world able to create a sub-sub-world able to create a sub-sub-sub world... and so on

So the question is: how can we know we are not a sub-world of a mysterious super-world?

In my question the sub-world will leave inside a hard disk. Whatever the technology of this sub-world it will never have higher access than its hard disk, and that will make the hard disk the Cosmos of this sub-world. ... Question: is this why we can never answer the question of the Big Bang and the question of defining the term Cosmos or Universe or whatever?

In my example we would be the God of our artificial world because at any time we can just give them miracles or disasters or anything. So since there is yet no mathematical proof that a super-world does not exist ... does this sentence gives probabilities that God exists?

I though of all these many years ago, and then I got so surprised to see these ideas in Matrix and some notions of that stuff in MIB :)

Some very mysterious additions:
I once heard a physician’s opinion saying that light is created only then somebody looks at it. In terms of software engineering this would be a very interesting approach to a created world. I think Diablo (Blizzard’s game) is creating the dungeons only when you enter them.

I am very curious of your comments!!
If you people are interested in this type of discussion I have much more to add :)

[zak]

Wow

Nice thinking - are you coming at this from a philosphical point of view or an A.I. point of view? Interesting thoughts, like the one about "if you can't see something, does it still exist?"

Good post. Now my brain is fried and i must rest.:confused:

-ZaK

[MrRosary]

get a dictionary and look up solipsism.....

MrRosary

[altexis]

Originally posted by zak
Wow

Nice thinking - are you coming at this from a philosphical point of view or an A.I. point of view? Interesting thoughts, like the one about "if you can't see something, does it still exist?"

Good post. Now my brain is fried and i must rest.:confused:

-ZaK

Thanks zak
Well.. the closest science to pure intelligence is philosophy. Artificial Intelligence is lots of philosophy plus computer programming.
So I'd rather say its a philosophical point of view

Originally posted by MrRosary
get a dictionary and look up solipsism.....

MrRosary

MrRosary in what sense should I think of solipsism?

Are you saying I mentally suffer from solipsism? If I did I would never bother making these ideas public at first place.

Are you implying that these ideas just come from my mind and they too crazy to be true? If you think so, be prepared to be really surprised over the coming decades my friend.

Are you implying that I use too much of methodical doubt (as in Descartes)? Well... its all imaginary.. the point is not whether that stuff can materialize or not, but the questions they arise.

I don't mind if you accuse me of anything. In fact I am after it :)
Just reason with me here...

But the truth is that I was expecting arguments on the contents of the text. Not arguments for my sanity.

[the_Igel]

There was a movie "13th floor" (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0139809), much closer to the topic than Matrix.

But really, the problem is that the term "exists" isn't defined well enough. Something should be considered existing, only if we can detect and test its existance. Say, you're a program, and you get data from STDIN. You really can't say, whether it's keyboard, or a file, or something else. The same with these metaphysics: until we can't say what's Out There, no point for guessing.
Anyway, chances are that we aren't on a hard drive :)

[Elizabeth]

From a more philosophical viewpoint, one could say that anyone's perception is, in fact, their reality. It may not be the reality of the general public, or the reality of "scientific fact" but it is still their reality... and therefore all that matters to them as an individual being.

For instance, if you ask 3 people what happened at the scene of a crime, you will get 3 different answers. While there is only 1 true truth of what actually happened, each person has created their own version of what reality was for that moment, based on their own perceptions.

Or, if I'm the only person in the entire world that thinks that eggplant tastes good, it doesn't really matter to me what the perception of others is because I still get pleasure from eating it, and that's my reality.

So in the matter of creating a falsified universe where basically everything is computer generated, does it really matter if it really exists or not? Anyone trapped inside that universe wouldn't know the difference, right? As we don't know what else there is besides our universe, this person wouldn't either. So as far as that person is concerned, what they see is their reality, and thus it exists by default.

Take a goldfish swimming in a bowl. Do you think he really knows that there is an entire ocean somewhere where he could be free? (ok, that would be saltwater, but work with me) Maybe he can see the images of seaweed outside his bowl, but in our reality, it is just a picture taped to the glass. But he doesn't know that, he thinks it really exists. And that's all that matters to the individual being.

I think that instead of providing evidence that God does exist (check out a Grand Cayman sunset for that one). I think it would be most difficult to prove that he doesn't exist. I believe in God, and therefore he exists in my personal reality, the reality of my individual being.

OK, now that my brain is fried too- I think I need a beer! :D

-Elizabeth

[keith73]

"You'll find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"
- The ghost of Obi-wan Kenobi in Return of the Jedi.

That goes along the lines of what Elizabeth was talking about. I've also heard something like: "Your focus determines your reality" but I don't recall where I heard it.

LEt's forge about a virtual world for a second. Think about someone who is locked up in an asylum. Maybe they're there because they kept hearing voices and did strange things. To us they're crazy, to them, their reality tells them they aren't crazy. John Nash wasn't nuts, but he spoke to people who didn't exist to the rest of us, only to him. In his reality, he was working for the government and being chased by spies.

- keith

[altexis]

The_Igel
I can give a better analysis of this ‘existence’ problem you are describing if I speak this word in my language. In Greek exists is called yparcho which is ‘ypo’ and ‘archi’
Ypo means under, Archi means start or lead (as in the word architecture which could mean the leader of a tech-nology). If I wanted to describe the meaning of ‘exists’ I could say that something exists under something higher. For example a students exist in a school, or a child exists in a family.
I see that you try to approach this ‘exists’ issue by trying to categorize ideas (‘You really can't say, whether it's keyboard, or a file, or something else.’) And this is of course normal because this is the only way we can perceive ideas or objects. Right now I have really confused myself more haha.. yes you are right... but how can you express this idea that god can exist? The truth here is that we can exist in God. God cannot exist in us. Sounds like an OOP hierarchy problem... Weedpacket where are you now????

Elizabeth
First of all... when I try to explain to people what you just said they take me for a lala guy :-S So have my congratulations on the way you express yourself :):) Now this is a sort of what MrRosary accused me of... it’s one of the philosophical explanations of solipsism. But (my dear friend MrRosary) even before solipsism ever existed in your dictionary, this was one of the worst problems of philosophers. Socrates was saying that there can be an objective reality and other philosophers of his time accused him of various things (back at those times philosophy was a measure of politics). I am afraid that I haven’t read Socrate’s books yet... but my view on this is:
Any possible objective reality can consist only of bare facts. The subjective reality that each one of us holds consists of categorizations that we choose to make against categorizations other people make. For example when I see Bush in TV all I see is an idiot-killer. Some Americans (I hope not all of them) prefer to see their loving president.

But Elizabeth my point was really not there.. I was just saying that if we live in a number n and we can prove that there can be numbers n+1, n+2, n+whatever then we can also prove that there can be numbers n-1 and n-2. And if this is true then God as we try to imagine Him is just n-1

( I also believe in God :) )

keith73
There is one philosophy I remember from my school years. It says that everything I can understand is pure results of my senses. And since I cannot be 100% that my senses are always correct then the world I think I live in maybe does not exist at all. There are in fact cases of people who really believe this who finally committed suicide. I -think- (not 100% sure of that) that this is Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of Nihilism. However I do remember that the Nihilism philosophy is the one Hitler was based on to gain power in Germany and kill so many people.

[the_Igel]

altexis:
you say, that we're number N and God is number N-1? Blame on you! If we're the same as God, but only a level deeper, he isn't God.
The God isn't number N-1, but he's the recursion :)

And I agree with Elizabeth. It isn't solipsism; we're limited by our senses, and the only things we can detect may be considered proven. God's not for proving, God's for believing.

[Shadeless]

to answer to the first post.

if this isn't reality then where does this fake reality comes from?

and if this reality comes from a fake reality then where does that fake reality comes from.

Why talking bout god? why not aliens who created us, perhaps an alien race are our god(s), it could at least be an explenation why so many races, have more then 1 god.

I do believe in god, allthough i have no clue what de definition of it wil will be.

Do u actualy know if we can handle te truth? I think that if we answer ur question/theory, we will die, since our brains just can't handle it. Like you just can't handle the fact now that we are we and that we are here because we are here. No u wanna know what we are, and why we are here. I mean from that point you come to what is the point of life and many many more things.

The human will of wanting to develop/making progress, gaining power etc etc will kill us, probaly alot sooner then most think.

I mean even it is possible to answer such questions, it won't matter any.. Bin Laden will still fight his holey war in the name of his "god" and lot's of lunatics will not change there behaviour either.

I mean allah is nothing different then any other god, it's just like some1 stated earlier, just a different story about the same happening. But to certain people it is totaly different.

Just like some people believe, we are the only 1 in universe, a very shy calculation said there just would be a couple of other simmilar life forms as us. ( a million or more, dun exactly remember the exact calculate amount in that book)

Well to back that up, if we are here and alive, then why can't others be somewhere else.

Hmm i'm getting carried away.

[altexis]

the_Igel
Heyy this is one more example of how our arguments can bring to something good :)
Well to some people God is just the power that can bring them miracles or disasters. For some wiser people God is the unlimited power of unification and love. When I was describing God as a N-1 world I was referring to the first God, you refer to the second type of God. I guess this is a weakness of the language that cannot distinguish between these two different notions of what God can be.

You’re pretty write though.. I am wrong indeed. In the future I will just refer to these two versions as the super-world and God.

>> "God's not for proving, God's for believing."
There was a little kitty running around itself and trying to byte its own tale. So its father looks at it and asks it.. why are you chasing your tale? The kitty says if I catch my tale I will be happy. So his father says: Just walk forward and your tale (happiness) will always follow you.
In that example I am the little kitty. But I am only trying to catch my tail... I am trying to make an X-Ray scan on my tale find the neurological system of my tail, and finally make a brain surgery on my tail. At the end of the day I know chances are I will accomplish none of these.. but I think that searching makes you wiser one way or another.

[Shadeless]

ow yes forgot my answer to topic title,

does god exist?, well if we exist then why shouldn't a "god" exist, whatever it might be.

Be to proof it will be almost impossible. Just like u wanna proof how why some1 killed himself, while everything seemed normal.

U can guess it, or discuss it, but proof how it is will be pretty much impossible.

[Elizabeth]

Originally posted by altexis
[There was a little kitty running around itself and trying to byte its own tale. So its father looks at it and asks it.. why are you chasing your tale? The kitty says if I catch my tale I will be happy. So his father says: Just walk forward and your tale (happiness) will always follow you.

Hey, I really like that - can I use that?


but I think that searching makes you wiser one way or another.
I agree- Although I ultimately believe in the power of fate (another topic altogether :) ) I think that by questioning and searching we truly understand life in general instead of just "going through the motions" and acting like robots. My brother is an atheist and we have many philosophical/scientific discussions. I don't hope to ever convert him- it's not for me to say what he believes or doesn't believe in. But I respect that fact that at least he cares enough about his existence to question the presence of God... and the ultimate meaning of the universe.

Hey, thanks for a cool topic, btw!

-Elizabeth :)

[ratamacue]

I can prove that god exists, although I'm not religious in the traditional sense. It's really quite simple. To prove that god exists, all we need to prove is that infinity exists and is unsolveable. Relating to our current knowledge base, here is the basic outline:

1. What is the origin of the universe?

2. What is the origin of the origin of the universe?

3. What is the origin of the origin of the origin of the universe?

4. And so on.

We are looking at an infinitely recursive problem for which there cannot be an answer. No matter how far our knowledge takes us, we can never reach the root of the problem. The only solution for this problem, then, is to admit the existence of a power we cannot understand: god.

Personally, I do not believe in a god which concerns itself with human affairs, at least not in the way that most religions will have you believe. Naturally, I hope there's a heaven (it sure would be nice), but I will not go any further except to say that I just don't have an answer. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with admitting you don't have an answer. I certainly don't think god would have a problem with that. Actually, I believe that god doesn't give a damn (no pun intended) if I believe in "him" or not.

If god really does concern itself with human behavior enough to place judgement, I am confident that "his" prerequisite for gaining admittance to heaven is based entirely on the individual's ability to interact with other individuals peacefully (i.e. through voluntary association, or without initiating force). To conclude that god considers worship the path to rightousness is not only absurd, but arrogant and reeking of human-defined behavior.

[altexis]

Shadeless
don't worry I haven't forgotten you :)

*** if this isn't reality then where does this fake reality comes from?
>>> I don't know. If you read all my first post you will see that I would have to belong to a "super-world" to answer this one.

*** Why talking bout god? why not aliens who created us, perhaps an alien race are our god(s), it could at least be an explenation why so many races, have more then 1 god.
>>> And who created the aliens? If aliens created us then my question is to prove the existence of an even higher reality than the aliens' one.

*** I do believe in god, allthough i have no clue what de definition of it wil will be.
>>> My question was not the definition, but the possibility that there is something out there whatever the definition might be.

*** Do u actualy know if we can handle te truth? I think that if we answer ur question/theory, we will die, since our brains just can't handle it. Like you just can't handle the fact now that we are we and that we are here because we are here. No u wanna know what we are, and why we are here. I mean from that point you come to what is the point of life and many many more things.
>>> Well... a human brain cannot understand more than a specific number of occurrences of objects. I don't have any specifics on that but I have an example: Can you ever truly realize the magnitude of the number of galaxies and stars in the universe? No human brain can do that, but none has died so far. We just don't process it because we are not made with such capabilities. Why should be die? The worst thing that could ever happen to us is failure to perceive the truth. Regarding the "what we are" and "why we are" I again think that I will need to live in a super-world to answer it. If a file in your hard disk ever had life in it, it could never see *how* it exists. We humans who create the hard drives and also create the files in them we can understand that files are arrays of magnetized cells in metallic round disks of 3.5" radius. About "the point of life"... I have an opinion for this but it would take a totally new topic for discussion.

*** [rest of your first post]
>>> I think its off topic but its ok.. let me make my own propaganda here...
Who creates Bin Ladins???? (did you ever asked this one to yourself?)
As long as USA wishes to save Earth from unjust governments while it hearts Earth by producing 40% of the world litter
As long as 1% of the Earth's rich people live because of the poverty of the other 99%
As long as the global food production is *double* the needs of earth, while so hundreds of people die of hunger every day
As long as the citizens of the most powerful country in the world wishes to elect for a president a man with IQ of 75 (where 105 is the average)
...Bin Ladins will always be there! So look for the insane killers, sick Gods and blood thirsty aliens elsewhere.

*** does god exist?, well if we exist then why shouldn't a "god" exist, whatever it might be.
>>> Again my point was to question the existence of a possible proof on that.

*** Be to proof it will be almost impossible. Just like u wanna proof how why some1 killed himself, while everything seemed normal.
U can guess it, or discuss it, but proof how it is will be pretty much impossible.
>>> I have already stated my view on this in my first post. Why not commenting on my opinion rather than questioning if I gave an opinion?


Elizabeth
Eliza I thought it would be an interesting topic too :)
But don't say thanks.. A thanks returns the favor and closes the account.. Instead of a thanks I prefer you to return more ideas :)

Hey, I really like that - can I use that?
Well.. its not mine. But if you want to feel no obligation towards me then lets discuss it... would you prefer VISA, MasterCard or AMEX? I also have a discounted option with Diners??? :D:D:D

[altexis]

cool this is getting hot :)

ratamacue
prove that god exists, all we need to prove is that infinity exists and is unsolveable.
Hey I never thought it could be so simple. Yes I agree with you :)
(Note: I am a mathematician so I can understand you quite easily. People with no mathematics background wouldn't even compute your sentence)

But this is just posing another question. It doesn't give an answer.

Now let me give you another mathematical view on this...
I cannot answer what is the origin, or the origin of the origin, or so on...
but I think I can answer where the first origin is!!

When I first thought of all this fantasized example, I then wondered what the possible uses could be.
One possible use that is already in our minds is cyber sex.
Now... as people might think otherwise, I think that cyber sex could be a very very important use. It would save us from many sexual-oriented psychological traumas. And if you have read Sigmund Freud these can be quite a lot.
But apart from that... one other very cool usage could be virtual wars (I have seen this in X-Files). I consider it also quite useful since there is little barbarian inside every living man :):):) (I guess women are out of this one)
Then we could also use cyber worlds for simulation! For example I have a friend who believes in Anarchism. I think that our arguments over anarchism could end pretty easily if we could just set a virtual world full of anarchists and let them live, and see how their lives will evolve.

Ok let me now get to the juice :)
One really meaningful application of such virtual sub-worlds could work as schools for humen. Say you are a man who cannot control your anger. Somebody puts you in a cyber world for a month and gives you anger, lots anger, so eventually you come to realize that anger doesn't get you anywhere.
Say you like hurting people. They put you inside a virtual world and force you to live amongst suffering people. You see their suffer from first hand, so eventually you realize that hurting people is not good.
Say you treat others very harsh and insensitively. They wear you the eyes of a very sensitive person to see how it really feels.

What do you think about this??
When I thought of this I later found that it was not MY idea. This is actually the view of Hinduism. Hindus believe that humen live many lives until they eventually fight their every ethical-problems and finally be equal to God. They believe that this world is a big school where every human is here to learn a lesson. This lesson is the special meaning of life for every distinct human and I think they call it "darma".

I think this application kicks asses. It could turn humanity to a paradise. (and for this reason I give it almost 0 chances it will ever happen)

So if you agree with all these... then if people did not have any sexual traumas, or barbarian instincts, or curiosity for simulation... then sub-worlds would be totally unnecessary.
So the first world who initiates sub-worlds is most likely to suffer from human-like problems.
So if there is a super-world... we are even more inferior than we think.
Pretty sad isn't it?

----
Do you agree with me so far????
If you do then I think you are ALL wrong hahahaha

Although my reasoning doesn't seem wrong I just cannot believe the truth can be so sad.
I once tried to understand why the well known jewish God would create the world? Did you ever hear any priest explain you why God made the world???
Is there an answer on this question?
I have one answer, but don't know if it can be true. Maybe God just wanted to play. After all playing is the very first thing that intelligent organisms wish to do. Babies like playing, kitties like playing... every animal does the same :)

Well... i am really confused myself. And thats why I want to share my questions with you.
The only definite thing from everything I said is if we are willing to create sub-words for cyber-sex, cyber-fighting and so on... this is a proof that we are not the top world. So there must be at least one super-world.

-----
A few more things I remembered:
In the christian religion Jesus was often saying: "Don't be blind. Open your eyes to the world of God." ... and rumors say that He used to say much more on this... but the christianity cops don't allow us to know other than what is written in the Holy Bible.
In ancient Greece Plato's opinion was that humen live in a shadow world and the real world (the world of "ideas" as he called it) is somewhere else. He used to say that humen live in this world imprisoned in humen bodies.

------
btw... what does "ratamacue" means??

[the_Igel]

First of all, the problem of the universe having no beginning was solved far ago. The universe is known to be a closed manifold in 5 dimensions, including real and imaginary time. So the universe has no beginning, but it also doesn't exist for infinite time: it just go in rounds.

Don't ask me what does it mean: I don't understand it. But it's one of the universe models existing.

And second, infinity by itself doesn't imply God. Is the natural row (1, 2, 3, 4, 5...) a supernatural being? :)

[Shadeless]

Altexis, i do can understand this about the universe(galexies and ****) that i won't even bother to try to understand how big it is. Because it's not possible, did u never heard of people who where so smart and gained so much knowledge that they went crazy? I did hear alot about it.. and to the sound of this discussion it's alrdy starting with some of us to ;) (that is a joke)

well the row 1-2-3-4-5 will exist longer then i will exist :)

But ok if god exsists, then it isn't here anymore, if god would be human like, it would wanted to control us. It would want us to threath him as a god. It would want to show his power, and more importantly it would want us to know that he was the òne with that power.

The problem is that we try to think of a solution with the knowledge we know. What i somehow tried to tell in my earlier post( didn't succeed in it it, i'm a lousy in that :D) is that we might have to look at it different way. The most freaky ones might be the closest :), what is maths? maths has been invented by humans fight? who say's it implies outside this human world/universe?

IF god exists, then who created god? a greater god? then what we think is god isn't god but just a sub god.

What if our world and universe is what has been said befor on a "harddrive" we also could be a cell of something.

I'm afraid this is 1 thing we cannot answer, because every answer would ask another question.

[Norman Graham]

Dear Altexis

We already have virtual worlds in which people can express anger, hate, insensitivity, cruelty, bloodlust and a whole series of unpleasant human emotions. Just go to your nearest net café and watch those 16-year-olds blowing people's limbs off and cackling at their 'success'. Unfortunately, what happens with people who cannot separate these virtual worlds from the real world is that they come into my children's school with a real gun and cover the walls in blood.

There is no evidence whatsoever that living out your worst fantasies in a virtual world make you better in the real world, indeed quite the opposite. Paedophiles who have managed to control their urges state without exception that child pornography leads them to molest children. It fires their desire to merge the virtual world with their real world. I don't know why this should be surprising to anyone.

Altexis, my friend, buy a newspaper, listen to the radio, watch the TV news - we already live in a world full of real suffering and real racism and real torture and real hunger. Now, on the eve of a war in which the rich nations of the world are going to bomb, shoot, torture and maim some of the poorest people in the world, increasing the suffering they have already endured through years of extreme deprivation as a result of trade embargos, the last thing I need is a virtual world in which I can kill people, in which I can have sex with a computer programme, in which I can live out my anger. We need real anger and real love. The psychological traumas of love and sex are an integral part of love and sex, without which there can be no love.

Go and ask the people in Mosul and Basra, or in Novi Sad and Mostar how you can tell the difference between the virtual and the real. I already know their answer - the virtual is where the rich live, the real is what the poor experience. And what about God, does he/she/it exist? But of course - once your children's hands, legs and genitals have been blown off and your husband has been tortured to death while you were forced to watch and your wife has been brutally raped by a gang of soldiers such that whe will never have sex or children again, then what's left except belief in God ... some God, any God, for God's sake!

I wish you all a lot of real love in your lives

Norman

[altexis]

Shadeless learn some mathematics first, then talk about mathematics

The only reason mathematics is one of the few sciences almost equal to philosophy is that it contains things that are beyond humans.
Read some Plato's and Archimedes's philosophy to understand what I am talking about...
Plato supported many thousand years before us that there is a world where the perfect circle exists, where the absolute straight line exists. He called this world, the world of ideas. In the nature of our world noone up to now has ever found a completely straight line or a perfect circle. I suppose you think I am now talking about stupidities and I make myself a joke (as you said earlier). If you think so then you are the stupid. In fact this whole sentence was the essence of one of the break-throughs of Einsteins's theories - Einstein was one of the first who suggested that since the notion of the straight line cannot exist in our universe, then we should approach our reality in a different perspective, and thats how he reached the theory of relativity. The time and maze that are relative to the speed of light are based on the fact that linear mathematics can "bend".
Shadeless I want you to comment me, but please do it after lots of thinking.

So the_Igel since the infinite sequence 1,2,3,4,5,n represents something beyond our human reach, maybe its not a supernatural being itself but it probably represents one.

Shadeless for the rest of your comments, read carefully my posts. I see that you just repeat me.

Also, "I'm afraid this is 1 thing we cannot answer, because every answer would ask another question."
I have already given you some ideas that don't raise new questions. Why don't you try to comment on them instead?

Also.. Shadeless how old are you?

[the_Igel]

Norman: the imperfectness of our world doesn't mean anything about virtuality. We are cruel in our games because we're cruel in reality, not vice versa. And you erote it yourself.

Altexis: we know how to handle infinity, but it's impossible to handle the God. Infinity by itself doesn't change much, as it can be easily described with some finite attributes.

God should be considered as Great Randomizer, not as Great Theorem: he may not be proved with logic. And if he may, he isn't really God.

[Shadeless]

u say i call say i don't read ur posts well enough and that i call you a joke??

maybe u should read my posts a bit better to.

i have nothing to add, u are talking about something that cannot be explained by existing knowledge, yet u only try to explain it with existing theory's and knowledge.

so i think it will be pointless, for me to add anything anymore, as u just stated between ur lines, i'm just to stupid for that.

[altexis]

Norman thank you for your post.

I am no expert in the fields I am discussing, so you are most probably 100% right. Maybe these virtual worlds can add more bad than good.
But I have one more objection on this. In Greece in the afternoon hours we have some TV shows of any stupid thing you can imagine. Some shows seem to be so interested in what some celebrities wore or what they said, or if they smiled or not, or so many idiotic things. There are also some other TV shows that practically speak about the same facts but they comment on them using psychologists, or other professional analysts. Its amazing how different the quality of these two types of shows can be. Maybe this exact type of problem exists with the Game industry. Maybe after a kid has played some of these kill-them-up games it needs an advice from its parent, or a feedback by a professional pedagogist. Maybe if these Paedophilians had a psychological support after making their ways to the pornography sites had a different attitude. I have never heard of psychologists or at least professional pedagogists debriefing a child just after it played a kill-them-up type of game.
I know that this kind of psychological support is practically a utopia. But what if it could be real?

But you are moving my ideas one step forward. I guess that if a human one day understands that he doesn't need any of the stuff I am describing, then this human can be certain that he is wise. After all my ideas are proofs that a world using them is a lesser world. Therefore I somehow need to believe that there exists some other place more cheerful and happy than ours.

[altexis]

Shadeless
for once more... read carefully my posts
I said "If you think so then you are the stupid."
I used the if as in computers, so that YOU can decide which side you are on. If YOU think you are stupid then thats what you probably are.

<<PageFeed>>

Originally posted by the_Igel
Altexis: we know how to handle infinity, but it's impossible to handle the God. Infinity by itself doesn't change much, as it can be easily described with some finite attributes.

wow :) I liked that :)
But I still don't think we can trully handle infinity.

God should be considered as Great Randomizer, not as Great Theorem: he may not be proved with logic. And if he may, he isn't really God.
Hhhmmm.... I wouldn't call it "Randomize", I would prefer to call it "Chaotic". Chaos is the effect of having one small event driving to bigger event, driving to an even bigger event, driving to who-knows-what

Another Greek philosopher said that Humen's reason of existance is to put an order the chaos of the universe. (In fact he is the same guy who said what I use for a signature. He said I fear nothing, I hope nothing, I am free)

[altexis]

Originally posted by the_Igel
Altexis: we know how to handle infinity, but it's impossible to handle the God. Infinity by itself doesn't change much, as it can be easily described with some finite attributes.

I just figured out an answer on this. My answer is inspired by programming which is close to all of us. You can make a program that processes RAM with just a few variables. RAM or a hard disk can theoretically supply infinent data, but your means is just a little program and your few variables. But even in this example the quantity of RAM or hard drive is limited as it has be counted by 32bit variables. For example you cannot have a file larger than 2,147,483,647 bytes. Even in the future 64bit computers the files will be limited to a certain size. Even in 1000 years when computers will have files able to reach Giga-bytes or Tera-bytes or Peta-bytes or whatever there will always be a limit.

So in computers although we say to users that a program can use infinent memory (and some programmes actually believe it), we are really confined in a 32bit world.

The same principle exists for other sciences where we have the false belief that we master infinity.

[Norman Graham]

Originally posted by the_Igel
Norman: the imperfectness of our world doesn't mean anything about virtuality. We are cruel in our games because we're cruel in reality, not vice versa. And you erote it yourself.


Wel, exactly, which is why Altexis' suggestion that virtual reality could be used to cure undesirable behaviour in the real world is completely wrong-headed. I should have used the quote function earlier.

I get furious at suggestions that our reality may in fact be virtual. This is just an attempt to dissipate the ugly reality of what we do to each other. Whether we are creatures of free will or are in fact acting out the fantasies of other beings, e.g. a god or several gods, is irrelevant. We keep doing exactly the same over and over again down the millennia and we should be paying attention to what we do rather than postulating a virtual reality over which we have no control.

Norman

[the_Igel]

2Norman &amp; everybody: we have no control over the reality, whether it's real or virtual. We just have to control ourselves, both in real world and virtual (say, multiplayer games). As I do good and don't do bad, does it really matter, is the universe made of atoms or bits?..

2Altexis: no. We aren't limited with those bits. It's just technology. Say, usually arithmetic in programming are limited with 32- or 64-bit integers (due to technological constraints), but one can write a module for handling really ANY big numbers. The same way files can be of any size, etc. You mix technology with philosophy. Of course, we can't phisically work with somwthing infinite, as any object is finite. But in our mind we can, as we're not limited with 32bits.

[Elizabeth]

Geez, I leave the board for one day and look what I missed! :)

Has anyone ever thought of things from a biological viewpoint? That maybe we are but tiny cells of a bigger "being" (God, if you will) and that we all have a "job" (i.e., white blood cells keep away infection) to do while we are alive in order to keep the entire being alive? And perhaps the planets and the stars and such are but "organs" in this being.. everything working together to keep the being alive. The Bible tells us we were created in God's image... wouldn't that make sense?

If you've never read or seen the book entitled "The Powers of 10" I HIGHLY recommend it... then perhaps you might consider the aforementioned idea not so crazy :)

Just another $.02

-Elizabeth

[altexis]

eeermmm... I guess I am too drunk to answer any of you right now... but Eliza... is it a woman? a man? gay? Its probably a gay... because life (how to explain this politely?) uses us pretty harsh from everywhere it finds us vulnerable

[brianN]

While there is a topic on this. Has anyone noticed that in a atom electrons orbit the nucleus, in a molecule, atoms orbit a larger atom, with the planet, the moon and satelites orbit the planet, in the solar system, planets orbit the sun, in a galaxy, solar systems orbit a black hole. and so on... Does the pattern ever stop?

[the_Igel]

Oh yeah, Brian, I think it has been noticed by a huge number of people...

[altexis]

Originally posted by Norman Graham
I get furious at suggestions that our reality may in fact be virtual. This is just an attempt to dissipate the ugly reality of what we do to each other.
Norman first of all.. my suggestions for therapy applications using virtual worlds is a resulting idea of my very first post. I don't think I would ever try to dissipate any ugliness. I am aware of it and I have already adjusted myself in living with it. But its just one suggestion amongst others. I have also mentioned a simulation type of applications and maybe other people can add more suggestions that I haven't though of. Also, since I see that you are a pretty intelligent person, I would like you to comment on the therapies with the guidance of professional psychologists.

I notice in your posts that you feel very insecure about this whole idea. Can you please break down and analyse your fears more? I sense that there are more interesting issues to bring up here.

However, whatever people's fears exist in this topic, the juice is not in the ideas themselves, but in the game of proving them or disproving them. I find much excitement in our arguments just because we bring up ideas, so lets play more Norman :)

<<PageFeed>>

Originally posted by the_Igel
...but one can write a module for handling really ANY big numbers...
...But in our mind we can, as we're not limited with 32bits...

Nop!... Philosophy at this point says that we are pretty tied up to a finite world since we have to understand/perceive infinity with finite means. Its a pity I don't remember who is the guy first mentioned that :-S
After all this is what the notion of "limit" is all about. At least the notion of "limit" in mathematics.
The variables that computers use will always be of a specific size. The only exception might be quantum computers - the ones who are said to work over infinite parallel universes; but this is still very far from us.

As for the our minds that are not limited to 32bits... wow... there are so many issues I can argue with you for this one :):)
I'll show you one simple argument for this... Computer monitors have a resolution adjustment. You break down the screen in pixels. The same with digital cameras.
Now the opposite side: The old good classic cameras use a tape to record the image and store the image they see in an analogical form (not a digital one). The human eye also perceives the image in a sort of an analogical form.
My argument is that both the classic cameras and the human eye DO perceive images in digital form. In the case of cameras the image is stored in a tape but the tape can be analysed in molecules. The human eye can be analysed in biological cells. Of course in the case of the human eye the image is stored as a record of abstract categorizations in the logic departments of the brain.
So one way or another we always use a finite way to perceive.

<<PageFeed>>

Originally posted by Elizabeth
...then perhaps you might consider the aforementioned idea not so crazy

Hey... isn't all this topic crazy? how can we get stuck in this one? :D
Seriously... I think we can never know. For me there is a possibility for EVERYTHING.
And even if what you mention is true, this topic would again be relevant for the universe of that living organism.

<<PageFeed>>

Originally posted by brianN
Has anyone noticed that in a atom electrons orbit the nucleus, in a molecule, atoms orbit a larger atom, with the planet, the moon and satelites orbit the planet, in the solar system, planets orbit the sun, in a galaxy, solar systems orbit a black hole. and so on...
The guy who invented Quantum Mechanics not only noticed it, but it has proven that its false. For all I know he said that the orbits of electrons are closer to a perfect circle whereas the orbits of planets in a solar system are -always- in elliptic orbits, so this resemblance cannot have a scientific importance. I think this guy is called Ratherford or something like this.
Nevertheless, I am also thrilled by such resemblances but if you go deeper on this you can find that there is some logic. Spheres are the most energy efficient shapes in our universe. So either in microcosm or macrocosm you would have much chance seeing little spheres playing around.

[Norman Graham]

I think you should have a look at what the_igel is saying, Altexis. S/he made two pertinent points, one is that the virtual worlds we are capable of creating merely reflect the limitations of our own worlds. The second is that the human brain isn't capable of comprehending infinity. Infinity actually just means something so large we can't compute the implications.

As for professional psychologists, I doubt you'll find one that suggests the use of virtual worlds to alter behaviour in the real world.

I'm not afraid of these ideas, Altexis, I just find most of them reiterating Cartesian inquiry, for which there is no solution. The whole point of Cartesian suspension of belief was to break down the casual acceptance of continued human existence and address the function of the senses. I don't care whether I'm looking at the goldfish or the goldfish is looking at me. It can't be proven either way, and you can't prove the existence or not of any god either. We find deities in ourselves or choose not to. I choose not to, which is partially an emotional decision and partially based on what I choose to see in the world.

I state once again - the attempt to consider our perceived reality as possibly being merely a chimera over which we have no control is a worthwhile exercise in analysing our pereceptions. However, large numbers of people also see it as a means of justifying apathy, or even worse, rampant egoism. If everything is an illusion, then our actions are irrelevant. We cannot afford the luxury of thinking like this and the majority of the world's population doesn't have that luxury.

Good night

Norman

[altexis]

Well Norman I took my time to give some wider and deeper thinking about all this thread.

About the "human brain isn't capable of comprehending infinity", -I- said that as an answer to Shadeless. And of course it cannot comprehend infinity. The_Igel said that although we cannot comprehend infinity we can "describe it with some finite attributes"

At this point after some deeper thinking, I found that I actually contradict my own self on one issue. I argue with the_Igel on that we will never be able to describe the whole universe because even if the "finite attributes" can allow us to describe big fields of what the universe is, we will never describe the full universe because we will always be confined to finite attributes (there is more reasoning on this in my previous posts). So in my argument with the_Igel I have the pessimistic side and s/he has the optimistic one. The paradox is that in my argument with you I have the optimistic side and you the pessimistic.

But I don’t value our argument because of this:
Virtual worlds already exist. For example games that you go kill everybody, but nevertheless the computer is providing you a virtual reality of enemies who think before they act. Another more freaking realistically example is how meteorologists simulate the movements of the air, humidity, thunders and clouds. They do it so well that they can forecast weather conditions for two days. This is extraordinary if you consider the levels of chaos in the atmosphere. So if our already existing virtual worlds ever get the full artificial intelligence background they need to simulate human brains then my proof there! If we have a sub-world then a super-world is theoretically possible. I am not saying in any sense that one day we will become our Gods. In my viewpoint this can only be done if one day we just wake up and see that we were playing in just another virtual world (btw.. this is what all big religions say one way or another).

I myself am into AI. I see it coming my friend. One day (probably not far from now) all this will come to reality.

"If everything is an illusion, then our actions are irrelevant."
I am supporting the idea that we probably are in an illusion, but I don’t see the connection to the part that our actions are irrelevant. Example: When I teach someone how to make programs I make him/her work with simple programs, then with more complicated. At each stage of his/her progress I know what problems and bugs s/he will face because I have been there, I have much experience but still I let him/her get into the problems. I want them to face the reality for the day they will be on their own. While they train they think they have a free will. But they eventually face bugs that I knew they would face from the very beginning. So during their training route they think they think freely, but the truth is that they are cursed to make beginners mistakes. As these trainees grow up in programming wisdom they develop a greater idea of what their true limitations are. When they eventually become mature programmers then they DO have free will. Now this was just an example in a field that we both have expertise; you can use the moral of this example to life itself. My personal belief is our actions are irrelevant only as long as we are stupid (or unwise). And that is how I excuse myself for going on and on and keep reasoning about what life is.

I'm not afraid of these ideas, Altexis,
Now at this point I have to say that I respect you, so don’t take this as an offence at all. I say you are afraid! Back a few posts you said: I get furious at suggestions that our reality may in fact be virtual.
I believe that behind all bad emotions (such as being furious) there is some hidden fear. I believe that the only emotions that don’t require fear are disappointment and apathy. Now that is just a personal belief.. I may well be wrong on this.

As for professional psychologists, I doubt you'll find one that suggests the use of virtual worlds to alter behaviour in the real world.
Hhmm.. back a few posts you also said: There is no evidence whatsoever that living out your worst fantasies in a virtual world make you better in the real world, indeed quite the opposite
Do you have any specifics on that? I would be very much interested to see them. I am asking you because I remembered that I have an example that actually opposes you.
A few years ago I used to take Shotokan Budo Karate lessons. I did that for many years (and now as I write this I think I will start them again). As you probably know karate is a lethal knowledge. It teaches you how to kill in a few msec. In the beginning the nature of karate is all about hurting. As I moved deeper into it over the years I found that the breathing techniques and body control make you feel so relaxed and this whole thing actually turns to meditation instead of a killing technique. The argument is this: Karate is indeed one of the deadliest things you can ever learn. I assure you that all my colleagues were the calmest and most peaceful people you could ever find!! All these people take their bad urges out and they are left with calmness. I don’t have a way to prove this but try to meet with a karateka of a black belt level or higher.

..something out of this discussion. Although I don’t agree with you I find the way you express yourself quite mature and joyful.. what is your background for all these issues? I guess since you visit these forums you are a programmer, but are you also close to psychology or philosophy?

Now back to my argument with the_Igel..
The_Igel you said in your first posts:
you say, that we're number N and God is number N-1? Blame on you! If we're the same as God, but only a level deeper, he isn't God.
The God isn't number N-1, but he's the recursion
You made me realise that there are two distinct versions of God. One is the version of the God that can makes miracles of bring disasters. For all my example this is just the N-1 world. But there is another version of what we mean by God; it’s what we mean by the ideas of infinity, love, chaos or ‘recursion’ as you said..
In the virtual worlds we can create we can make miracles and throw disasters, but we can never reach infinity itself.
So I guess that even if we are controlled by an N-1 world there is an N-2, N-3 and so on until one N-$x which interpolates with the abstract notions of infinity AND love AND chaos AND your recursion, and that’s what God really is :)
Does this sentence officially count as a definition of God? hehe

(gosh its 4am here!!)

[dalecosp]

Originally posted by the_Igel
First of all, the problem of the universe having no beginning was solved far ago. The universe is known to be a closed manifold in 5 dimensions, including real and imaginary time. So the universe has no beginning, but it also doesn't exist for infinite time: it just go in rounds.

Don't ask me what does it mean: I don't understand it. But it's one of the universe models existing.

And it's not the generally accepted one. Some type of "hot big bang" model is the only one still undefeated by years of testing. So, in this case, the question is, 'who started the bang'?

Most cosmologists would still place our physical universe in 4 dimensions. With supercomputers, mathematicians have developed representations of n-dimensional universes, and found out interesting stuff like how you can fit a bunch of spheres in a very small space. Some philosophers would object to a mere 4 dimensions, but it worked for Einstein.

Much more recently (1994) Whitten and Seiberg gave us string theory, and now we have a few years of success in testing supersymmetry. We have observed partial force unification; discovered both fermions and bosons, reconciled quantum mechanics and gravity, solved the black-hole entropy-information problem, confirmed the predicted spin rate of black holes, and found that it all still fits within the framework of general relativity. Ten dimensions! Wow! No wonder God is God. In addition to just being Himself, He can also move in at least 6 more dimensions than we can...I don't pretend to have Him totally figured out, but these discoveries might explain a little about God to our inquiring minds.....

[tshafer]

just to let y'all know, I'm 16 & taking calculus & I'm loving this topic! :D