Science vs Science

[Creed]

I was so sick and tired of scientists talking about the impossible to prove God did not exist, so I thought, they're using fire so why can't I? This thought process was developed by me during a period of meditation and constant reasoning. My thoughts started to wander by them selfs, like someone took my hand and was showing me the truth, unimportant. I will use metaphors that you can easily understand so i can get my point across quickly, I have to write a paper tonight. Here I go.. proving God exists in 1000 words or less.

The first concept you must understand is that through freewill you have an unlimited amount of choices. Do to the amount of degrees in a circle and the number of pi, we can conclude an unlimited amount of choices we have to move our hand at any one time. To accept this one fact is to accept that you have an unlimited amount of choices. Yes your choices are limited to the ones you are aware of, but you chose to be aware of a certain selection from infinity.

Where does this go you may ask? Luckily I had some guidance..

Now the metaphor.. Your brain is like a computers hard drive in that it has a finite amount of storage capacity before it reaches full. Now to understand this you have to understand how a computer works. A computer has information.. choices.. but a finite amount of them.. and would be impossible to program infinite amount of choices into a finite object as each choice programed would require room and compile to infinity. Therefore you can say that you can not create AI, you can only simulate AI. Since we have the infinite amount of choices as expressed in step 1 we can conclude that our consciousness does not exist within our body, but rather I would suggest it exists in a form that coincides with the universe simply because there is an infinite amount of space. (Please don't argue there is an end to the universe because you could not describe it, vi save there cant be nothing outside of it.) At this point in my article it is futile to describe to you where the consciousness lies, but I can assure you I have proven it is not in your body, to contradict this reasoning is to be just as ignorant as atheists argue Christians are.

And so we approach the subject of God..
How do I know he exists? The answer is simple, a program can not write itself. -the writer must of understood infinity and could define it.

What is he? A consciousness that understands and can define infinity. If you could understand infinity within the confines of your consciousness I believe you could break reality and mold it.

What do I hope of achieving after writing this? nothing much, just really really needa start my essay so I gotta stop typing. I will leave you here, accept reason or not, the choice is now on your end of the table.

Welcome to reason.

[ENIGMA]

I'm confused....


Because you can consciously choose to move your hand, God exists?

there are a bit more steps to understanding it, but yes. I know the idea is rather tacky, but with revision and development it could work,and has worked for me. And enigma there is no formula you can write that can generate a decimal that is an infinite places out.

Care to place a wager on that?

...Nah, never mind, it's too easy to do to ask a wager on. Here, in pseudocode, the great program that can randomly generate any real number between 0 and 1:


Note:
R(x,y) means a newly randomly generated integer between x and y inclusive.
Print(Text) means print text to the page/screen
K means some constant number between 1 and 99. The higher it is, the more likely the program is to generate a longer random number.

Print("The Number Is 0.")
X = R(0,9)
P = R(0,100)
Print(X)
While((P < K) or (X=0))
{
X = R(0,9)
P = R(0,100)
Print(X)
}

..and that would be it. At no point did I say that all numbers would be equally likely to come up, but the program gives every real number between 0 and 1 (not including 0 and 1) some non-zero probability of coming up.

[Creed]

K means some constant number between 1 and 99. The higher it is, the more likely the program is to generate a longer random number.

failure, if you keep running the program there is an infinite number of ways you can obtain numbers in sequence, but this is only because of the constant idea that time is in itself infinite. your constant does not however entail infinity, it would need to be between 1 and 0/1, which is undefinable.

the only reason your program would seem to work is that each time it runs the number of decimal places can increase, but never reach infinity.

now that I think about it you might be able to extrapolate actual intelligence from a machine if we do let it chose between infinity.. but in doing so you would pursue a goal such as perpetual energy, not achievable. lol, I leave a lot of steps outa my thought process because I can't type that fast.

[byofrcs]

Once again it is the real world, an angle can exist between 3 point without a line drawn between them, such as used in GPS. The angle is there, you don't have to measure it for it to be there. I don't know how to describe it any better.

Weird coincidence that I just woke up.

Edit: you can't measure the angle perfectly, but its there, like the edge of a circle it is there where you can never truly measure its circumference. Personally now that I think about it the first human to come across the concept of God must of be extremely intelligent if he formulated it though logic, more so than anyone alive today.

Your argument from ignorance of analogue technology was fun whilst it lasted. The thing you're going to have to learn is accuracy of technology.

Using analogue technology it is easy to build something which can traverse every single angle e.g. the head on a lathe. To make something stop at a precise angle you need an encoder that converts the angle into some measurement.

So out of the infinity of possible angles we want to choose just one e.g. 77 deg. We tell our machine tool to do that. It stops at what it thinks is 77 deg around but it could be 77.001 deg or 69.991 deg depending upon the quality of the machine. With a human hand if we said stop at 77 deg around then you would end up with any amounts of guessing from 60 deg to 90 deg. Someone like Henry Royce (of Roll Royce) maybe could get that angle very accurate by hand but not all of us are perfectionists.

The first person to come across the concept of god through logic wasn't smart but probably very ignorant of the world around them.

Their ignorance of the nature of thunder and lightning, of the starts and motions of planets, of the blueprint of life, of metals and chemicals.

We call this the "God of Gaps" as it is the God that lies in our ignorance.

The next cruel fate for humanity was the segue of God into justifying the power to rule people. How could someone argue against a person who was either God on Earth (as in many emperors) or appointed by God (as with many monarchs and the divine right of kings) ?

It was only until the 20th century that we have removed that idea and the authority to rule is derived from the people.

Your ignorance is the difference between analogue and digital. An analogue machine e.g. a steam engine governor is an analogue feedback loop that regulates the speed of a steam engine and is able to adapt to an infinite number of different loads.

It doesn't contain an infinite amount of information but is simply a spinning weight that adjusts a valve. 2 x weights, 2 x levers, 1 x support post, 1 x coupler 1 x value. That is NOT an infinity of information even though the arc and movement traverses an infinity of degrees (when encoded as in a digital presentation). It isn't God. It's a simple mechanical device.

Many things in life also rely on feedback loops. They don't contain infinite information. All (in biology) of these feedback loops have evolved so they are very fit for purpose and almost look designed. It is a mistake to assume a designer though in many ways because even if there was a designer (a big if) for the genetic algorithm (GA), the actual result is not predictable as it is the design that decides the result. Even in computing you use GA techniques to find a result to a problem which though it may not be the best result, it will be a very good one given time constraints.

In addressing your OP you commented that...

I was so sick and tired of scientists talking about the impossible to prove God did not exist, so I thought, they're using fire so why can't I? ....

Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) ?. Stephen Jay Gould certainly suggests this and we must respect this view but on the other hand Dawkins (he's a scientist too) says that the question of God can be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty which is no more than what any scientist says about any theory.

You don't agree with Gould but prefer Dawkins' approach. This is fine. I don't agree with NOMA too but I'm not a scientist.

If you are sick of scientists saying it is impossible to prove God then Dawkins has a new supporter ! Welcome Creed.

The first concept you must understand is that through freewill you have an unlimited amount of choices. Do to the amount of degrees in a circle and the number of pi, we can conclude an unlimited amount of choices we have to move our hand at any one time. To accept this one fact is to accept that you have an unlimited amount of choices. Yes your choices are limited to the ones you are aware of, but you chose to be aware of a certain selection from infinity.

I can write the symbol for pi and I automatically inherit an infinity of decimal places as pi is a transcendental function. How fine a resolution I move my hand (e.g. rotate around one axis) is not dependent upon the infinite decimal presentation of pi but of the mechanical qualities of my hand. If I use a hydraulic end effector on a robot I get the same analogue effect. So a robot has the same number of infinite choices.

Now because I can't calculate pi to an infinite regression I could in fact just setup a robot to use analog sensors to feedback to where to move the hand. I thus have a closed circuit which can move through an infinite number of positions. Compare this to what machine tools do in which stepping motors are used. They have a finite number of steps.

Same as your examples.

Where does this go you may ask? Luckily I had some guidance..

Now the metaphor.. Your brain is like a computers hard drive in that it has a finite amount of storage capacity before it reaches full. Now to understand this you have to understand how a computer works. A computer has information.. choices.. but a finite amount of them.. and would be impossible to program infinite amount of choices into a finite object as each choice programed would require room and compile to infinity. Therefore you can say that you can not create AI, you can only simulate AI. Since we have the infinite amount of choices as expressed in step 1 we can conclude that our consciousness does not exist within our body, but rather I would suggest it exists in a form that coincides with the universe simply because there is an infinite amount of space. (Please don't argue there is an end to the universe because you could not describe it, vi save there cant be nothing outside of it.) At this point in my article it is futile to describe to you where the consciousness lies, but I can assure you I have proven it is not in your body, to contradict this reasoning is to be just as ignorant as atheists argue Christians are.

Wrong (I hope you're not doing CS !). As shown my simple automata robot with as much brains as a stuffed toy can be setup to traverse an infinite number of steps. It does not have an infinite amount of information to make that decision but a very simple feedback loop.

Engineering uses analog technology all the time when quantizing effects upset a system. An engine governor (e.g. steam engines) are another example. These are NOT infinitely intelligent. Visit a steam engine show. They are fun.

And so we approach the subject of God..
How do I know he exists? The answer is simple, a program can not write itself. -the writer must of understood infinity and could define it.

What is he? A consciousness that understands and can define infinity. If you could understand infinity within the confines of your consciousness I believe you could break reality and mold it.

What do I hope of achieving after writing this? nothing much, just really really needa start my essay so I gotta stop typing. I will leave you here, accept reason or not, the choice is now on your end of the table.

Welcome to reason.

I think I have clearly shown that systems can be created that can traverse an infinite number of states using quite simple technology. In the computing and biology, Genetic Algorithms effectively write their own answer which they choose from an infinitely large (in digital terms) problem space which through looking at it via brute force would take a lot of time.

The key ideas are; the God of Gaps exists only in your ignorance. You are now learning about the ideas of analog verses digital encoding. You will read up on genetic algorithms and how they are useful to solve complex problems fast without having to spend an infinite amount of time scanning and infinite problem space.

You should also not assume the whole from the parts nor assume design where there is none. Welcome to reason.

[ENIGMA]

K means some constant number between 1 and 99. The higher it is, the more likely the program is to generate a longer random number.

failure, if you keep running the program there is an infinite number of ways you can obtain numbers in sequence, but this is only because of the constant idea that time is in itself infinite.

You did not specify a time constraint.

your constant does not however entail infinity, it would need to be between 1 and 0/1, which is undefinable.

The constant is simply a percentage likelihood that the program will proceed further. It is not intended to be infinite.

the only reason your program would seem to work is that each time it runs the number of decimal places can increase, but never reach infinity.

If there is no upper limit to how many decimal places can be added, then there can be infinitely many decimal places by definition.

[Creed]

wow.. just not listening are you? Its ok takes time byonics.

please don't double team me, but I'll take you one at a time. Enigma your logic is very strong I must admit, but the chance for the decimal place to actually be infinite is impossible if you where to make a program from 3-4 your program it will never chose Pi, and has no capability to. the program would crash.

Now to byonics, you did not hear my description of an angle did you? The angle you measure will never be the actual angle, the actual angle exists because object hold coordinates in space. it matters not weather you can use an instrument to obtain the actual angle because no instrument will ever be that accurate! However your machine that can chose between infinite number of steps only exists because of time, therefor inapplicable to a single moment in time. The automatic robot arm you suggest has infinite positions is also shot down because an outside source would have to make it move, it does not independently chose what it wants to do, hence my argument of free will.

edit: how come no one ever supports an idea, only contradictions. lol, feel free to take up different sides in a debate, all ideas are welcome.

[byofrcs]

.....

Now to byonics, you did not hear my description of an angle did you? The angle you measure will never be the actual angle, the actual angle exists because object hold coordinates in space. it matters not weather you can use an instrument to obtain the actual angle because no instrument will ever be that accurate! However your machine that can chose between infinite number of steps only exists because of time, therefor inapplicable to a single moment in time. The automatic robot arm you suggest has infinite positions is also shot down because an outside source would have to make it move, it does not independently chose what it wants to do, hence my argument of free will.

.....

Did you actually read what I said ?. Please do. I said we could never read the actual angle perfectly.

My robot arm was an analog feedback loop. I could add a thermal noise random number generator to that robot arm and it could then get free will in that when it came to deciding to move the arm or not it could freely decide to not move it or move it based on if a noise spike hit the rotate command.

My robot arm with it's very simple "brain" can now have as much free-will as a human rotating their arm and then deciding (or not) to stop rotating their arm. No one can predict where it will stop and equally if I told it to stop at 77 deg, like a human it may decide to stop or not.

I'm at a loss as to what exactly you are debating here.

You've got some bizarre ideas about a transcendental number we call pi which sounds like a very bad movie (actually it *was* a very bad movie) and from that extrapolate infinite knowledge. The fact is it takes just 3 integers to store "pi" as a UNICODE string ('p','i' and null to terminate the string).

If you want I could tell you the 499,999th and 500,000th decimal place of this number *is* the answer to the live, universe and everything.

[OpenedUp]

I'm so lost...

Seems like people are arguing about technology too much. What does that have to do with us living breathing huamns. Our brian is nto a computer, it is a brain. It's very very different.

I'm so lost on your concept. Any more guidance you can give me?

[Creed]

I'm so lost...

Seems like people are arguing about technology too much. What does that have to do with us living breathing huamns. Our brian is nto a computer, it is a brain. It's very very different.

I'm so lost on your concept. Any more guidance you can give me?

yes, I'm sorry for skipping steps of my reasoning process, but I would have to write a book if I where to type them all out. Our brain has a finite amount of space for storage just like a computers hard drive, and for a computer to make a choice it has to chose between set options, assuming that you wrote a program to make it chose. Randomization programs work because they use like the first 150 numbers in Pi, but are not infinite. Hence to program the ability to chose between an infinite amount of choices you would need infinite space. Does that help?

My robot arm was an analog feedback loop. I could add a thermal noise random number generator to that robot arm and it could then get free will in that when it came to deciding to move the arm or not it could freely decide to not move it or move it based on if a noise spike hit the rotate command.

The rotation is chosen by the noise spike, not the arm itself, it has no consciousness it can only react, there in lies the difference. Your random noise generator would be based of Pi if im correct, but would not be infinite, just random, HUGE difference.

If you read all the posts so far I have overridden all contradictions, would anybody now agree with me?

[McCulloch]

One can easily create a program that, given a finite (and even pretty small) number of lines of code, can randomly generate any real number between 0 and 1 (all infinite of them). If one were to ask me to do this, and if I weren't busy with something else, I could write such a program in about 5 minutes, give or take.

One can easily create a program that, given a finite number of lines of code, can generate a pseudo-random rational number to a specified level of precision. You cannot generate any real number as mathematicians define real, computers are limited to rational numbers (actually only a subset of rational numbers). Every computer generated random number is actually a pseudo-random number, generated from a seed (often a numeric valuation of the current date|time). For true statistical randomness, you need to use a quantum event to provide the seed, however, pseudo-randomness is almost indistinguishable from true randomness.

I really don't know how this in any way helps Creed's poor demented argument, but I feel that the record should be set straight.

[Creed]

One can easily create a program that, given a finite (and even pretty small) number of lines of code, can randomly generate any real number between 0 and 1 (all infinite of them). If one were to ask me to do this, and if I weren't busy with something else, I could write such a program in about 5 minutes, give or take.

One can easily create a program that, given a finite number of lines of code, can generate a pseudo-random rational number to a specified level of precision. You cannot generate any real number as mathematicians define real, computers are limited to rational numbers (actually only a subset of rational numbers). Every computer generated random number is actually a pseudo-random number, generated from a seed (often a numeric valuation of the current date|time). For true statistical randomness, you need to use a quantum event to provide the seed, however, pseudo-randomness is almost indistinguishable from true randomness.

I really don't know how this in any way helps Creed's poor demented argument, but I feel that the record should be set straight.

<3 thanks, but yah I feel like I'm trying to show people the earth is not the center of the universe all over again, hopefully this time I don't get killed for it.