ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) DELICIOUS FOOD FOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT: Particularly, just as astronomy was redefined such that mythical components were purged, the archaic God concept (a part of science in antiquity) is yet another component in archaic science, that is subject to updating; it is valid to establish that the archaic concept of God, like other archaic models in science, can be subject to scientific change, such that myths are removed: Redefinition: God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators. ONE MAY BE STILL ATHEISTIC, WHILE OBSERVING THE GOD REDEFINITION ABOVE AS VALID: Notably, one need not believe in science, as science is true regardless of belief. Crucially, one need not believe in God as scientifically redefined, and so one may still lack belief in God as redefined scientifically, while observing such a redefinition as valid. FOOTNOTE: So, humans are Gods, however not the omniscient, omnipotent mythical things typically found in religion. Highly capable gods are those humans that simulate detailed universes (i.e. illustris) while any other human with general intelligence (i.e. not brain damaged, that possess the ability to create smarter instances of themselves, through task learning, are minimally capable Gods... that is, most humans are minimally capable Gods). So, humans are Gods creating more powerful Gods, that too, shall likely create more powerful Gods, that too shall likely create more powerful Gods... Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: ONE MAY BE STILL ATHEISTIC, WHILE OBSERVING THE GOD REDEFINITION ABOVE AS VALID: You can make up any new definition you like for a word. That doesn't cancel out the existing definitions. Quote So, humans are Gods, however not the omniscient, omnipotent mythical things typically found in religion. You could discuss the potentially interesting subject of simulating universes without the pointless hyperbole.
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Strange said: You can make up any new definition you like for a word. That doesn't cancel out the existing definitions. You could discuss the potentially interesting subject of simulating universes without the pointless hyperbole. Recall that God is yet another concept in archaic science. Like other archaic models that were updated, such that myths were removed (i,e, astronomy) God concept is yet another component that may be subject to scientific change (such that myths are also removed) So, no hyperbole is necessary. Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Manticore said: Because we don't have a toilet? Why do you garner that scientific expressions should be toileted? Don't you observe science's great importance? Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Manticore Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 There is a big difference between science and meaningless gibberish.
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 33 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: Recall that God is yet another concept in archaic science. Like other archaic models that were updated, such that myths were removed (i,e, astronomy) God concept is yet another component that may be subject to scientific change (such that myths are also removed) You are not going to replace the normal definition of god (or get rid of religion) just by inventing a new and very silly definition for the word.
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Manticore said: There is a big difference between science and meaningless gibberish. What lacks meaning to you in this particular scenario? Does the fact that humans simulate our cosmos (i.e. illustris) lack meaning to you? Does the fact that God persisted in archaic science lack meaning to you? (Hint?: Even if you're atheistic, God concept still has meaning in archaic science) Does the fact that science facilitates updating of its models, (such that myths are purged etc) lack meaning to you? FOOTNOTE: What do you mean by meaning? For example, it is valid to express that life has scientific meaning (See wikipedia source). (where said meaning constitutes scientific descriptions on the origin of life, ultimate fate of the universe - heat death, etc) Why did I ask you about about meaning? Prior conversations with others, have revealed that they possess some pre-conceived notions of "meaning" that may block them from immediately clearly observing facts, like the wikipedia source underlined in the sentence above. Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan -1
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 19 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: Why do you garner that scientific expressions should be toileted? Don't you observe science's great importance? But you haven't posted any science. A silly redefinition of a word and a bit of cheap SF...
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 Just now, Strange said: You are not going to replace the normal definition of god (or get rid of religion) just by inventing a new and very silly definition for the word. Science may be silly to you, but science is greatly important.
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 Just now, ProgrammingGodJordan said: Science may be silly to you, but science is greatly important. Science is not silly. The stuff you write is very, very silly. You write like a 14 year old. Actually, with all the colours, more like a 9 year old. 1
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Strange said: Science is not silly. The stuff you write is very, very silly. You write like a 14 year old. Actually, with all the colours, more like a 9 year old. Data shows that the scientific method is not silly, and that is merely what I had employed in order to reconstitute the archaic God concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 20 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: What do you mean by "SF"? Data shows that the scientific method is not silly, and that is merely what I had employed in order to reconstitute the archaic God concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process SF = science fiction. Bizarrely, that link contradicts your claim. It says: The overall process involves: making conjectures (hypotheses) -- Did you do this? No. deriving predictions from them as logical consequences -- Did you do this? No. then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct -- Did you do this? No. All you have done is said: "Humans are attempting to simulate the universe, I will call this 'god'". That is not science. It is just applying a label to something that already exists. Also, note that current attempts to simulate the universe look only at the large scale structure (galaxies and above). Not very god-like at all. Here is my "theory": Humans are attempting to simulate an entire organism; I will call this "satan". There you are, the devil no longer exists. Science proves it!
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Strange said: SF = science fiction. Bizarrely, that link contradicts your claim. It says: The overall process involves: making conjectures (hypotheses) -- Did you do this? No. deriving predictions from them as logical consequences -- Did you do this? No. then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct -- Did you do this? No. See this url (posted/edited several minutes before your response above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method To begin, you need observe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry Quote All you have done is said: "Humans are attempting to simulate the universe, I will call this 'god'". That is not science. It is just applying a label to something that already exists. The scientific method was utilized to update the archaic God concept, in modern science terms, as is typical of science. Quote Also, note that current attempts to simulate the universe look only at the large scale structure (galaxies and above). Not very god-like at all. The redefinition is not constrained to archaic descriptions, and so omniscience, etc is purged. Quote Here is my "theory": Humans are attempting to simulate an entire organism; I will call this "satan". There you are, the devil no longer exists. Science proves it! How is your quote above relevant to the OP? Remember to see source 1, and source 2, to begin. Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan -1
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: See this url (posted/edited several minutes before your response above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method That is the same page. It shows you are bullshitting. Quote The scientific method was utilized to update the archaic God concept, in modern science terms, as is typical of science. Really? Then please state the hypothesis, then show us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, please explain what would falsify your idea. As you have not done any (and can not do) of these things, it is not science. Also, science is a lot more cautious in its approach than your arrogant posts. You will find phrases like "it appears that", "the evidence is consistent with", "more work is required" because real scientists know that their results are provisional and could be contradicted by further evidence. Quote How is your quote above relevant to the OP? It was a sarcastic caricature of your "science". It is exactly as scientific (and stupid) as your redefinition of the word "god". 1
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Strange said: That is the same page. It shows you are bullshitting. The url you quoted was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process This is the url I presented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method They are both the same page, but yours zeroes in on a particular section. Anyway, the page above describes something called scientific inquiry. Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry Quote Then please state the hypothesis, then show us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, please explain what would falsify your idea. As you have not done any (and can not do) of these things, it is not science. Also, science is a lot more cautious in its approach than your arrogant posts. You will find phrases like "it appears that", "the evidence is consistent with", "more work is required" because real scientists know that their results are provisional and could be contradicted by further evidence. I remind you to take a look at the scientific inquiry url I provided earlier. Regardless of whatever phrases are used in the god redefinition paper, the paper entails largely empirically observed sequences, together with expressions of probability. Quote It was a sarcastic caricature of your "science". It is exactly as scientific (and stupid) as your redefinition of the word "god". To begin to observe how I had come to reconstitute the archaic God concept, see the scientific inquiry url priorly presented. Of course, unlike my presentation of the archaic god re-definition, the 'caricature' you provided does not align with the scientific method. Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan -1
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, bimbo36 said: Are you nuts ? What in particular, inspires that ad hominem attack of yours above?
John Cuthber Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 2 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: Data shows that the scientific method is not silly, and that is merely what I had employed... No you didn't. Which is why what you came out with was silly. 3 hours ago, Manticore said: Because we don't have a toilet? Post of the week.
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: No you didn't. Which is why what you came out with was silly. To begin, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry Your observation of link above may then engender that you come to observe that the scientific methodology had been utilized. Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
John Cuthber Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 The concept of a God is potentially the subject of scientific study. It would be part of psychology. You do not start a scientific enquiry into something by changing the meaning of the words used to name that thing. Do you see why this statement doesn't make sense? I plan to undertake a study into the science of hot air ballooning- and by "hot air ballooning", I mean coarse fishing. 1
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 16 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: What in particular, inspires that ad hominem attack of yours above? It was a question, not an attack. I assume the hypothesis was based on empirical observation of your behaviour. 9 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: Your observation of link above may then engender that you come to observe that the scientific methodology had been utilized. It is pretty obvious that your trivial definition of "simulation" as "god" does not follow the scientific method. You could show this assumption to be wrong simply by stating the hypothesis, then showing us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, then explaining what would falsify your idea. As you refuse to do any of these things, it confirms the hypothesis that you are just making crap up.
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Posted August 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Strange said: It was a question, not an attack. I assume the hypothesis was based on empirical observation of your behaviour. It is pretty obvious that your trivial definition of "simulation" as "god" does not follow the scientific method. You could show this assumption to be wrong simply by stating the hypothesis, then showing us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, then explaining what would falsify your idea. As you refuse to do any of these things, it confirms the hypothesis that you are just making crap up. No, the re-definition expresses that humans are Gods (that simulate universes such as illustris). That our particular universe is simulated is scientifically unfounded, and the definition does not approach that matter. The definition also underlines the probability that humans shall, given sufficient time, create cognitive machines that exceed humans in all cognitive tasks. 16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: The concept of a God is potentially the subject of scientific study. It would be part of psychology. You do not start a scientific enquiry into something by changing the meaning of the words used to name that thing. Do you see why this statement doesn't make sense? I plan to undertake a study into the science of hot air ballooning- and by "hot air ballooning", I mean coarse fishing. Both hot air ballooning, and coarse fishing are evidencable, unlike the archaic God concept. 1
Recommended Posts