The Problem of Omnipotence

[Mr Skeptic]

A simulation that doesn't perfectly simulate it's target would indeed be an imperfect simulation. However, a simulation need not intend to simulate our own universe, in which case that would be irrelevant. There need not be an original. For example, the "game of life" simulation is a perfect simulation of the "universe" defined by the rules of that game, but not of anything that actually exists. I pick that one because it can have "living" things that can even do calculations -- it is a universal Turing machine. You could have a human exist in that universe.

[mooeypoo]

A simulation that doesn't perfectly simulate it's target would indeed be an imperfect simulation.

Only if your goal is to perfectly simulate the original.

 

If the goal is to simulate an specific aspect and allow for variables to be switched and tweaked, then 'perfect' would be different.

 

 

I agree with Sisyphus, who managed to convey the point I was trying to make in my previous post, only much more coherently.

 

The term "perfect" is meaningless unless we define it in the beginning, and then use the same definition when we compare things.

[ecoli]

Not sure if this was mentioned already, but the simulation argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[Zolar V]

Here is a thought,

Maybe we are looking at omnipotence the wrong way.

We are defining it as within laws and rules, but maybe we should be looking at something other than how it would Fit into laws and rules.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

^^ i kinda lost my thought about half way through, i hope there is enough there to get a spark.

[FreeWill]

 

 

 

On 3/2/2010 at 3:44 PM, Phi for All said:

God still doesn't seem to desire direct observation, but with omnipotence removed He is less supernatural. What if He has been working with the Laws of Everything (all interactions unified with gravity and completely understood) for billions of years (with the current universe, at least)? Is a God like this any more believable? Any less worthy?

As we do not desire direct observation from bacterias or atoms. 

S/he would be still supernatural (properties and functions incomprehensible currently for humans). Supernatural  Unnatural.

I think a physical entity, with extended physical capabilities and understanding, originating from Nature is far more believable.  Even more worthy since it would be real (part of Nature).

Supernatural ≠ unnatural

[Eric H]

On 3/2/2010 at 7:44 AM, Phi for All said:

The way I see it, if God can do anything, even perform acts that are outside the laws of the physical universe He may even have created, it destroys most chances of meaningful scientific discussion about Him.

If and only if god exists, why would he reveal himself in a way that promotes scientific discussion?

Quote

The way I see it, if God can do anything,

Can God do anything? Could there be a purpose so great, that possibly even God could do nothing greater? The following is just a simplistic collection of words to challenge the mind to think, if you choose to read further, search for something greater?

Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God looking out over the vast empty void of space and thinking, I have the power to create anything I like, what is the greatest thing I can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be a builder. God could create vegetation and be a gardener. He could create animals and be a farmer. God could create children in his own image and be a father. Could God create anything greater than children in his own image?

Could God love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself? This was before we started to label ourselves as Hindu, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Chinese, American or any other title.

Could God love us more than he loves himself? Can there be any greater good purpose to create the universe and life?

If and only if God can do nothing greater than love all of us as he loves himself, are we given the greatest commandments to do likewise? We should also love all our neighbours as we love ourselves, can we do anything greater?

Just some thoughts.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Eric H said:

If and only if God can do nothing greater than love all of us as he loves himself, are we given the greatest commandments to do likewise? We should also love all our neighbours as we love ourselves, can we do anything greater?

Do I need God, if I don't need to be told that?

Perhaps the people who taught/wrote the book didn't need god to tell them, but did need God to command you...

[FreeWill]

4 hours ago, Eric H said:

Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God looking out over the vast empty void of space and thinking, I have the power to create anything I like, what is the greatest thing I can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be a builder. God could create vegetation and be a gardener. He could create animals and be a farmer. God could create children in his own image and be a father. Could God create anything greater than children in his own image?

It is an evolution my friend from Nothing to Everything (as far as I understood). Such an omnipotent entity you describe at the beginning of Time is impossible.

The Will of Existence, the second smallest value after Nothing, the Basic Information creating and setting the functions of reality, the first information from the laws on Nature...maybe.

Note that 1D(a point of information about space and time) at t0, will be everything in proportion to nothing, even it is just the sense on nothing: empty Space(Time)= basic information. 0

Note that every upcoming moment or point of space and time would have the informational connection with that first value at t0.

God for me at t0=0 (basic information)

God for me today is: every Energy, matter, and information in space(time). 1. Nature. 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by FreeWill

[FreeWill]

On 3/3/2010 at 5:48 PM, jryan said:

 

But you aren't simulating a perfect actual universe down to the behavior of individual subatomic particles. When you do that let me know.

What is is good that it seems to be possible even we can not absolutely execute it yet.

On 3/3/2010 at 5:54 PM, mooeypoo said:

The universe is far from perfect, unless you define perfect as "whatever the behavior of the universe is

It seems to me as an absolutely balanced system from the subatomic structure until the general structure of the universe.

Yet we do not understand wherefrom Energy and Matter is originating so obviously it is difficult to recognize the exact functions the system is acting upon. 

Relativity just needs a fine tuning (apply it within mathematics?) to become absolute reality.

Edited May 26, 2019 by FreeWill

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, FreeWill said:

On 3/3/2010 at 4:48 PM, jryan said:

But you aren't simulating a perfect actual universe down to the behavior of individual subatomic particles. When you do that let me know.

What is is good that it seems to be possible even we can not absolutely execute it yet.

It's not possible, so we never can. 

 

3 hours ago, FreeWill said:

It seems to me as an absolutely balanced system from the subatomic structure until the general structure of the universe.

Yet we do not understand wherefrom Energy and Matter is originating so obviously it is difficult to recognize the exact functions the system is acting upon. 

Relativity just needs a fine tuning (apply it within mathematics?) to become absolute reality.

That doesn't make sense, can you elaborate or reiterate in a way that does, please.