Is the existence of an illogical God logical?

[long winded fool]

What if I were to write a computer program full of digital people living digital lives in a digital universe? Let's say these people assumed that because their universe seemed to operate in perfect order, (thanks to my skills as a programmer) that everything was put there magically by something they referred to as God. They thought that an invisible entity inside the program created everything on a whim especially for them, and that he could make or destory anything he wished whenever he wished. As this digital culture advanced, scientists began to percieve exactly why things occured the way they did, when they did. There was no invisible magic king who tossed the sun through the sky. Why the sky was blue and the grass was green became explainable without the need for an all-powerful deity. The scientists started discovering the syntax behind the physical things and started to decipher the language used to code all the operations of their universe. They called it mathematics. Using this abstract language, they began to perform "miracles" by using the program's syntax to get desired results. They discovered how to split the atom and how to clone life forms. They discovered that even what used to be considered "miraculous" things were really just simple if-then statements operating in an understandable framework which variables tended to encounter less often than others. A digital scientist named Albert uncovered an important function in the program which showed that mass and energy are equivalent. This paved the way into the mastery of the programming language and the utter proof that the invisible God did not exist. The religion that still clung to the idea of a benevolent God which created the universe became a haven for the mathematically challenged.

A digital scientist named Carl pointed out that, because the program itself determines what can and can't exist, everything in existence must be subject to the end result of the program. Existence itself is dependent on a thing meeting criteria defined in the syntax, therefore nothing could possibly exist outside of the program. God doesn't meet the criteria needed for existence, (confinement to 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, and making logical sense for there to be a God), so He doesn't exist. "The program is all there is." A clever philosopher showed that the very commands encoded into the fabric of the universe themselves don't meet the accepted criteria for existence either. But the even more clever scientists pointed out that the actual if-then statements of the program are absolved from the laws they together form. Laws are not subject to themselves. Mathematics exists because it is the language of the program and is not subject to the laws which it creates. Since the laws can't exist without mathematics, then mathematics must be present before the laws take effect. This proved even more that the scientists were on the right path to understanding the universe in studying physics and mathematics. They proved that nothing that could crash the program could ever come about under the laws of the program. (I'm a really good programmer ;) Thus, nothing non-existent has ever, or will ever exist. Therefore, the digital scientists logically concluded, by the very inarguable laws that had kept the program running for at least 15 billion digital years, that nothing outside of the program could ever exist, and since God must exist outside of laws that prohibit existence outside the program, he can't possibly exist.

These digital scientists came to a logical conclusion that they lived in a programmerless program. But if the rules of the program also state that all programs have a programmer, then, even though they are incapable of thinking outside the program, this still must become illogical. I do exist and I did write the program. The rules state two opposing things. Nothing can exist outside of the program in which digital people live, yet all programs have a programmer.

I know I haven't proven that the universe is a program, although it operates exactly like one, so please just look at my hypothetical story for the moment. Either I have a glaring fallacy in my example, or we must admit that, in this case, it is logical for there to be an illogical programmer in the minds of these digital people. It is logical for them to believe in a programmer who doesn't meet the criteria for exisence in this example, isn't it? Even if they don't this doesn't make me, the programmer, not exist. My program is proof that I do. Even though logic in the minds of the people cannot, by definition, exist outside the program, in this case it defies itself and does. Does this make sense or have I made an error?

I say again, before you stamp your foot and say that the real universe is not a program, first see if you can refute my purely hypothetical example.

[tronvillain]

I see two paragraphs, and two problems:

1) Science does not disprove the existence of God, it simply eliminates gaps in human understanding which "God" was previously invoked to explain.

2) It is possible that the universe is all that is, but it is not certain unless one uses an unreasonably wide definition of "universe." Nothing in your second paragraph seems to justify the conclusion "that nothing outside of the program could ever exist."

Now, I agree that the logical conclusion for them to come to is probabably going to be that there is no programmer, simply because of the lack of evidence. So what? There is nothing illogical or paradoxical about being misled by the available evidence. We may be in the same situation, but then again, we may not - all we have to go on is the evidence available to us.

[Jobar]

Simple. The programmer is the program.

-Jobar, short-winded fool. :)

[Llyricist]

jobar,

Pantheist!!!!!!! ;)

one question:
are you a sauce pantheist??
a frying pantheist??
a Peter Pantheist??
a marzipantheist??
or a brain pantheist??

[long winded fool]

I would have to agree with both of the problems presented. I suppose I was using an unreasonably wide definition of universe, since I was using the widest definition I could imagine. I should have switched "universe" with "space-time continuum." Truly nothing can exist outside of the space-time continuum, since the word exist itself depends upon both space and time. Indeed, the phrase 'outside the space-time continuum' is meaningless, which seems, at least to me, to prove that God can't be there. This would make the space-time continuum (Sagan said cosmos) truly all there is.

I like your definition of the purpose of science. You're absolutely right in saying that science doesn't disprove God, but hard logic does seem to. At least the traditional idea of divinity. Free will and predestination can't logically coexist, but must for an omniscient creator who claims to have given his creation free choice. Nothing can logically be outside the space-time continuum. Yet all programs must logically have a programmer, so if the space-time continuum could be thought as a program, it must have a creator, and the creator must be outside of it. And it seems that the space-time continuum executes itself much like a program with paradoxes being impossible and non-occurring (so far as we know) and laws being coded in mathematics and unquestioningly followed by all matter, which are the variables in the program. An understanding of mathematics and universal laws is equivalent to understanding the language of the program and the rules it follows. Just like one who completely understands a particular programming language could predict what will happen before the program is run, one who completely understands physics and mathematics could theoretically predict the outcome of any given event before it occurs. Scientists do this all the time, that's why I'm getting ready to go watch the Leonid meteor shower.

So all programs must have a programmer, and nothing can exist outside of that which determines existence. This seems to bring us back to the old theist argument that all effects must have causes and the universe is an effect, therefore it must have a cause. And I think I have shown that it's only logical for a program to have a programmer, but the programmer himself doesn't necessarily need to have a programmer. Though it is illogical for it to work that way to those in the program, logically it must follow. They aren't really being misled by available evidence, since it is only logical that there must be a programmer for every program. They have encountered a contradiction in seemingly sound logic. Nothing for them can ever exist outside of the program, since existence itself is dependent on the program, yet the programmer logically must. They have two available choices that are both absolutely right and both absolutely wrong at the same time! Where is the middle ground here, assuming that existence for them is dependent on the program? Where is the third choice? The programmer can't exist, yet must at the same time. It may help if we put ourselves into the program. Whatever the programmer is, it is not existence as we can know it. Being dependent on the program for every single piece of information we'll ever learn, we must logically conclude that the programmer responsible for the program is unfathomable... and doesn't exist at the same time. To say that a programmer exists implies that he (or it) is present in the program and subject to its laws and its if-then statements as all things which exist are, OR, like the short winded fool reminds us, :) that he exists as the very syntax of the program. And since neither of these seems to coincide with the nature of a programmer, there must not be one. Either they are in a programmerless program, or they were programmed by someone who can't possibly have ever existed. What other choice could logically be available?

To bring it to our own universe: Has mathematical law always just been "there" as a program with no programmer, or was it instituted by something non-mathematical and therefore non-existent?

[Silent Acorns]

Of course, it is always possible that some intelligent being who exists outside of our confines created this place we call 'The Universe'. But I see two additional problems.

1) The obvious: who programmed the programmer?

2) Even if a programmer exists, there is nothing to suggest that the programmer either wants, or deserves to be worshipped.

[xeren]

[quote]Originally posted by Llyricist:
<strong>jobar,

Pantheist!!!!!!! ;)

one question:

a marzipantheist??

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I love HomeStarRunner!

<a href="http://www.homestarrunner.com/firsttime.html" target="_blank">Homestarrunner.neeeeeettttt....I mean, dot coooooommmmmm</a>

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]</p>

[xeren]

oops double post

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]</p>

[Jamie_L]

The program example works as an analogy to God and the universe if that god is a true Deist god: one who set up the universe and never touched it again. This is not the god of most religions, and in the example, and program-people would be rightly thought delusional if they claimed you were re-programming things on the fly when, in fact, you were not. Furthermore, the program people have no way whatsoever to gain knowledge about you and your desires. Again, any program-people claiming such knowledge are clearly incorrect, and should be justly ignored by their friends and neighbors.

There is certainly no way for us to know there is not a Deistic god out there watching our universe run. However, it's an unnecessary assumption.

Somewhere, existence has a brute fact. Something just exists, or some situation just is. Maybe the universe just is. Maybe God just is. Maybe there's an infinite causation loop that just is.

This is a fault in the program example. You, as the programmer, have a cause. Yet, the analogy to God has the God being uncaused, or self-caused. But what's the point of that hypothesis? We say there must be a creator because we are uncomfortable with the idea of the universe being a brute fact. Yet, somehow we are OK with the notion that the creator is a brute fact? Why? We've just re-named the problem. Isn't it simpler to assume the universe is uncaused or self-causing rather than creating another entity to have those attributes?

Jamie

[ManM]

Jamie_L,
[quote]Furthermore, the program people have no way whatsoever to gain knowledge about you and your desires. Again, any program-people claiming such knowledge are clearly incorrect, and should be justly ignored by their friends and neighbors.<hr></blockquote>

I would disagree with you here. In learning about the program, the people could infer things about the programmer. As an example, the complexity of the program could indicate the intelligence of the programmer.

[quote]Isn't it simpler to assume the universe is uncaused or self-causing rather than creating another entity to have those attributes?<hr></blockquote>

An outside entity with those attributes might provide more (and/or deeper) answers than omitting such an entity. For example, an outside entity opens up the possibility of a purpose behind things.

[Llyricist]

[quote] By ManM:

For example, an outside entity opens up the possibility of a purpose behind things. <hr></blockquote>

Our purpose being to provide data for the meta programmer, who is apparently performing an experiment to see if he can re-create his own world by use of a computer and simple algorthms??? This explains nothing, as it leaves open the question of whether the programmer's world was created the same way and for the same purpose, Jamie's infinite causation loop. And if the programmer's world "just is", then you straight back to Jamie's question which you are trying to answer.

[beliefisbunk]

<strong>What if I were to write a computer program full of digital people...</strong>

This was probably worded a different way above, but there is a significant difference when comparing a computer progammer to god: the interpretation of "God" is of someone or something that is thought to be omnipotent (eventhough reality doesn't mesh too well with this thought.)

A computer programmer is all but omnipotent, can make mistakes, is human, and thus not omnipotent.

Using the "Terminator movie" mindset; A mad scientist's computer makes androids that form a mind of their own, and soon, the program malfunctions and some of them become weapon-toting soldiers gone awry. Who's fault is it? The machines, since they formed their own personality and acted on free will, or the creator, who obviously had no understanding of what he created? The scientist is definitely not omnipotent (Which makes the scientist, playing god, as strongly ungodly) eventhough in the scenario the scientist strongly resembles god.

Like the scientist, this "god" is irresponsible, flakey, blind, and the reason for creating society's ills.

It would be one thing if this god - proven unreliable - would show itself, but for now an unreliable god that hasn't shown itself is a god that doesn't exist.(Quotable)

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: beliefisbunk ]</p>

[long winded fool]

But the idea that the programmer must have a programmer is invalid in this example. As an atheist or an agnostic, I would assume you have no trouble with the reality that all programs have programmers, but programmers don't have to have programmers. It is less logical to conlude that the universe is the only infinite causation loop without a creator, than to assume that, if it is an infinite causation loop, there must be something that created it, and it must, somehow, be outside of the loop and there for not subject to causation laws.

Plus, if the programmer ever did reprogram something on the fly, (without causing a paradox and a crash) the digital people would never know it because their digital memories are inside the changed program and would be changed accordingly. I agree that this goes against most religious ideas of an interacting God, but it does seem to imply that there logically needs to be a creator. The creator can logically be uncaused because the cause and effect scenario only holds inside the program. That was the purpose of my pointing out that the digital people couldn't comprehend a programmer that wasn't forced to follow the rules of his own program, since absolutely everything inside the program must in order to be classified as existing.

If the universe is a program then it must have a programmer, and since all successful programmers are masters of their program, the programmer of the universe is beyond the criteria needed for logical existence, criteria which he designed before the program began running. And I assume the universe is a successful program since everything that we can see so far proceeds logically and there are no reality-altering paradoxes. We've found the programming code and it is mathematics. We haven't found, nor will we ever as long as we are in the program, the programmer.

Thoughts?

[Philosoft]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
<strong>But the idea that the programmer must have a programmer is invalid in this example. As an atheist or an agnostic, I would assume you have no trouble with the reality that all programs have programmers, but programmers don't have to have programmers. It is less logical to conlude that the universe is the only infinite causation loop without a creator, than to assume that, if it is an infinite causation loop, there must be something that created it, and it must, somehow, be outside of the loop and there for not subject to causation laws.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This seems entirely arbitrary. First, it is not a priori true that a programmer does not itself need a programmer. It is conceivable that a 'being' within your program is itself a programmer. Second, your definition of 'programmer' seems to include, 'is not itself programmed.' Not only is this a tautology, but it presents a contradiction as it prevents the label 'programmer' from being applied to anything within the program.

[ManM]

Llyricist,
You missed the point. The programmer allows for the possibility of a reason behind the program. The programmer's motive can now be a matter of discussion, whereas before such a topic would have been ridiculous.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

[Jobar]

[quote]Originally posted by Llyricist:
<strong>jobar,

Pantheist!!!!!!! ;)

one question:
are you a sauce pantheist??
a frying pantheist??
a Peter Pantheist??
a marzipantheist??
or a brain pantheist??</strong><hr></blockquote>

How about a salt pantheist, since any of my pronouncements should be taken with a least a grain, if not multimillions of tons, of salt?

[Llyricist]

[quote] By ManM:

You missed the point. The programmer allows for the possibility of a reason behind the program. The programmer's motive can now be a matter of discussion, whereas before such a topic would have been ridiculous. <hr></blockquote>

To start with, the motive is known in this case. Long winded fool implied it with his opening post. Unfortunately, this motive is not very helpful to us in our daily struggles. Nor is it very satisfying. At least in "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" the computer earth was designed to provide the question to the ultimate answer, now there is a lofty purpose to our existence!!

Secondly, as l-w-f and others pointed out, there would be no way for us to even detect the existence of the programmer, much less speculate about his motives. As far as we could get would be to detect the basic algorithms (or GUT). The presence of a programmer beyond the program is a moot point to us, since there can be no interaction with him.

Therefore, the most we can hope for is an understanding of the program (GUT), and since anything else DOES require either the infinite causation loop or a further unexplained being, may as well go with jobar; the programmer IS the program ~ GUT=God ;) And the physicists are the only ones out there actively seeking God ;)

[Llyricist]

xeren,

That site is Waaaaaaaaayyy off the wall!! Love it! Thanks :D

[Llyricist]

but.. but jobar,

I LIKE salt!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[Llyricist]

Sorry for reaching back but I just focused on this:
[quote] My ManM:
As an example, the complexity of the program could indicate the intelligence of the programmer.

<hr></blockquote>

Just curious, how would YOU evaluate this? Would the complexity of the program be directly or inversely proportionate to the programmer's intellegence??

[long winded fool]

Very astute observation by Philosoft. It seems I have used the same word to identify two distinct things. A digital programmer and the person who programmed the digital programmer are still both programmers, but subject, by definition, to different laws and, I suppose, require different labels. The initial programmer is not subject to the same laws as the people in his program, and therefore is a different type of programmer than the digital programmer. Programming inside of a program is different than programming outside of one. The rules of programming inside of a larger program are governed by the program itself. These rules break down as one leaves the program. Perhaps the digital programmers could be thought of as artificial intelligence which is programmed to be able to program? The person who programmed this is not subject to a programmer in the same way that the AI is.

You're right that to say, "A programmer is what is not itself programmed," is circular and prevents the label of programmer from being applied anywhere inside the program. It's also true that a being in my program could be a programmer and thus be a programmed programmer, but I still don't think it is necessary for every programmer to have a programmer. Since this would also be a tautology, can't we accept that a programmer doesn't absolutely need to have a programmer as a priori true? Though I may have misled, my intention was: "Whatever a programmer is, it does not necessarily have to be the result of another programmer." I believe this is an axiom, since if it were false we'd have an ad infinitum paradox. My other, perhaps more relevant point was: "Whatever a program is, it MUST have a programmer." And I base this on human experience:

Since every program so far encountered has a programmer, we ought to logically assume that programs are the result of programmers until another likely solution presents itself, and we ought not to make an exception just because we can't find the programmer of a particular program, even if, and especially if, we are inside the program.

[Philosoft]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
<strong>Perhaps the digital programmers could be thought of as artificial intelligence which is programmed to be able to program? The person who programmed this is not subject to a programmer in the same way that the AI is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I still think this is arbitrary. Read on.

[quote]<strong>You're right that to say, "A programmer is what is not itself programmed," is circular and prevents the label of programmer from being applied anywhere inside the program. It's also true that a being in my program could be a programmer and thus be a programmed programmer, but I still don't think it is necessary for every programmer to have a programmer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How do you demonstrate at any time that a particular alleged unprogrammed programmer is not itself within a program?

[quote]<strong>Since this would also be a tautology, can't we accept that a programmer doesn't absolutely need to have a programmer as a priori true?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It would need to be axiomatic to support your theory, but again, that is an arbitrary ad hoc decision. You're just calling Aristotle's 'unmoved mover' by a different name. There are thousands of years' worth of existing objections to this premise.

<strong> [quote]Though I may have misled, my intention was: "Whatever a programmer is, it does not necessarily have to be the result of another programmer." I believe this is an axiom, since if it were false we'd have an ad infinitum paradox. My other, perhaps more relevant point was: "Whatever a program is, it MUST have a programmer." And I base this on human experience:

Since every program so far encountered has a programmer, we ought to logically assume that programs are the result of programmers until another likely solution presents itself, and we ought not to make an exception just because we can't find the programmer of a particular program, even if, and especially if, we are inside the program.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1. I suppose you're implying a reality = program analogy. What do you have to support the accuracy of this proposition?

2. In any case, this exposes the inherent flaws in your analogy. Programs are demonstrably written by programmers because we can show people writing source code; also, programs require a medium in order to execute. The former is a probabilistic quality of programs, the latter is a necessary quality. Neither one can be applied to reality or the universe.

[luvluv]

xeren:

Not for nothing, but I went to film school with one of the creators of Home Star Runner. He was a cool guy.

[Shadowy Man]

ManM:

[quote]In learning about the program, the people could infer things about the programmer. As an example, the complexity of the program could indicate the intelligence of the programmer.
<hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily. Programs can exhibit very complex behavior, even if the program is very simple.

[Llyricist]

awww man!!! ;) I wanted him to answer my question before being told that!!! :D

[Jamie_L]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
But the idea that the programmer must have a programmer is invalid in this example. As an atheist or an agnostic, I would assume you have no trouble with the reality that all programs have programmers, but programmers don't have to have programmers.
<hr></blockquote>

Let me get this straight: because I accept the fact that I have no creator God I should accept the fact that I have a creator God?

[quote]
It is less logical to conlude that the universe is the only infinite causation loop without a creator, than to assume that, if it is an infinite causation loop, there must be something that created it, and it must, somehow, be outside of the loop and there for not subject to causation laws.
<hr></blockquote>

Really? Logically, we know that there must be a Brute Fact of Existence (BFE - not to be confused with BFD). We know that there is a universe. We do not know that there is anything apart from our universe. Why is it more logical to assume the BFE is associated with something we can't prove or detect rather than associating it with what we know exists?

[quote]
If the universe is a program then it must have a programmer...
<hr></blockquote>

Only because that's the definition of the word program. Labeling the universe as a program is an unfounded assertion, and it's only semantically different from making the more simple and equally unfounded assertion "God exists."

Jamie

[Jobar]

l-w-f, you are positing that your programmed beings cannot see outside the program, correct? So although they can certainly theorize that there is indeed a programmer, they can not prove that there is or is not one. Even if there is one- the programmer himself is in the same boat! Unless he (He?) is aware of being self-creating, there is no way to say that any level programmer is not himself a program for a higher level programmer!

I was not being facetious- well, not much- when I gave my initial answer. The simplest way to avoid an infinite regress of programmers is just to postulate that the program is self-compiling.

[long winded fool]

Very logical. This goes back to my logical/ illogical god. I'm aware that this is an unsatisfying answer but consider this: What if a digital philosopher who suspected his universe had a programmer were to pose this very question to other digital philosophers? The logical ones would respond as you did, that a program can be demonstrated to have a programmer and it is run through a particular medium. How would this digital philosopher present evidence of the computer, or me, the programmer, while inside the program? If existence is dependent upon the program, neither one can "exist," yet both are required for a program. The digital scientists could comb every inch of the program and never find the programmer or the computer. And the theistic digital philosopher could never demonstrate where the programmer or the computer is because they would effectively be nowhere and incomprehensible. But you and I, being outside of the program, can see that, though their conclusion of being in a programmerless program is logical as it fits with the rules laid out in the program, it is wrong.

I also believe this analogy does allow an unmoved mover and refutes past objections. (The ones I'm aware of anyway.) The cause of the space-time continuum can be an uncaused effect, because it must be free from the laws of existence and the laws of cause and effect that are inherent in the space-time continuum. When you apply the laws of physics and logic to the creator of those laws, you are being as logically wrong as the digital scientists who conclude that anything that does not meet the program's criteria for existence can't exist. They can't possibly understand how the program was made by a non-existent entity, but any entity outside the program can see that their definition of existence is limited to the laws of the program.

In summary to your response, it is impossible to demonstrate that a programmer is not, itself, within a program, but this is a logical possibility given the analogy. It is also impossible to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that reality is a program, since both the programmer and the computer are undetectable, being not a part of the program. But it's reasonable to hypothesize that reality is a program since it obeys set unbreakable rules, is based on a complex, yet understandable language called mathematics which, without a programmer, has no logical origin other than "it's just there," has predictable cause and effect scenarios which imply that changing something in the past has exponential consequences in the future, and can be understood through if-then statements. If you're looking for proof of a creator, I have none, but if your looking for a logical hypothesis, so far I believe this is one.

To my friend Llyricist's question of the complexity of the program being indicative of the intelligence of the programmer, I would say that a program which has been running for 15 billion + years with no known bugs (paradoxes) and still not at the end of its execution, has probably been written by something with more intelligence than has been coded into the program. Not for sure, but a reasonable assumption. :)

[Laera]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone asked about the effects of the programmer on the program?

If you're making an analogy to the xian god, you ought to include that this particular god/programmer is supposedly actively involved in his program. Can your digital philosopher not just look for otherwise unexplainable phenomena within the program that must be the effects of a programmers interaction? If not, how can he even posit that a programmer is involved.

It seems to me at a glance that your programmer analogy may be logical only for two specific cases: the programmer/god is not involved once the program begins, or the programmer/god is successfully hiding any ongoing interaction that he has from the program itself. Is this the god hypothesis you mean to propose is "logical"? In which case, what's the point of knowing anyway?

[long winded fool]

The reason there must logically be a brute fact of existence is because this is the only way the digital scientists can explain the origin of the program without a programmer. "On some level, it is just 'there.'" I stand by my assertion that it is less logical to assume that all the complicated laws of physics and mathematics just popped into existence at some point, than to assume an uncreated creator. The reason this god is thought of as being illogically uncreated is simply because he cannot possibly fit into our concept of existence and is absolved (great word) from any and all laws that we need to identify something as existing or being created.

Keep in mind that I am not subject to the laws of my program. I have to be inside the program and subject to its laws (a contradiction) in order to exist in the minds of the digital people.

[long winded fool]

Good point, Laera. But what exactly could be found inside a program that doesn't fit with the program? Can a programmer defy the laws of his program, inside of his program, without changing them? And wouldn't the changing of the laws go unnoticed by the digital people in the program since their memories are also part of the program and are changed accordingly?

You point out that the programmer has little hope of making his program understand him or her. I would agree with this, and I would agree that any interaction would either be undetectable or explainable through the simlpe laws of the program whatever they may be. Where this puts the Christian God I'll let you decide. :D

[Laera]

Just because memories of the digital people are 'part of the program' doesn't mean that they would necessarily be affected by alterations or additions to other parts of the program. They may remember a time when things were one way (and even have data recorded in group memory to support it), but the alteration of the program makes things different now. Only if the programmer built it into the program that memory was altered to accomodate (hide?) updates or interventions, only then would he be indiscernable from within the program. Otherwise, there would be evidence of his existence and no question that something external to the program was tinkering around and changing things up as the program is running. None of that forces the programmer to break the rules he wrote for the program, but if he changed them even temporarily, some evidence would be left unless he was hiding himself.

Where that leaves this programmer... uninterested or unworthy of the digital people's efforts to unmask him.

[Philosoft]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
<strong>The reason there must logically be a brute fact of existence is because this is the only way the digital scientists can explain the origin of the program without a programmer. "On some level, it is just 'there.'"</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that's an unreasonable extension of Jamie's point. What he was saying is that without a brute fact of existence, ours, God's or otherwise, we end up with an infinite regress of causes. What's logical is to append that 'brute fact' moniker to something that empirically exists.

[quote]<strong>I stand by my assertion that it is less logical to assume that all the complicated laws of physics and mathematics just popped into existence at some point, than to assume an uncreated creator.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Short of merely presuming a complex universe doesn't need a complex creator, I fail to see how this absolves your theory of dealing with complexity.

[quote]<strong>The reason this god is thought of as being illogically uncreated is simply because he cannot possibly fit into our concept of existence and is absolved (great word) from any and all laws that we need to identify something as existing or being created.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Think about what you're saying here. If our concept of existence is fundamentally incapable of describing God, we are effectively talking about the existence of nothing. It is impossible to have coherent concepts of things that exist in ways which are undefined.

[quote]<strong>Keep in mind that I am not subject to the laws of my program. I have to be inside the program and subject to its laws (a contradiction) in order to exist in the minds of the digital people.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The implication being that, again, the digial people cannot so much as conceive of you/the creator.

[Jamie_L]

Well, those IN the program must all obey certain rules. The program ITSELF, as an entity, is not bound by that. Or, in terms of the universe, it's fair to say that everything in the universe has a cause, but that doesn't necessarily extend to the universe itself, because the universe as a whole is not in the universe.

Now, an interesting thought is this: the digital people in this program are not particularly special to the programmer or to other entities in the program. They have no promise of afterlife (unless the programmer wants such a thing). They wink into and out of existence as time goes by. And, if the program was run simply based on initial conditions and program laws, these digital people may be outgrowths of the program and not intentional creations of the programmer.

Expand this analogy to the universe and, practically, it may be no different from a metaphysical naturalist viewpoint. This deistic God would have no contact with us, perhaps had no intention to create us, perhaps doesn't care about us, and after we die there's nothing but non-existence. Or rather, nothing but nothing.

Jamie

[ManM]

Llyricist,
I am not trying to defend every aspect in Long Winded Fool's initial post. I disagree with it in some places. My post was in response to Jamie_L's use of Ockham's Razor as it were. That being said...

[quote]To start with, the motive is known in this case. Long winded fool implied it with his opening post.<hr></blockquote>

Particular motives are beside the point. A programmer allows for the discussion of motives to take place.

[quote]Secondly, as l-w-f and others pointed out, there would be no way for us to even detect the existence of the programmer, much less speculate about his motives.<hr></blockquote>

We would certainly not be able to shake the programmer's hand, but that does not mean we could not conceive of him. I have not seen, heard, touched, smelt, or tasted a magnetic field, yet I still can conceive of one by the way sensory objects relate to each other.

[quote]The presence of a programmer beyond the program is a moot point to us, since there can be no interaction with him.<hr></blockquote>

Unless of course he programmed us with the ability to interact with him. Or as some digital people might claim, the programmer could have entered into the program himself.

[quote]Therefore, the most we can hope for is an understanding of the program (GUT)...<hr></blockquote>

I hope I have shown how this is not necessarily the case.

[quote]Just curious, how would YOU evaluate this? Would the complexity of the program be directly or inversely proportionate to the programmer's intellegence?? <hr></blockquote>

This depends on the purpose of the program of course. Unnecessary complexity is often the work of a bad programmer. Tell me, do you think a programmer can judge another's ability based on a sample program?

[Llyricist]

ManM: We would certainly not be able to shake the programmer's hand, but that does not mean we could not conceive of him. I have not seen, heard, touched, smelt, or tasted a magnetic field, yet I still can conceive of one by the way sensory objects relate to each other.


Me (then): The presence of a programmer beyond the program is a moot point to us, since there can be no interaction with him.

ManM : Unless of course he programmed us with the ability to interact with him. Or as some digital people might claim, the programmer could have entered into the program himself.

Me (now): Sorry but I was basing this on l-w-f's hypothesis, which explicitly said we would have no way of sensing the programmer's presence beyond the program itself. Even if he changed the program, he would either have to blink us out of existance to do the change and restart the program (which we would never ever know about), or if he could do it on the fly so to speak, it would regress the conditions to the point we would have no memory of the conditions ever being different, therefore we would never sense the change.

And by the way, you have seen a magnetic field, it's called light (unless you are blind). And you have felt a magnetic field, it's called radiant heat (unless your nervous system is shot). And we certainly can sense the effects of magnetic fields in any number of ways. The same cannot be said for the hypothetical programmer. The ONLY effect of this programmer we could sense is the program itself.

And yes you could conceive of the programmer, but you could know nothing beyond the idea that maybe a programmer exists about such a programmer. As you yourself implied in your answer to my question about how the program's complexity relates to the programmer's intellegence.

And in answer to your counter-question, it isn't possible to judge that, but in general a simple program that accomplishes alot indicates a better programmer, though it could be just an accident, an accident to the point of "Just Happening". Especially if GUT works out to just a few different relationships at the quantum level.

I stand with Jobar, Jamie and Philosoft that the BFE is better applied to the program than the programmer. Though I have nothing to add to their well communicated reasoning.

[long winded fool]

You all make excellent points. I will post here more often now that I know there are so many sharp philosophers who can logically challenge my theories. I suppose my only defense is that you are arguing from inside the program, if the universe is indeed a program. You make arguments that could easily be attributed to the digital people and thereby falsified. All the laws and logic of the universe can be ignored when attempting to contemplate something outside those laws. Of course, any attempt at determining the nature of something outside the laws of the space-time continuum must fail by definition, but to accept the fact that there can "be" SOMETHING that determined how the laws work "before" (the only way I can describe it, being inside the program) they were implemented is plausible. My very self-contradicting words are evidence that our brains force it into the space-time continuum, where it cannot be, thus coinciding with my program analogy.

Since a god cannot fall into our criteria of existence, perhaps contemplating the existence of a creator IS a moot point? Perhaps the digital scientists are right and they actually are in a programmerless program? Anyone in the program should logically agree. However, as I said before, anyone outside the program can see that they use a definition of existence inherent to the program which I invented. If I invented their definition of existence, and choose, for one reason or another, to make it encompass only the program and nothing else, then I won't exist to them, but I still created their universe. It is illogical for me to exist to them, but I do. So to presume the existence of an illogical God is logical.

Because it's logically possible to have an uncreated creator (see my former posts,) is it possible to have an uncreated creation? It doesn't seem to be the same thing to me. I don't think something can be an uncreated creator and a creation at the same time. The universe is the BFE in the same way that the program is the BFE to the digital people. The code is just there and can't, by the laws of the program, have come from anywhere. But here I sit.

[Synaesthesia]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
Because it's logically possible to have an uncreated creator (see my former posts,) is it possible to have an uncreated creation? It doesn't seem to be the same thing to me. I don't think something can be an uncreated creator and a creation at the same time.<hr></blockquote>

I think you're being confused by the loaded terms you're using. An uncreated creation is a contradiction : by definition.

However, a universe uncreated by an 'external' entity is not. It is perfectly possible that asking what is outside the universe is like asking what is on the surface of the earth, one mile north of the north pole.

Logically, the only difference between asserting an uncreated God and an uncreated universe is that the latter is simpler.

More to the point, we can observe and learn about the universe while God remains as aloof as ever. Occam's razor clearly comes into play.

[Llyricist]

Excellent point Syn :D

Long Winded Fool,

Or you can imagine a computer that was designed to initialize it's program memory totally randomly. Execute whatever started at address 0000 at boot up, and reboot if the processor ever becomes idle or the program crashes. And the computer has an unlimited life.

Eventually this computer will run a viable program without a programmer.

Now imagine several hundred million of these computers or more on up toward infinity. One of these computers will run your digital universe program!

Now if we could just get rid of the computers!!! LOL

Just kidding, this idea can be regressed ad infinitum if ya have enough weed ;) .

But I suspect reality is simpler than this analogy. But not simple as in positing God. Simple as in not requiring both a computer and a program.

[Jobar]

Truly an excellent discussion, and sweet relief from having to refute the free-will argument for the umpteenth time! :D

lwf, as others have made clear, your 'deistic programmer' is within the realm of possibility, but hypothesizing him is useless. It merely pushes the question of origins back one level; far more parsiminous to simply treat what we perceive as BFEs as ultimates. I suppose we must all count ourselves agnostics concerning your deistic programmer; we can certainly not offer any disproof of him.

When I studied physics back in the seventies, it was because I considered it the 'prince' of sciences; the closest thing to ultimate knowledge available to human beings. As I get older though, I am leaning more and more to the view that information science may be the highest way to seek understanding; such things as this thread lends weight to that outlook.

I've long tried to decide if there is any valid meaning we can assign to the word 'God'. Seems like all the major monotheistic religions agree only on one aspect of God; that is, He is *infinite*. Well, then- does infinity exist? I've mused on that in some of the threads on pantheism; IMO it does, but I freely confess I cannot demonstrate it! lwf, do you think that your 'universe-as-program' analogy might be used to shed any light on this?

added- <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000593" target="_blank">Here</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000645" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000648" target="_blank">most particularly here</a> are the most recent pantheism discussions; lwf, if you have any comments on the subject I would be delighted to hear them. J.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

[long winded fool]

Very true Syn. In fact, my definition of the universe as the space-time continuum assumes that asking what is outside of it IS the same as asking what is north of the North Pole. There is nothing outside the space-time continuum since outside implies space and existence implies time. Though the programmer is external to we who are also external to the program, he cannot be to the digital people. Asking what is outside of the program, when inside the program, is the same contradiction. The program is all there is. Space is absolutely different to the digital people and it is incomprehensible that there could be an "outside" to the program. This idea would be meaningless to them since the rules of the program clearly state that existence is always dependent upon the program.

But you're right, the digital Ockham's Razor clearly shows that the program should be considered unprogrammed. The only digital people who ought to have a problem with this are the ones see their universe as a program and who infer that all programs have programmers. ;)

Llyricist, I don't think the universe is required to be a program either. I simply see many similarities and I wonder: what if the reason the universe is so similar to a running program is because it IS a running program? And if so... on into my analogy. I've found nothing in the analogy that clearly refutes this hypothesis, so it remains a distinct possibility in my own humble opinion, and therefore, a creator remains a distinct logical possibility. It is simpler in my mind to have a programmed program than an unprogrammed program. If you don't like these obviously contradictory terms, (which I tend to use a lot for some reason) then Ockham's Razor seems to say, if you have a program, assume a programmer and not a random conglomeration of terms that happen to fit together into a coherent set of instructions which present, so far, absolutely no detectable contradictions. (Again, nothing concrete, just a valid hypothesis and logical deductions. IF a program, then a programmer, and why this is logical despite seeming contradictions.)

Jobar, very interesting in putting the existence of infinity into the program analogy. It would appear that true infinity cannot exist without an infinite program, and it is impossible to have an infinite program. I'm sure this statement has raised some eyebrows, but if you define infinity as having no beginning and no end, clearly programs can never fall into this category because they always have a beginning. They may go into a never-ending loop, but this is not the same as being infinite. Even the strongest program must terminate when the universe terminates. (An unfortunate misuse of the term by programmers. I'm also aware I just implied another tautology, so read on before you jump me!)

Of course, if you're inside the program then the program itself is both the beginning and the end. Things like mathematics will be infinite to you since when it stops, reality stops. Existence stops. If it began you'll never really know it and if it ends you'll never really know it. There can be nothing before the program started and there can be nothing after it's done executing. Technically speaking, to you the programmer would be infinite since it has no beginning and no end according to the laws of the program. In order to begin or end, you must first exist according to the laws of the program... and so on. So I suppose that anything outside of the universe must be infinite since it can have no beginning and no end, both terms being dependent upon the space-time continuum. Again, I use the term "outside" which immediately forces infinity back into the space-time continuum. :mad: *sigh* If I could come up with a word that didn't imply some kind of existence in the universe, believe me I would. Until then I'll just have to contradict myself and hope that others can see through my poor command of language and hear what I mean instead of what I say. :D

[Llyricist]

[quote]By Long Winded Fool:
It is simpler in my mind to have a programmed program than an unprogrammed program. If you don't like these obviously contradictory terms, (which I tend to use a lot for some reason) then Ockham's Razor seems to say, if you have a program, assume a programmer and not a random conglomeration of terms that happen to fit together into a coherent set of instructions which present, so far, absolutely no detectable contradictions. (Again, nothing concrete, just a valid hypothesis and logical deductions. IF a program, then a programmer, and why this is logical despite seeming contradictions.) <hr></blockquote>

But if infinity truly does exist outside of this program, and the program is random, this Program WILL occur, without recourse to a programmer. Which was my point before. :D

Jobar,

Yeah this IS a fun topic!! :D

On Edit: Actually I like the analogy as well, the only problem I have is the problem of needing a computer to run the program, which in turn would seemingly (or logically) require a designer and builder.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Llyricist ]</p>

[long winded fool]

But how can one know the nature of anything outside the program? As I stated, the only nature we can possibly be aware of is that which is allowed by the program. Infinity, strictly under the rules of the program, would seem to say that all possible things will eventually happen. Does this include illogical things? Since there would be an infinite ammount of time, would I eventually be able to travel north of the North Pole, or build a house outside of the space-time continuum? Your response assumes that matter and evergy, or at least physics and mathematics, exist outside of the space-time continuum, which I believe is false by definition. The laws delineated by the program exist in the program because they are what make up the program. To assume they also must follow the same or similar laws to the ones they create is completely unnecessary. It's possible that the programmer is, himself, part of a program (which I could be) but this is an unnecessary assumption, since he also doesn't NEED to be, since he is the programmer of the rules our brains must follow. Ockham's Razor tells us to ASSUME there isn't another program which contains our programmer. It is not required by logic and it would be impossible to detect should it exist, therefore it is irrelevant.

Getting back to Llyricists point, there is no "infinity" outside the space-time continuum since there can't be time outside of it. To the digital people, there is NO time apart from the program which would indicate that nothing can possibly exist outside the program, carrying with my theory. The digital logicians have to conclude that I don't exist, but also that I must if they are in a program, which they are. Keeping with your mode of thinking, if there is infinite time and anything is possible, eventually a universe will also be created by a programmer, which makes theism just as logically valid as atheism according to this particular logic. My point is that there ARE no laws and no mathematics which can be understood to be apart from the program. To say that infinite time exists outside the space-time continuum is misleading, not to mention absolutely paradoxical. I wish I hadn't expressed it this way, but I know of no other way to express it. Since there is NO time, nothing can have a beginning and nothing can have an end, yet it is impossible for laws and mathematics to eventually come together into a coherent program out of whatever these things are made up of, since time, infinite time, seems to be required. In fact, the space-time continuum itself seems to be required for this to happen. The program can't logically be random, since all programs have programmers of some kind.

Again, I'm not claiming to know anything about the programmer, least of all where it came from or how it exitsts, but if the universe is a program, it must have a programmer. And this progammer can logically be unprogrammed.

[Philosoft]

LWF, can you present your argument about why it is logical to believe that the universe/reality is in fact a program? I don't know that you've actually fleshed this out, and I forsee it being a sticking point.

[Jobar]

lwf, I think that your analogy is as exact as any analogy can be; it may even be that you have come up with a powerful and original way of understanding reality. (Not saying you definitely have done so, because I am far from being current with the cutting edge of information theory and its interaction with philosophy.) So I am interested in the answer to Philosoft's question, but I think you can justify your analogy.

My objection lies here.
"Again, I'm not claiming to know anything about the programmer, least of all where it came from or how it exists, but if the universe is a program, it must have a programmer. And this progammer can logically be unprogrammed."

No, no, no. You are simply pushing the question- the ultimate nature of reality- back a single step. Now it is God's problem to seek for ultimates! If he has created the program (universe) as an investigative tool to probe the nature of *His* observed reality, it could be that reality is an infinite series of programmers, with no beginning or ending. I can't even say if it is surely more parsiminous to assume we are not one level of an infinite number of levels; because if we instead assume that this universe constitutes an infinite system, which generates an unprogrammed program- then we *still* must postulate infinity. I am not familiar enough with transfinite mathematics to say if one type of infinity can be said to be 'simpler' than another; however I do think that one self-contained and self-producing infinity is less complex than an infinite number of levels of finite-but-unbounded systems. (Whew! My brain is sweating! ;) )


You may not be aware of how closely we are tracing paths blazed by ancient Hindu thinkers, but we are. I am too many years past my study of Vedanta to quote chapter and verse, but I recognize the landmarks. To paraphrase a line which the regulars here have heard from me a lot:

"The program which can be described is not the ultimate program."

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

[quip]

The problem is since the programmer is not a sui generis entity, and without omnipotent and omniscient traits, he is therefore subject to the same mathematics and laws which govern the digital world thus, it is possible and probable that his existence would eventually become evident to the “digital inhabitants”.

Furthermore, since you cannot duplicate omniscience and omnipotence within your programmer (yourself), your digital world fails to correlate with any “God-based” world. Therefore, such an analogy fails to find any logical correspondence between the two situations.

[Llyricist]

[quote]By Long Winded Fool:
The laws delineated by the program exist in the program because they are what make up the program. To assume they also must follow the same or similar laws to the ones they create is completely unnecessary. <hr></blockquote>

Then why do you insist the program must have a programmer?

I have also shown that a programmerless program is logically possible (and highly probable) under our OWN rules of logic, which you seem to be using to assert that a program MUST have a programmer (though I think you are using probability rather than logic to make the assertion). Which is the assertion I'm questioning the validity of, if not entirely refuting.

And I did not say an infinity of time, any sort of infinity will do. :)

[long winded fool]

You actually don't need me to answer these quesitons. Imagine my analogy and imagine the digital scientists posing these questions and you'll see why they are logical but false. The only way I can answer them is with the analogy I've already given. I'll attempt to make it clearer but I feel the analogy speaks for itself.

I AM omnipotent and omniscient when compared to my program. (Remember, I said I was a really good programmer.) I know absolutely everything in the programmed universe and can do absolutely anything in the programmed universe, since I created every aspect of it. To the digital people, there is nothing I cannot do and nothing I do not know. There is nothing outside of my power and everything that transpires must do so according to my will. I am also a sui generis, or completely unique, entity because there can never be anything like me inside the program at any time. (I don't even fit the program's definition of 'entity') I am unfathomable as any programmer is to his program. All true programmers are completely outside of the rules of their program. The idea that there might be other programmers or other programs is fanciful, but has no real meaning to those in a single program. All we have is our own program to work with, and this program must have a programmer or else it is something else. And the digital scientists might assume it is something else in order to avoid an unexplainable programmer, (they may even give it a contradictory name) but we outside the program know that they are wrong.

Do not blur the lines between "inside" and "outside" of the program. The programmer is never subject to the laws of his program. This is a contradiction. Because you are also outside the program in the analogy, you don't have to follow its laws either. What I'm asking you to do is put yourself into the program and realize that the programmer must, by definition, be sovereign and ultimately undetectable. It can be proven inside the program that an unexplainable programmer is not directly responsible for the individual if-then statements, but from outside the program we realize that he actually IS responsible for all of the if-then statements, which execute according to laws he encoded. No ammount of digital proof of binary code and simple logic and mathematics can truly refute this. The only way for a programmer's existence to become evident to his program's digital inhabitants is for its inabitants to identify the fact that they are in a program and infer that it must have been programmed by a programmer.

I fail to see how a programmerless program is logically probable in our universe. If a computer program requires a computer and a programmer to exist, then it is illogical that a computer program can exist without these two things. IF the universe is a program, then it is being run through some undetectable medium and was created by some undetectable programmer. The program MUST logically have a programmer. If it does not then it is not a program. If it is a program it must have a programmer. Simple, eh? The infinite possibilities example does not work because in this case it must be equally probable to have a spontaneous generation of a program as it is to have a spontaneous generation of a programmer who writes a program. A digital scientist can posit any sort of infinity he likes, but whether he likes it or not, digital time and space and mathematics and logic and physics and reality in general, will end with my program's termination, and I will still be here.

Interesting that we are contemplating an ancient Hindu philosphy. I'll have to look into this to see if it can shed any light on my strange, but so far seemingly logical analogy. Now, reality is not an infinite series of programmers because reality encompasses only the space-time continuum, by definition. I am not pushing the question of the ultimate nature of reality back a step, I am attempting to prove that ultimate reality CAN logically have a creator which cannot exist in that reality. Reality IS infinite AND has a creator according to this analogy, and as impossible as this is to wrap our brains around, this makes sense. This is why my analogy (or a similar analogy such as Abbott's "Flatland") is the only way to explain this logical contradiction. There is absolutely nothing outside the program, because the program is required first before existence can take place. That's why we who are outside of my program have a different definition of existence than the digital people, and whatever programmed our universe (again if that's what it is) has a different definition of existence than we do. And we can never understand what this definition is or how it works because we are absolutely dependent upon the program. All theories come from inside the program and will fail to understand anything "outside."

I like that quote, Jobar. Though I believe the idea of an "ultimate" program is silly because they all have a programmer. The first programmer who is outside all rules including the rules of cause and effect, being that it created them, would be the only logical "ultimate" anything. Though this is uncomfortable to write and probably seems wrong when read, I think my analogy confirms this. The only question left for me, as my analogy stands, is, "Is the universe a program?" I said several times that it seems to run in a similar way to a program, and has a non-physical, technically non-existent code which it unquestioningly follows called mathematics. The fact that the two are similar is the only fact I have to go on. It is not required to be a program, but it is not required to not be a program as I've shown. Proof can be undetectable and it can still be a program and have a programmer according to this analogy.

[Philosoft]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
<strong>

The only question left for me, as my analogy stands, is, "Is the universe a program?" I said several times that it seems to run in a similar way to a program, and has a non-physical, technically non-existent code which it unquestioningly follows called mathematics. The fact that the two are similar is the only fact I have to go on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is where I lose you. First, your scenario implies that we, as programmed entities, can have knowledge of the programming language (mathematics) apart from whatever mechanism is needed to convert the source code into matter and energy. It would seem that, were we cognizant of the source code itself, we would have to be similarly cognizant of the compiler because after it is compiled, the source code is physically changed. Otherwise, you must argue that compiling the source code produces both knowable mathematics and observable matter/energy. While there appears to be no logical contradiction, it would be an additional entity that stretches your analogy further.

Second, mathematics seems to be descriptive whereas source code is proscriptive. I really can't say any more about this, because I am already presuming to understand the alleged source code as the programmer understands it. But the upshot is, I suppose, if I have to make that leap in order to compare mathematics and source code, then you do as well.

Let me add: I am in full agreement with those who previously said this was a fantastic topic. After seeing the same design argument over and over, this is really a refreshing take on it. At least for now, you are the man, LWF. ;)

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

[Llyricist]

[quote] By Long Winded Fool,
If a computer program requires a computer and a programmer to exist, <hr></blockquote>

You are using your conclusion in your premise.

[quote] then it is illogical that a computer program can exist without these two things. <hr></blockquote>

Only if the premise is valid.

[quote] IF the universe is a program, then it is being run through some undetectable medium <hr></blockquote>

I have no problem with this.

[quote] and was created by some undetectable programmer. <hr></blockquote>

Which could just as well be the random states of the medium falling in some pattern that becomes meaningful.

[quote] The program MUST logically have a programmer. <hr></blockquote>

Repeating your conclusion doesn't make it so.

[quote] If it does not then it is not a program. <hr></blockquote>

Nowhere in the definition of program does it require a programmer, a program is simply a set of instructions. While this definitely IMPLIES a programmer, it does not require it. As I have already shown, if this Medium that responds to the program exists outside of time and space, then there may be no limit to the iterations of random states it can attain. At least no way we could assume one way or another. Which leaves it logically possible at least, erasing the "MUST" from your premised conclusion.

A couple of cities are built on what is essentially a new oceanic rift. The people in these cities behave VERY badly. The rift erupts and destroys the cities. To the people that have no idea about plate tectonics, they attribute an essentially random act of nature to "God's" punishment for their bad behavior. Very logical, but very wrong. That is to say, the eruptions certainly did serve the purpose ascribed to them, but they actually had no conscious purpose in happening. At least unless the earth actually is aware of it's need to "stretch it's skin". *nods to Gaia*

[quote] If it is a program it must have a programmer. <hr></blockquote>

You are merely repeating your assertion again.

[quote] Simple, eh? <hr></blockquote>

Not quite. :)

[quote] I fail to see how a programmerless program is logically probable in our universe. <hr></blockquote>

Okay, so I may have overstepped with my parenthetical "highly probable", all it takes is to be logically possible to erase the MUST from your statement. But as you say, "in our universe." I was saying I was using our universe's logic, not that it would be highly probable within it.

[long winded fool]

I'm flattered by such high praise coming from so many sharp philosophers. I'm sure I won't be "the man" for long with such logical and perceptive cross-examination. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I don't think the digital people can be cognizant of the source code until after it is compiled. In order for the digital people to understand how it works, it must already be in execution and have observable results. The source code would never physically change because physicality is not defined until the code is compiled and running. Digital existence is only possible after the code is in place in its final form. I suppose that compiling the code does produce the laws that govern the program. Mathematics is meaningless in any form other than the way it exists. In order to understand mathematics it must be non-changing and "finalized." As a society we believe this since no one would attribute a mathematical flaw to mathematics itself. All mathematical errors are always assumed to be brought into existence by human ignorance. Mathematics is presumed absolute; our knowledge of it is not. In my analogy, the program is complete. There is no way to understand the code before it was compiled, because there's no way to understand without the compiled program.

In my analogy, I often interchanged mathematics with the laws of physics. Philosoft has a point that mathematics' purpose is to describe the laws of physics, so I should have used the laws of physics as the source code. Would you agree that absolute laws of physics (not the imperfect guesses of humans) are proscriptive? That they tell the universe how to behave? When something defies the laws of physics, aren't we implying that it's merely defying our understanding of these laws? Don't we assume that there is some law that allows for this strange phenomenon? Even if the universe is not a program, we still call them "laws" indicating proscriptive entities. So perhaps the source code can be the laws of physics instead of mathematics?

So, Llyricist, using this universe's logic are you saying that it is more logical to attribute the existence of a universe to a random occurrence which must eventually take place in infinite time (or, I stand corrected, take place somewhere in infinite space :) ) which may exist outside and before the universe, than it is to invent an entity and attribute the same improbable but possible scenario to something uncaused which created the universe? If you were, I would be in full agreement. As Synaesthesia reminds us, we must not unnecessarily multiply entities. This seems a concrete argument against the need for a creator. Much the same as the digital scientist's argument whose program states the same rules as our universe. Even though they can't comprehend a programmerless program without allowing for some type of infinity, and even though every program in their universe has a programmer, it is still more logical for them to assume that the program was a random fluke which occurred in the infinity that ought to be outside the program. This is true. This is where logic must take them. And, as I said before, here I sit.

Your analogy about the city would only follow if every single volcanic eruption could be empirically proven to be the result of tectonic shift, and the people of the city STILL attributed it to an act of god. I'm willing to bet every program ever encountered in human history can be unfailingly attributed to a programmer of some sort. I don't think you can ever show me a programmerless program. All you have to do is prove to one person who thought her city was destroyed by an act of god that it was simple plate tectonics and understandable natural laws with no consciousness which destroyed her city, in order to refute the "act of god" argument. Similarly, all you have to do is show me one randomly generated program which just happened to pop up inside a computer and I will retract my statement that a program MUST have a programmer. I think that assuming infinity outside of time and space is unnecessarily multiplying entities. If you find a program in this universe and don't know where it came from, Ockham's Razor tells us to assume a programmer, rather than assume random generation. This is not unnecessarily multiplying entities. If the universe is a program, we ought to assume a programmer and not spontaneous generation. However, if the digital scientists can't comprehend a non-existent entity, (for I am outside the laws of existence) they will feel more justified in pointing out that their digital law of averages allows for the spontaneous materialization of a working program when applied inside infinity, and they may conclude that this must be the case since nothing non-existent can exist. This is understandable. And false.

And just so that I'm not labeled a close-minded theist, if the universe is NOT a program, then this doesn't apply. :D

[quip]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
I AM omnipotent and omniscient ....I am also [a] sui generis...when compared to my program.<hr></blockquote>

But reality dictates that you are definitely not any of the above therefore, only perceived as thus to your “digital inhabitants.”

Since you are only perceived to be sui generis then you cannot accurately make an implied claim of an “authentic” sui generis entity “programming” our reality using this analogy.

You can make a good argument about false perceptions though! :)

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: quip ]</p>

[Llyricist]

Well, I'm glad you saw my point, although I was NOT arguing that mine was necessarily the better explanation, just that it was just as good as assuming a programmer. Thus going back to the original thesis that the digital people could have no clear understanding one way or another about what happens outside their universe. So the one postulating the infinity is on just as solid ground as the one insisting on a programmer. And since one is just as good as the other, and it has absolutely no bearing on their lives, it's useless for digital people to even worry about it. The Ultimate Moot point.
:)

[Llyricist]

Oh and as for the city analogy, it's also true in this case that there are no other volcanoes that behave in this particular way in these people's experience, at least not one where the ground "splits usunder" AND spews forth fire and brimstone. Just as there are no other "naturally occurring" programs in ours. :)

On Edit: And I wasn't implying an infinity of space either, at least not necessarily, just that there MAY be something outside of our 4 dimensions of reality as we know it that DOES constitute an infinity.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Llyricist ]</p>

[Jamie_L]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
I AM omnipotent and omniscient when compared to my program.
<hr></blockquote>

You are omniscient with respect to past and present events. You are not necessarily omniscient with respect to future events. As a simple example, imagine an optimization program. Generally, when you run such a program you do not know what the end result will be. Now, imagine a universe program where you set up the initial conditions and laws, but allowed it to run on its own without guidance thereafter. You (as long as we are considering you a normal human being - although very smart and an excellent programmer) will not have foreknowledge of every single event that will occur in your digital universe. At any point you can stop the program and find out what IS happening everywhere and what HAS happened up to that point. However, you will not have foreknowledge.

It is possible to write programs where you plan everything, thus giving you foreknowledge. But planning an entire universe of events seems a bit beyond the capabilities of us normal people. And it also kind of throws a monkey wrench into a lot of your assumptions about the digital people.

[quote]
There is nothing outside of my power and everything that transpires must do so according to my will.
<hr></blockquote>

Again, not necessarily true. If you set up intitial conditions and let the universe run, then things conceivably CAN happen that aren't according to your will. You can certainly go in and stop those events and alter things, but again that is a bit different than how you have crafted the analogy so far.

[quote]
What I'm asking you to do is put yourself into the program and realize that the programmer must, by definition, be sovereign and ultimately undetectable.
<hr></blockquote>

Only if you choose to be. Not necessarily. As an omnipotent being, you can go into the program and CHANGE the governing laws. The digital people CAN be allowed to be aware of this. You choose whether or not to intervene in the program in this way.

[quote]
It can be proven inside the program that an unexplainable programmer is not directly responsible for the individual if-then statements,
<hr></blockquote>

I don't see this. It is NOT possible inside the program to conclusively PROVE the existence of the external programmer. However, it does not follow that it would be POSSIBLE to conclusively DISPROVE the programmer. If you never intervene, it will be logical for the digital people to conclude you do not exist, but proving it conclusively will be beyond their capabilities.

[quote]
The only way for a programmer's existence to become evident to his program's digital inhabitants is for its inabitants to identify the fact that they are in a program and infer that it must have been programmed by a programmer.
<hr></blockquote>

Again, only if you choose never to intervene in such a way that the digital people can detect. As programmer, this is your choice to be detectable or undetectable.

[quote]
I am not pushing the question of the ultimate nature of reality back a step, I am attempting to prove that ultimate reality CAN logically have a creator which cannot exist in that reality.
<hr></blockquote>

And I think you have done so. It is not logically impossible that a creator of the universe could exist.

[quote]
The only question left for me, as my analogy stands, is, "Is the universe a program?"<hr></blockquote>

And again, if we are in the program, I think it would be impossible for us to answer this question with any degree of confidence. Even the notion of "being a program" is really a property of that outside existence. The digital people in your example can discern the "laws" laid out by the if-then statements, but cannot actually detect the statements themselves.

Jamie

[long winded fool]

It is not logical to disprove an unproven premise with another unproven premise. The only way I can see to disprove my premise of "All programs have programmers," is to point out a program with no programmer. Arbitrarily inventing an entity (infinity) and attributing it the power of refuting the first premise (the law of averages) is not a valid contradiction.

Me: if A then B
You: But if C, not A, and therefore not B
Me: But if C then D and then A then B...

ad infinitum

We must do what Ockham's razor tells us to do in order to be logical. You can postulate other premises, but if the first can't be disproved then, for the sake of discussion, you should assume the first go from there. And I have not arbitrarily invented an entity, as my argument is what leads me to the conclusion of a programmer.

Quip, "Reality does not dictate that I am not omniscient or omnipotent. Reality is dictated solely by the program. There can be no reality other than what the program allows, because reality is defined by the program. And since I am the creator of the program, I am all of the things I claim to be and even more that you can never understand. I was before the first and will be after the last and everything in between," said the programmer to his program. You cannot use our reality in attempting to understand another. My argument follows because I am the creator of the reality that one must argue from. Though none in the program can comprehend me, logically I must be there. No "outside entity" other than the programmer must logically be, so the idea of others is irrelevant. Hence, the claim of sui generis.

Jamie_L shows some interesting counterpoints, but again, altering the premises and then refuting the conclusions may make us think in ways we haven't thought before, but doesn't refute the initial conclusion. My premise was that I was a good enough programmer to invent an entire universe with no bugs. Any understanding I allow to my digital people will not be true understanding by our standards, as they will always be dependent upon the rules of the program. I can theoretically program them to be able to receive messages communicated by me to them which don't fit with the usual laws of the program, but I can just as easily, and far more efficiently, communicate through the laws that are there already, since their purpose is to execute my will. And even if I program them to see divine messengers delivering my messages on wings, they will eventually find the source code that allows for this and incorporate it into their digital laws of physics, rather than assuming divinity, since divinity makes no real sense to them. It is possible that, whatever my purpose is for creating the digital people, it is programmed to be discovered by them at some point near the end of the program. In which case I would never need to periodically change the rules of the program to "help them out." They are programmed to be where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there. From out here this eliminates their free will, but inside the program, (which is reality) they are going about things in the way they see fit because they are programmed to do so. They are programmed with free will. (There's a contradiction for ya! :D ) Thus, when incorporated into this analogy, the free-will/predestination paradox is resolved. They have free will everywhere in their reality, but being outside of their reality, I know exactly what they are going to do before they do it because I programmed them to do it. In their reality they are solely responsible for their actions, but out here it is obvious that I am the one truly responsible. Since they can't comprehend an "outside" to their reality, they must take responsibility for their actions and behavior because, by the laws of the program, they have free will judging by their ability to cause effects at will. Free will as those outside the program would see it would include the ability to change the laws of the program at will, which the digital people obviously don't have. They have the free will to do anything that they've been programmed to do within the confines of the laws I encoded into the program, and I am still the one who programmed them to do everything they will ever do and I therefore know the future, which implies that they are predestined to do all the things they will ever choose to do. *whew!* (I apologize for my ridiculously long sentences.)

The digital people cannot conclusively prove that there is no programmer, but they can almost conclusively prove that divine intervention is not directly responsible for the if-then statements such as conception, evolution of life, eruption of volcanoes, etc. These are governed by natural laws with no apparent divine manipulation. This was my point when taken into the context of the analogy. All if-then statements occur according to the natural laws of the universe and never through "divine intervention." My point is that the "natural laws of the universe" are also the will of the programmer. Again, not conclusively in our universe, but definitely in my unchanged program example.

I would disagree with Jaime and say that it is NOT possible for a creator of the universe to exist. Remembering the definition I gave earlier that I'm assuming the universe as the space-time continuum, nothing can exist before, after, or outside of the universe, since existence is dependent upon the space-time continuum. A creator by definition must exist both before and outside of his creation, and we are postulating the creator of space and time. A true paradox if I ever saw one. So the programmer cannot exist by our definition of existence, yet according to the laws of the program which state that programs have programmers, he "is." ("The beginning and the end, the first and the last. I am." Biblical symbolism of this very notion?)

But the last statement seems very wise. Truly, the notion of "being in a program" is a property of an outside existence. Well said. How could a digital philosopher conclusively prove he is in a program? Or that he's not? How could he ever truly detect the programmed nature of his universe? All he can really do is see similarities and suspect that, if his universe is a program, there ought to be a programmer.

[Jobar]

Three things.

1) There *are* such things as programmerless programs.

2) We have a semantical problem here- which we can perhaps solve by using 'program designer' in place of 'programmer'.

3) This argument may reduce to the argument from design.

The only one of these I feel really needs to be expanded on is 1. (Since Llyricist and Philosoft have noted 2 and 3- we do indeed have some very sharp people here. :) )

I recall an article in Scientific American from quite a while back, concerning a project which produced programs by 'evolution'- they took a lot of simple single action commands, and a processor which would compile a set number of those commands randomly, then attempt to run it. If it ran, there were certain simple problems the program had to solve; if it did not run, and did not solve the problem, it was discarded, and new ones tried. Eventually they had fairly complex programs, which had never been 'designed' save by the forces of random mutation and selection, in a digital simulation of Darwinism. Do any of you sharp people remember this well enough to help me document it?

[long winded fool]

I see the problem. I was not necessarily assuming a human programmer, so program designer might be a better term, though they sound interchangeable to me. A difficulty with my analogy is that the programmer is a human and we are talking about "digital humans." While these are completely different entities, it may seem that they are not to some. The designer of the program is not a "digital person" and digital people are what are supposed to symbolize real people. I, as a human, was not meant to be taken as a human in the analogy; I was supposed to be an undefined creator with more knowledge than exists in the program. Next time I will try to make clear the distinction that a programmer only implies a designer of a program and not a human being.

I think this IS an argument from design, only perhaps not so easily refuted as previous ones. I think few people would argue that design is not required for evolution to take place. In fact, I made this point in just my last post. All things that transpire do so according to natural laws. There is no design to evolution (in my analogy) the design is in the rules that tell evolution what it can and can't do. I think your example actually helps my analogy because we can now call the program that randomly assembles code until it finds a workable program the laws of physics, and the random code that is finally assembled into a program mathematics, and the final evolved program would be the universe. The programmers who created this program in your example didn't know the outcome of it. Remember, the programmer in my analogy is a master and knows everything that will happen in his program. This is conceivable and even likely assuming the programmer views his program as very simple. Since there is no way for the digital people to ascertain the I.Q. of the programmer, and since the program presents no problems and continues to run smoothly and precisely, it is logical for them to guess that the programmer designed the program with full foreknowledge of its outcome.

Remember, a program that has the ability to program is also a programmer. And since it is also a program, it has a programmer. These evolved programs also DO have programmers. Just because the programmer randomly uses trial and error until it gets a workable program doesn't make it any less of a programmer. Not to mention the fact that the laws of these evolved programs were designed by intelligent programmers, fed into a computer and randomly cycled until they fell together into a workable system. In this case the possibility that the programs could evolve was programmed by humans. Feeding simple numbers into a computer would never result in a program, but designing laws as to how a program could possibly come about and then programming a computer to process these laws randomly until they formed another program is design and it is programming. Laws are required to get a program and the laws must be designed in order to tell the program (which is also a programmer) what to do in order to get a program.

I don't know if any of what I said makes sense, but logically it still seems that all programs are designed. Not strictly all programs are designed by humans, but intelligence is required for all programs. A prerequisite if you will. Without intelligent design, the evolved programs would never come about except, I suppose, in infinity. And we are back to whether one is more comfortable arbitrarily inventing a scenario which allows for a programmerless program, or going by experience and assuming, if a program, then a programmer, or a program designer. (I see no difference between the two besides the fact that a program designer doesn't necessarily have to enter the code into the compiler. But he is still a programmer since he DID write the program, and the person who typed the commands into the compiler is not a programmer because he didn't design the program. He is a merely code-enterer.)

[Llyricist]

Long Winded Fool,

Somewhere in there you have to allow for the undetectible medium (the computer, as ,,,,Philosoft??...pointed out)it MUST have at least some basic responses to different combinations of states. Otherwise the idea of a program becomes meaningless, does this medium also require a designer?? and a builder?? Our infinity postulater would say that again infinity is the equivilent of a programmer, as well as a designer and builder....

Anyhow our argument goes more like this:

You: If A then B
Me: If C then C is equivalent to B therefore:
If A then B OR C
You: If A then B!!!!

Where A=Program, B=Programmer, and C=Infinity

And suggesting the Infinity isn't arbitrary, no more so than your postulating the programmer based on experience. In Mathematics, what exists outside of anything finite IS infinite. So since our Universe is finite, whatever is outside of it MUST be infinite. I'm not saying this is correct, just as you can assume that the natural laws ARE a program that MUST have a programmer, I can assume our Universe is a subset of an infinity. Not arbitrary at all.

And I think you are using some sort of logical fallacy in your assertion that I must show where a programmerless program HAS occured in order to disprove your assertion that a program must have a progammer, I believe it is enough to show that it is logically possible, and for that I don't even NEED an infinity, just enough iterations of random sequences. The infinity only makes it CERTAIN that any GIVEN program WILL occur.

Just because no-one in my awareness has done this (why WOULD they??, it's terribly inefficient by human standards) does NOT put it outside the realm of possibility. Though the evolutionary programs ARE a step in that direction, as you point out they still require some sort of direction. However, ONLY because the people have purposes in mind in creating the programs. There is no evidence to suggest the program we are in has any purpose at all.


On a side note: *&^*(&%*$&$%%# SHUTTLE!!! twice now I traveled 3 hours each way to see it and it gets scrubbed!!

[long winded fool]

Llyricist is using a powerful argument against creationism that I do not claim to refute. In fact, I incorporate this very argument into my analogy. When I say that everything comes about through natural laws in the program, I am implying that, as of the digital big bang, the program was completed and required no further editing by the programmer. The digital energy coalesced into matter through completely understandable laws to those inside the program. All things that seem complex are simply the natural result of these laws being in effect (random iterations if you will) and, from the program's perspective, have no intelligent designer. Life evolved through completely natural laws and random events without any form of existing conscious direction. I do not refute this. My analogy states that the laws are the program. The laws work the way they do in this case because they were programmed to. Since I am a master programmer, I foresaw all of the events that naturally occurred since, from my "outside" point-of-view, there was nothing random about them at all. I programmed the randomness with the foreknowledge of what it would bring about. For me, programmed free will and programmed randomness doesn't exist, but these do to the digital people.

Perhaps we should define infinity. Something outside of mathematics is indeed infinity, but this particular infinity (more fun contradictions! :) ) implies neither unlimited time nor unlimited space. Numbers, strictly speaking, exist in neither time nor space. Mathematical infinity would not allow a program to occur, since it does exist and could never by itself produce something in space-time, where all programs must exist. The infinity required for the "infinite possibilities" scenario must be either unlimited time or unlimited space. If the space-time continuum is required before one can assume space or time, it is illogical for this type of infinity to exist apart from the space-time continuum. And if the space-time continuum is itself infinite, then you are essentially saying that the program is itself infinite which implies a programmerless program. So when logically broken down, your argument seems to only be saying that if an infinite program doesn't need a programmer, then not all programs need programmers. Now do you see that your arbitrary premise produces an arbitrary conclusion that is not enough to disprove a logically induced premise? My premise of all programs have programmers is a logical induction because one cannot imagine a programmerless program without laws already existing in time or space, which if they are the program, must have a programmer. Let's break this down and see where the fallacy lies:

Me: If all programs have programmers, and the universe is a program, then the universe has a programmer.

You: If infinite time or space (or already present time or space), then not all programs must have programmers, and a programmed universe is not subject to a programmer.

So logically:

Me: if logically induced premise A, and arbitrary premise B, then arbitrary conclusion C.

You: if arbitrary premise D, then premise A is not logical, and arbitrary conclusion not-C.

You are using an arbitrary conclusion to disprove a logical premise. You are using a deductive fallacy to prove an inductive fallacy. While I might very well be wrong in my induction, you have a deductive fallacy when you use an arbitrary conclusion derived from an arbitrary premise to disprove a logical induction. Since all encountered programs have programmers, it is logical to induce that all programs have programmers. This isn't necessarily the case, but it is more logical than to assume programs aren't always the products of programmers without evidence of such a case. You have presented no evidence, just a less logical scenario in which it is possible. According to Ockham's razor, one ought logically to assume my argument and then assume yours once mine is disproven.

Your programmerless program needs something before it can pop into existence. Call it infinity if you wish, but whatever this something is, it must exist in the space-time continuum. The only thing that cannot exist in the space-time continuum is the creator of the space-time continuum, if there is one. If the space-time continuum is a program, then it cannot be a programmerless program. This is NOT logically possible.

[Jobar]

lwf has, I think, done an excellent job of keeping his analogy on a highly theoretical level; he has not tried to defend any dogma of any ordinary religion, save for his argument in favor of a programmer (creator) for his program (universe). In fairness, let's make sure that none of us accuse him of extending his analogy into a supporting structure for Christian theology; lwf, if anyone does that unfairly, I should point out that such illogical extensions of analogies are standard fare for many of the theistic posters we have seen.

Now, with that said-
lwf:
"Your programmerless program needs something before it can pop into existence. Call it infinity if you wish, but whatever this something is, it must exist in the space-time continuum. The only thing that cannot exist in the space-time continuum is the creator of the space-time continuum, if there is one. If the space-time continuum is a program, then it cannot be a programmerless program. This is NOT logically possible."

While our conception of infinity certainly includes the space-time continuum, we have no reason to contain it (infinity) within space-time. There may be meta-universes, and meta-meta-universes, and on and on; it is simply beyond our knowledge to state what can or cannot be 'outside' space-time.

You speak of defining infinity; good luck. ;) The two (definite and infinite) are mutually contradictory; look at the origins and meanings of the two words. The best we can do is say what the infinite is *not*. (Some of my links to pantheism discussions, from earlier in the thread, should be checked out for more on this.)

Ah, I don't want to harp on this fact, but there ARE 'programmerless' or undesigned programs! If you doubt my word, I will get on a search engine, or consult with others of the many scholars here, and get more information on those 'evolved' programs I mentioned earlier. I really think that, though they are admittedly very simple at this time, their existence punctures your argument that programmerless or undesigned programs are impossible. Indeed, genetic information contained in DNA has many similarities to a program; yet we see new DNA-borne information, in the form or viruses and bacteria, evolve uncreated on a regular basis.

[long winded fool]

Jobar, I don't doubt that these evolved programs exist, I simply doubt that they are as unprogrammed as you think. The fact remains that these programs would never have evolved without a programmer. Do you dispute this? While the programs compiled themselves through trial and error, they had to be told to compile themselves through trial and error. (Or, more accurately, the laws that command random compilation had to be designed and implemented by an intelligence.) As I stated in my last post, the laws that allowed for the programs to evolve require a programmer, therefore the evolved programs themselves require a programmer. You are right when you say that these individual programs are not directly designed, but a programmer did, albeit in a roundabout way, create these evolved programs. If they had no programmer, then no one would have claim to them and how would one decide who owned them and who was responsible for them? I assume the person or persons who programmed the code and told it to randomly evolve claim ownership of these fascinating programs.

Your argument proves that the digital people in my analogy don't necessarily have to be designed directly. They could have evolved like the programs in your example. But the program that allows them to evolve MUST have been programmed, and therefore their existence implies a programmer. All programs must logically have a programmer who exists before they do. Even with billions of subsets of self-evolving, self-maintaining programs that compile randomly and are technically undesigned, all are the product of the programmer who initially programmed the system to work this way. Without a programmer, none would exist. He doesn't have to have any knowledge of outcome of his program, but he must exist if the program is to exist.

Thanks to this excellent cross-examination, I have been forced to constantly reflect on and re-evaluate the logic of my analogy. I still feel very confident in my premises and conclusions. If the universe is a program, it must have a programmer. The programmer doesn't have to be intelligent, or omnipotent or omniscient, but it can be. In my analogy I used a master programmer in order to simulate a god figure, but this is completely arbitrary. You could also just as logically assume a programmer much like the programmer of Jobar's example; Someone who simply created a set of laws and variables in a program, programmed them to compile randomly, and then watched to see what happened. As was present in my conclusion, the nature (I.Q.) of the programmer in my analogy is unknowable, but the fact that it is there is logically implied. While one is more than welcome contemplate alternate hypotheses, it seems that the simplest theory with the least amount of variables should be assumed until logically contradicted. Since all programs that we can imagine have a programmer as a prerequisite, then if one assumes the universe is a program, it must also. If infinity exists, then programmers are not necessarily a prerequisite to programs, but until we find a programmerless program, there is no need to add an entity called infinity that allows for a program without a programmer. This shouldn't logically be brought into the argument. The only reason to bring infinity into this analogy is an unreasonable desire to not have a programmer. My only desire is to discern truth, and I feel I've stumbled across an analogy which will help me in this goal. I couldn't care less if the truth shows that there is, or isn't a creator god, or if it simply proves that I am a very bad philosopher. As long as it is truth, it is valuable knowledge and will put me and anyone else interested in it at least a tiny bit closer to other even more exciting truths. Hence the divinity of Truth. To very liberally paraphrase the 'original' long-winded fool:

Long live philosophy! :D

[Odemus]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
<strong>The programmer doesn't have to be intelligent, or omnipotent or omniscient, but it can be. </strong><hr></blockquote>

If the programmer is not intelligent, what would distinguish it from being just another in a series of subset programs?

I can assume that the program of your analogy began with the willful act of a programmer because in this scenario the programmer is intelligent.Could you shed some light on the nature of a possible unintelligent creator by inserting one into your analogy so as to demonstrate I must conclude that the programmer is not simply another program?

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Odemus ]</p>

[long winded fool]

This is true. I contradicted my original claim that intelligence is a prerequisite for programs when I said that not all programs require intelligence. I should have only said omniscience and omnipotence are not required. Though it may have been taken out of context, I take back my misstatement and say that intelligence is required for the existence of any given program. Even Jobar's evolved programs required an artificially simulated form of intelligence. And artificial intelligence always requires an unprogrammed "natural" intelligence somewhere up the line. Therefore, though not all programs have to be the direct design of true unprogrammed intelligence, all programs require true unprogrammed intelligence to exist. If the programmer is simply another program, (as would be the case in my analogy if the real universe happened to be a program) then I must be the product of an unprogrammed programmer. If our universe is NOT a program, then I don't have to be the product of a programmer and thus, according to my analogy, would be the only unprogrammed programmer the digital people could logically assume. It is true that, if the real universe is a program, and its programmer is also a program, then it must have an unprogrammed programmer, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. While there is no limit to how far back you can take this, the fact remains that an unprogrammed programmer is always required. And it is illogical to assume that the programmer of the space-time continuum needs a programmer because we will be unnecessarily multiplying entities. Applying infinite programs simply implies that all programs require unprogrammed programmers, but none can exist. This follows with the perceptions of my digital universe. Since they cannot possibly fathom a "beyond" to the digital space-time continuum, how can they even assume that it exists, let alone that it also is a program? Therefore, the logical assumption is, if the universe is a program, it has an unprogrammed programmer. Though it may possibly have a programmed programmer, this should not logically be assumed. All other possibilities that I can imagine must take a back seat to this one if we are using Ockam's razor. This is the enlightening, but often uncomfortable purpose of logic. Limiting possibilities.

The opposite end of the omniscient programmer in my analogy would be an intelligent programmer who only understood his program as far as the laws go. He would then put them into effect and wait to see what happened. But even this seems unlikely since if he understands the laws and how to put them together in non-contradictory ways, he ought to also know all of the possible outcomes of such laws being in effect. (omniscience, to the program) While this is not absolutely necessary, it seems reasonably probable. I apologize if my last post sounded contradictory. All programs require a designer, but not all programs are required to be consciously designed by the designer that they require. I reference Jobar's excellent example as an illustration of this.

[Synaesthesia]

I admit I haven't yet read the thread. I have a little comment that might be of interest:

God doesn't acutally need to be illogical to be absurd. And a patently absurd, epistemologically vacuous God is illogical even if he himself is logically consistent.

[Llyricist]

l-w-f

You seem to have missed my point regarding purpose, so let me expand on it. All the programs in your experience have a programmer BECAUSE they serve a programmer-centric purpose. While this program MAY serve a programmer-being's purpose, you have and must fail to show that it must, as there is no way for us to determine what his purposes might be. And to say that the very existence of the program shows that it must have a purpose for the programmer-being would force a circularity.

I'll let Jobar's arguments and links regarding infinity stand as mine for now ;)

This is beside the point, but you should drop the compiler from the hypothesis, there is no reason for this programmer to require a higher level language than the "machine code" (or Medium code). I myself developed a machine code program, on a Heathkit H-8 (8080) that I built, to perform the quadratic formula. Waaaaaaay back in High School, the only reason I did this was because the guy building the terminal for it was running behind. The computer had a numeric keypad on it and a simple LED display which allowed data and code to be entered directly, in Octal no less LOL.

[quip]

[quote]Originally posted by long winded fool:
<strong>Quip.... You cannot use our reality in attempting to understand another.... so the idea of others is irrelevant.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ahhh….Likewise, it is irrelevant to use your programmed “reality” to attempt to understand ours.

That’s all my point was trying to make.

Maybe I was being a touch too pragmatic in assuming that your analogy was intended for more than just intellectual speculation.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: quip ]</p>

[Jobar]

lwf, I think that all the objections to the validity of your program/universe analogy lead to agnosticism; we could never know one way or the other if there was an ultimate program designer, because you specify that the program cannot be penetrated from inside. "No knowledge" is of course the literal translation of agnostic.

I've thought of another angle on the problem. Your digital people are aware of the concept of infinity, right? Since they are analogous to us, they obviously must be. So they can hypothesize not only a god/program designer, they can also ask about the causes and motives of that being. Just as with us, hypothesizing a god answers no questions and solves no problems; if the question(s) being asked seek for ultimate causes and meanings- and what other questions would lead to the concept of god/programmer other than ultimate ones?- then it is natural to instantly ask "what is the cause, meaning or purpose of god/programmer?"

Let me make a small side excursion here. Many of us- me included- refer to ourselves as atheists when the subject is the God of the Abrahamic religions. We find the description of God we are given to be not only unproven, but self-contradictory- impossible. So we are confident of Jehovah's non-existence. For other concepts of ultimate beings however, many of us, me included, are agnostics. Your Programmer seems an exact parallel to a deistic god; and that is one of the god-concepts for which we profess agnosticism. So although your program/universe analogy is novel and interesting, I see no reason I should not maintain my agnosticism towards your conclusions.

[Jamie_L]

I thought on this a little more over the weekend. A few more comments:

I (and some others) have commented that a program could be a simulation/evolution-type program where rules and initial conditions are set and then thing run freely. OR the program could be more like a CGI movie, where every detail and every action is selected and controlled by the programmer.

IF the universe were a program, I think we could infer that it is NOT the CGI-movie variety, because there seems to be so little purpose to anything. The universe generally behaves as if it is mindless and uncontrolled.

Now, if we have this situation, and we're dealing with a programmer that never gets involved with us and never interacts with us, where does that leave us?

Almost with metaphysical naturalism: we have a closed natural environment in which no "external causes" get involved (other than at the very beginning, to set up the initial conditions). The programmer may not (in fact, probably didn't) set things up with any intent to create human beings. It may not care about us at all. And once we're done with our digital lives, we're off to digital oblivion never to return. The existence of this programmer, which we can never discover, never comprehend, never interact with, becomes almost irrelevant.

Jamie

[long winded fool]

While I'm not exactly sure of Synaesthesia's meaning, (my definition of absurd is "being inconsistent with logic,") it may be wise to point out a distinction