God exists outside time and space?

[beastmaster]

Premise 1: Existence is limited by space-time.
Premise 2: God exists.
Conclusion: God is limited by space-time.

But I often hear (non-pantheistic) theists claim that god exists "outside" time and space, either wholly or in part. So they must dispute Premise 1.

I have pounded my head against the wall for years over this problem, and here are some observations:

(1) Premise 1 appears to be at least definitionally correct. If there is anything not limited by space-time, it is something other than "existence." Thus, when theists say "god exists outside space and time" and if they are correct in any meaningful sense, it must be because "exists" is merely a metaphor or placeholder for some other word or concept. But I don't know what that other word or concept is.

(2) I have a strong intuition that Premise 1 is correct in a non-trivial sense. It seems to me that there is no such thing as an "outside" or "beginning" to space-time, and that there is only a *limit* to space-time. But I have no idea how to support that intuition, and I doubt that my intuitions may be fully trusted when considering ultimate questions. Yet, I cannot comprehend how "god exists outside space and time" drips so easily from the tongue of god-believers as if it is a meaningful and perfectly sensible idea. I just sit in dumbfounded awe, shaking my head, trying to figure out why this is so easy for them. I am hoping that a friendly theist can help me to make some sense of how my intuition may have decieved me here.

(3) I don't understand how information can have any meaning without reference to space-time. And, thus, if god is composed of information (an "immutable consciousness"), I cannot understand how god *can* exist apart from space-time in any meaningful sense.

(4) Some theists say that, because we have a concept of god in our minds, then it follows that god must be real. Along these lines, if we have no concept in our minds for what "god's existence outside time and space" means, does it not follow that god's *existence* outside time and space is *not* real?

Thanks.

[DMB]

Originally posted by beastmaster

(3) I don't understand how information can have any meaning without reference to space-time. And, thus, if god is composed of information (an "immutable consciousness"), I cannot understand how god *can* exist apart from space-time in any meaningful sense.

(4) Some theists say that, because we have a concept of god in our minds, then it follows that god must be real. Along these lines, if we have no concept in our minds for what "god's existence outside time and space" means, does it not follow that god's *existence* outside time and space is *not* real?
Sorry, Beastie. You may find these ideas incompatible or incomprehensible, but theists get in a lot of practice in the gentle art of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

[long winded fool]

Imagine that I am an expert programmer. I create a program in which there are digital people capable of as much reason and intelligence as I have. Say they become so self aware that they begin to ask where they come from. Digital scientists begin probing the program, (which is not a program to them at all) and begin to discover the syntax that makes the program do the things it tends to do. They become able to manipulate the program to their own ends so far as I have already accounted for this ability and programed it to not create a contradiction in the program. Say that the digital people's idea of existence requires some location in digital space and digital time. Nothing outside of the program can possibly "exist" because the program itself must always be a prerequisite for existence. "Outside" and "before the program" cannot have meaning. To the digital people, can I possibly exist? Despite the answer to this, do I exist?

I think your intuitive reaction is absolutely right. God can't "exist," yet it is still possible that God somehow "is." No this doesn't solve infinite regression and "Who programmed the programmer?" Yet, from the program's point of view, it has either been created by a non-existent entity, or it is infinite and this ironically is logical to any outside the program. If the universe were analogous to a program, God could still be separate from the laws governing logic because he designed the laws governing logic. Just like my programmed digital people who require my program to exist cannot possibly comprehend me, someone who doesn't, (If they try, they might ask: "Which syntax line do you occur in?" or "How do you respond to such and such sequence of binary code?") so too could humans be incapable of wrapping their brains around God, who cannot fall under any of the senses or any of the definitions we use to perceive and describe our universe. Theoretically, logic need not apply to God, short of calling him the creator, just like the rules of binary code need not apply to me short of calling me the compiler.

Of course, the next question is: "What's the point of trying to comprehend God?" I bet you all answers to this question will be comparable to some kind of logic and cause and effect, whether it's rational or irrational. No ammount of examination and comparison of ones and zeros will make me apparent to my digital people.

[beastmaster]

Thanks, lwf.

I am struggling with your analogy. I don't know much about A.I., but it seems to me that any A.I. would exist in the *same* space-time continuum as you and me. I don't think there is any such thing as "digital time" or "digital space." The electrons and information that compose the digital beings are, after all, not part of a separate reality from the electrons and information that structure our existence.

Now, the digital people may not be able to *perceive* external reality and thus may be unaware of the programmer's existence or of the programmer's perception of time and space. But that's more like the blind hermit who cannot perceive or imagine the color red. No one would doubt that the blind hermit exists within our space-time continuum even though he or she cannot perceive red and cannot imagine its existence.

I recognize that all analogies are at best approximations so I do not fault you at all for attempting to express the unexpressable. (And I do apolgize if I am misconstruing your analogy.)

Maybe a better analogy is Flatland, where the 2-dimensional inhabitants cannot perceive a third-dimension and thus cannot conceive of it, despite its reality. I am open to the possibility of dimensions that we cannot directly perceive. But theists aren't proposing that god exists in another dimension - they propose that god exists in "no dimensions" - i.e., outside space-time - which strikes me as a meaningless statement.

[Vylo]

?ecaps dna emit esrever ni tsixe tsuj uoy fi tahW

[beastmaster]

Oh, another thing, lwf. It appears, especially in your second paragraph, that you confront the fascinating question of whether or not humans can conceive of god. Despite the merits of this question and of your answer, I feel it is slightly aside from the questions I proposed, which are, to rephrase slightly: (1) can we conceive of existence outside time and space? and (2) if we can't, is that because there's something wrong with us or because there's something wrong with the idea?

I will continue to think about your post because it has several interesting ideas in it.

[Llyricist]

?ecaps dna emit esrever ni tsixe tsuj uoy fi tahW

;) .rethie ereht tsixe t'nseod dog taht uoy llet nac I dna ,noitcerid taht ni emit deviecrep evah I

[long winded fool]

Yes, digital people would exist in the same space and time as me, the programmer, however, the relevant idea is that I would not be confined to their idea of space and time. Since they are dependent upon the syntax of the program they cannot conceive of something "outside" it, though from an outside perspective, they both exist in the same reality. Ultimately, (from the point of view of someone not dependent on the program,) reality contains both me and my program, however this is not logical to the digital people. Reality is the program. In the same token, it is possible that we exist in the same "reality" as God, but we are confined to the three dimensions of space and one of time. (Yes, Flatland might be a better analogy. ;)) The space-time continuum is our reality. The program is the digital people's. There is more to actual reality than the program. That we can grant, being outside of and existing before the program and being able to comprehend these notions. But when we are put in the position of the digital people, we cannot grant any more than the space-time continuum. "What was it like before time?" is silly to us for the exact same reason "What was it like before the program?" is silly for the digital people. Yet "before the program" exists and "beyond time" could possibly be a part of reality.

I'm not trying to get technical here. I don't claim that AI exists like this, I'm merely seeing if I can compare the universe that some believe to be a created system to an actually created system, and see where that puts the creator. For a perhaps more philosiphically apt analogy, I think you're right about Abbott's Flatland. This can be incorporated into my analogy by calling the 2D world the created program dependent on binary code, and the 3D world to where I, as the three dimensional programmer, (or artist?) sit. The 2D world exists in the same reality as the 3D world, but cannot be comprehended and therefore technically can't "exist" by the definition flat people use. In the same vein, I don't "exist" according to my program (the only way I possibly can is by being binary code) yet ultimately I do exist and so does it.

To attempt to make it less convoluted: in an absolute sense (disregarding any limitations and necessarily being outside the program) the creator does exist. (in the analogy, that is.) In a comprehensible sense (allowing for the definition of "existence" used by the created thing) the creator does not. He can't, since he doesn't fall into the category of things that exist. Say, to exist, a thing must on a fundamental level be a given set of ones and zeros. Or perhaps be present on a two dimensional plane. (Once the cube rises above the plane, it must necessarily become non-existent to the square.)

I think you're right. "God exists" is a meaningless statement. (If God is the creator of space and time.) He can't exist by our definition. Whatever it is that he/she/it (also all meaningless) "does" or "is" (both not applicable) all we can do is use these words which have space and time as prerequisites as placeholders for notions that can't. (Not that we can even come up with any of these notions.) To try to conceive of God is to fail with the very first thought.

(1) can we conceive of existence outside time and space? and (2) if we can't, is that because there's something wrong with us or because there's something wrong with the idea?

I don't think one can. Existence cannot apply outside time or space. This is like asking: Can biology exist without life? Life is a prerequisite for biology. I like the second question. It's well worded and profound in its honest simplicity. It seems unanswerable to me, but maybe it's not. If my analogy is actually descriptive of the universe (if there is a creator) then the problem is with us. We are simply not capable of perceiving all of reality. (Like the digital people in the program.) What we call reality is nothing but a program in a bigger reality. (A bigger reality where the laws of the program do not necessarily apply, remember.) If there is no creator, then is there any other reason to assume a 'bigger' reality? Are there any hints that something else might be present besides space and time? If not, then I would think the idea itself is flawed. In any case, from inside the program, we can always assume the idea is flawed and never be proven wrong short of a wondrous miracle. (Perhaps being taken up into the 3D world to see our 2D friends from above?)

[scumble]

The tomfoolery on godandscience.org appeals to multidimensional theory of chaps like Hawking to say "See! God can go in the other dimensions we can't see!"

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

[Bengt03]

If god is transcendent (outside of nature = not in nature) then how can he be omnipresent (everywhere, including in nature)?

I think theist's would say that he's both everywhere in nature and outside of nature at the same time (that's contradictory)... but if he's is everywhere in nature, how come no one has observed him?

[Shinobi]

I'd like to know how you can know that something is outside time and space.

[ScumDog]

Hehe first post!

Anyways, if god is outside of time and space, how in the world can he create anything. That would require an act only permissible with spacetime, which was created at some point, since we have evidence to suggest that the universe was not always here.

And what separates a timeless area from a time area? Also, how does that work from our perspective? From our perspective, what god is doing is in sequence at different times, which would mean there would have to be time in his "area". That just confuses the hell out of me.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by ScumDog
Hehe first post!

Anyways, if god is outside of time and space, how in the world can he create anything. That would require an act only permissible with spacetime, which was created at some point, since we have evidence to suggest that the universe was not always here.

And what separates a timeless area from a time area? Also, how does that work from our perspective? From our perspective, what god is doing is in sequence at different times, which would mean there would have to be time in his "area". That just confuses the hell out of me.

You're not the only one. In fact, with regards to my analogy, the only kind of person that this couldn't confuse would be a person not subject to the space-time continuum. All of these problems you guys come up with are valid. In the same token, all of the arguments digital people make about how nothing can possibly exist outside of the program they rely on for existence, are also valid. As long as existence is defined by a specific location in space and time, nothing can exist apart from the space-time continuum. As long as digital people define existence as having some set of ones and zeros, nothing that is not defined by ones and zeros exist. As far as they're concerned, their programmer doesn't exist. As far as we're concerned, God doesn't exist. (If God is the creator of space-time.) The point is, the creator is not comprehensible in either case, yet there is still a creator in the analogy. If the universe is analogous to a program, (and it executes itself not unlike a program,) then it could have an illogical creator.

[ScumDog]

Again, how could it create anything. That would mean there was a before to the creation, and a during, and an after, which in a timeless continuum cannot happen. *sounds of shovels digging and flies buzzing*

[fiGit]

I don't believ I've really heard theists claim he was OUTSIDE of time and space as much as I've heard that (via Norman Giesler, "Systematic Theology" for example) that time and space are INSIDE of him... that this world is INSIDE of him... which sorta sparks the basis for the determinist argument (calvinism, free will...)

This is an awesome discussion, guys, I'm glad I decided to check back here after a couple years of staying away from the debate scene
=-D

[Llyricist]

that time and space are INSIDE of him
That's just a hare's breath away from pantheism ;)

I HAVE heard "Christians" say we are all part of God, which is one of the things that led me to pantheism.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by ScumDog
Again, how could it create anything. That would mean there was a before to the creation, and a during, and an after, which in a timeless continuum cannot happen. *sounds of shovels digging and flies buzzing*

Being inside the creation, (assuming it is a creation for the sake of argument) I cannot answer this logically. I can look to a possibly analogous creation inside this creation. How can a programmer program anything? This is easily answerable from outside the program. It becomes impossible to answer if all existence (space and time) is absolutely dependent upon the structure of the program. You are absolutely right, without an interval of time and a location in space, creation can't occur. Existence is undefined. Analogously, without at least the most basic matrix of ones and zeros, existence and creation are both undefined in the program. I am independent of ones and zeros, therefore I cannot exist, nor can I possibly create anything, in the minds of the digital consciousnesses dependent upon my program, and therefore me, for their existence. What irony!

While we can make sense of the program analogy and chuckle at the ignorance of the digital people, the fact of the matter is: They cannot possibly make sense of me at all. For anything to exist for them, including knowledge of me, it must have the form of ones and zeros. How can I explain anything to them that doesn't have the form of ones and zeros? Every miracle I perform, every change I make, every communication I give them, must be explainable by the syntax of the program or else it won't exist to them. If the analogy holds, then all "miracles" in our universe must be explainable by the laws of the universe. Anything that defies the absolute laws of the universe (not that we are currently aware of all of them) cannot exist. "Divine intervention" must be imperceptible from nature. What we usually call "miracles" would merely be reflections of our own ignorance of how the universe naturally works, assuming the analogy is apt.

[fiGit]

"They cannot possibly make sense of me at all"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Are you saying then that there's no more to be learned? If there's more to be learned I don't think you can say that this can NEVER make sense to you..


I just hate it when discussions end at "we'll never know"....

I need something more

[fiGit]

"That's just a hare's breath away from pantheism"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

yeah, I suppose, but that's another thread for another time, man
=-P

If you start a thread on that, PM me cuz I'm really undecided on what I believe anyways and I'd enjoy a discussion on that

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by fiGit
"They cannot possibly make sense of me at all"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Are you saying then that there's no more to be learned? If there's more to be learned I don't think you can say that this can NEVER make sense to you..


I just hate it when discussions end at "we'll never know"....

I need something more

Then you would be analogous to the completely rational digital people who conclude, "Why even postulate a programmer?" They are completely correct within the program. There is no more to be learned. There is no programmer. For "is" to exist, it must first be a part of the program.

I'm not trying to solve anything here, I'm trying to give perspective. If we are creations, it is likely that our creator is incomprehensible since we require the creation as a prerequisite before we can even think. Every thought must be relative to the creation, therefore any "creator" will always be inconsistent and self-contradictory because we must logically force him inside the creation, a place where he cannot "exist" by the very rules of the creation, i.e. a location in time and space or a sequence of ones and zeros.

Maybe human beings are capable of perceiving "beyond" space and time, whatever that is. If we can, then there's more to be learned. If we can't, then all we can do is respond to a, for all intents and purposes, creatorless universe in the only kinds of ways we know how. We must study the ones and zeros and manipulate them to the best of our ability to the advantage of all. (A little of my subjective morality there, but I think most would agree.) Why the universe is here cannot be determined without being apart from it, just like the true purpose of the programmer cannot be fully determined without being outside the program. Or perhaps by completely mastering the program from the inside, that is, finding and understanding every single one and zero. So perhaps in order to comprehend our creator we need to find and understand every variable in the universe? As impossible and infinite a task as this seems to be, it is nothing at all when compared to trying to force our brains to think outside of space and time, (both "think" and "outside" thereby becoming meaningless.)

[Sylvan Wizard]

Digital scientists begin probing the program, (which is not a program to them at all) and begin to discover the syntax that makes the program do the things it tends to do. They become able to manipulate the program to their own ends so far as I have already accounted for this ability and programed it to not create a contradiction in the program.For one, if the program can simulate the entire known universe (and possibly more) then that's one hell of a program. I'd go as far as suggesting such a thing is imossible. For another, if it can simulate consciousness and the entire universe, the inhabitants would be able to probe more than just this "syntax" as you call it. They could figure out how the computer works that runs the program, the laws by which it operates. In this hypothetical situation there are fundamental laws that the computer and programmer both must operate by. These laws also manifest themselves by controlling the program. These truer and more fundamental laws would be derivable from within the program if one learned enough about it.
Hack the matrix. ;)
As for not creating a contradiction in the program... what happens if the inhabitants bring about something you didn't forsee? A program crash? I suppose you have the perfect hardware and perfect error handling as well, though the possibility of that is arguable.
Say that the digital people's idea of existence requires some location in digital space and digital time. Nothing outside of the program can possibly "exist" because the program itself must always be a prerequisite for existence. "Outside" and "before the program" cannot have meaning. To the digital people, can I possibly exist? Despite the answer to this, do I exist?Since they are conscious and make their own definitions, they can define two types of existance: one within the program (the known universe), and one within the Universe (all existance/reality). Note the capital U.
It may be of interest to note, that within these definitions, God (the programmer) does not exist in the universe/program. He exists only "outside", in reality. In this scenario God would have the ability to interact with the universe by manipulating the fundamental laws of the Universe (reality) to alter the behaviour of the universe (program). (Note, by manipulate I mean exploit, in the sense that technology arises from exploiting science, not in the sense of altering the laws which he could not do).
God can't "exist," yet it is still possible that God somehow "is." No this doesn't solve infinite regression and "Who programmed the programmer?" Yet, from the program's point of view, it has either been created by a non-existent entity, or it is infinite and this ironically is logical to any outside the program.The definitions above would seem to address that. I don't see where you get the notion of infinite from though. Where'd that come from?
If the universe were analogous to a program, God could still be separate from the laws governing logic because he designed the laws governing logic.I would offer the suggestion that logic is more fundamental than the program's rules. By the analogy, the programmer and computer exist in a logical place, and while the program may have been given different physical rules by which to operate (physical in the program), the rules of logic are more fundamental, and both computer and programmer are restricted in that way. The rules of logic are more fundamental than any physical "laws" we know of. By analogy, logic is what we could use to probe the workings of the program, and eventually the computer.
Just like my programmed digital people who require my program to exist cannot possibly comprehend me, someone who doesn't, (If they try, they might ask: "Which syntax line do you occur in?" or "How do you respond to such and such sequence of binary code?") so too could humans be incapable of wrapping their brains around God, who cannot fall under any of the senses or any of the definitions we use to perceive and describe our universe.While these digital people may not be able to wholly comprehend the programmer, they could comprehend certain aspects of him. They could comprehend for instance, that there is a greater existance, of which the programmer is a part of, and that the program is a part of. Also, that the programmer is the one who created the program (obviously), etc. As you've demonstrated with this analogy, we can comprehend things beyond our normal existance.
Theoretically, logic need not apply to God, short of calling him the creator, just like the rules of binary code need not apply to me short of calling me the compiler.That is an important point, one which you seem to have glossed over. While God may not be restricted by logic in his existance (I'll admit this as a possibility here for the sake of argument), he would have to be restricted by logic when operating within our existance.

Thanks, lwf.

I am struggling with your analogy. I don't know much about A.I., but it seems to me that any A.I. would exist in the *same* space-time continuum as you and me. I don't think there is any such thing as "digital time" or "digital space." The electrons and information that compose the digital beings are, after all, not part of a separate reality from the electrons and information that structure our existence.Right, that's why they'd be able to probe the nature of the program and the operation of the computer.
Maybe a better analogy is Flatland, where the 2-dimensional inhabitants cannot perceive a third-dimension and thus cannot conceive of it, despite its reality.Perception does not restrict conception, else what is imagination and abstraction for?
Despite the merits of this question and of your answer, I feel it is slightly aside from the questions I proposed, which are, to rephrase slightly: (1) can we conceive of existence outside time and space? and (2) if we can't, is that because there's something wrong with us or because there's something wrong with the idea?I think it did answer the question. The scenario LWF proposed is itself a conception of existance "beyond space and time".
Ultimately, (from the point of view of someone not dependent on the program,) reality contains both me and my program, however this is not logical to the digital people. Reality is the program.Reality as we know it is the program. It would be ignorant to assume that there cannot be more to reality beyond what we know of it.
In the same token, it is possible that we exist in the same "reality" as God, but we are confined to the three dimensions of space and one of time.11 dimensions actually. ;)
Yes, Flatland might be a better analogy.[quote]In the flatland analogy too, a lower dimensional existance still interacts with the higher dimensions it's a part of.
[quote]In a comprehensible sense (allowing for the definition of "existence" used by the created thing) the creator does not. He can't, since he doesn't fall into the category of things that exist.I think this discussion has shown, if anything, that existance does not necessarily depend on a definition of space-time.
I don't believ I've really heard theists claim he was OUTSIDE of time and space as much as I've heard that (via Norman Giesler, "Systematic Theology" for example) that time and space are INSIDE of him... that this world is INSIDE of him... which sorta sparks the basis for the determinist argument (calvinism, free will...)I've heard both. Some claim known reality could be like God's dream.

[Jobar]

"Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told 'matter and energy.'

Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient. The robot at the automobile factory is supplied with metal and plastic but can make nothing useful without copious instructions telling it which part to weld to what and so on. A ribosome in a cell is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus. Likewise, a century of development in physics has taught us that information is a crucial player in physical systems and processes. Indeed, a current trend, initiated by John A. Wheeler of Princeton University, is to regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."
-from "Information in the holographic universe", Scientific American, Aug. 2003. (Italics mine.)

Makes your analogy look much more applicable, lwf!

The above seems to imply that all we perceive- all we can perceive- is information. I submit that we cannot even conceive of anything not information-like; after all, concepts are ideas, which are information. (If anyone can think of any exceptions to this, I'd be delighted to hear it.)

If our perceived reality is at root informational, and we cannot even conceive of a different way for things to be, and if thus we have found the most basic nature of reality ("hacked the matrix" as Sylvan aptly put it), then any possible 'outside' to the observed universe must also be informational.

(Conversely, if we are only perceiving the syntax of the program, we can *never* discover anything about the 'hardware' which the program runs on; our imaginations are incapable of the very concept.) :confused:

---------------------------------------

Let's take a slightly different approach. We know that all relegions seem to tell us that God (the 'programmer') wants to communicate with His 'virtual' creations; in fact, that He loves us, and wants us to eventually join Him on the level of reality where He exists. Using the program analogy, just how do you think this communication could/should occur?

Such a thing obviously requires that the universe/program, hermetically sealed from inside, is not impermeable from the outside. IOW, while virtual scientists cannot detect anything outside, if the Programmer wanted to, then He could inject a bit-stream (of any form whatsoever) into the u/p. This would be perceived as miraculous to the program creatures.

Hm. I'm not sure this is really getting us anywhere, but it *is* fun to think about! :)

[Godless Wonder]

lwf, perhaps your analogy of the giant digital computer universe would map a bit better, if instead of postulating A.I. and the inhabitants probing the "syntax" of the program and so on, you tweak the analogy just a bit.

Instead of A.I. type programming, you simulate some amount of spacetime at the subatomic level. Now suppose you take your scientist, and while he's sleeping, you quickly scan him in (with your magic scanner) and deposit the information about all his atoms inside the simulation. Maybe the simulation only simulates a 12'x12'x12 volume, for practical reasons... (as if this were practical.)

So the simulated scientist wakes up, and sees that he's inside some sort of 12x12x12 cube. In fact, this is the simulated scientist's entire universe. The walls of his universe would be "non-matter", in that the simulation would have to have special boundary conditions... They could be lined with "ordinary" simulatated matter. Well, I'm getting sidetracked. Back to my main point, which is this:

The scientist could probe his universe and he might start bumping into limitations that would tell hims something about it. (Hey, howcome space seems to be discrete? Because the digital computer has a finite number of bits it can use to record the position of any partitcle.) How come time appears discrete? (same reason). How come the walls of this place don't act like regular matter? because they are the edge of the universe. etc. I'm assuming the the scientist has at his disposal any simulated equipment he wants to perform any experiments that he wants, so long as that equipment is also made of simulated matter (that is, the simulated equipment is not allowed to operate "outside" the simulation.)

Provieded the simulation is "bug-free", the fact that the scientist might come to suspect that he's in a simulation does not mean that he has any ability to change the simulation, or somehow get "outside" the system, and "mess with" the simulation. He might be able to take advantage of the limited resulation to create some kind of bizarre effects, but this would still be "inside" the simulation.

The scientist, (or rather his children, born inside the simulation, lets say) would have no way to know anything about the world outside the simulation.

It's occurred to me, (though not seriously) that the quantum effects we see are the manifestation of us bumping into the resolution limits of the giant simulation which we all inhabit, matrix style.

Of course I've also run into people who tell me "your simulated scientist would be D.O.A. Your magic scanner can't capture his soul.", basically the argument there is that there is something magic about conciousness and physically simulating the organism would not capture that magic. I don't buy that, but some people do.

[long winded fool]

Fascinating ideas! There could definitely be perceived miracles in the program analogy Jobar, however there could never be miracles that occur outside the rules of the program, as you said. Every "miracle" I, as the programmer, induce must be explainable by the way the program works. Analogously, miracles in this universe must be explainable by how the universe works. I.E. the tree just randomly grew in a pattern that the human mind tends to erroneously interpret as a well-known religious figure who, if she even existed, more than likely didn't look anything like the religious idols commonly seen on various churches and irrationally assumed to represent her. If it was a miracle, as in divine inspiration, it has been rationally explained without the need of assuming a divine programmer. And, analogously, here I sit. On the other hand, how can it be said that any occurrence, no matter how trivial, is not a divinely inspired "miracle" without rejecting the omniscience of the programmer in regards to his program, if the program is entirely his creation? Everything must be divinely inspired, yet only those things which have yet to be explained are actually labeled divine miracles. And they only retain this label until they are adequately explained.

Godless Wonder, your analogy sounds just as apt. Another poster posited the "program" as the three dimensions of space and one of time and the programmer existing in more-than-four-dimensions. If this super-dimensional entity created the perceivable dimensions, I think this would be equally apt.

The possibility of the 'soul' adds another element, I think. While many here would probably reject the notion, if it did exist and we are trying to compare the God of the Bible to the programmer, it could be the case that the 'soul,' somehow, is outside the program, being made of not-binary code, yet tied in some way to individual AI's. Perhaps the soul is not made of information like every other perceptible thing (thanks to Jobar for this description) yet somehow can be bound to individual intelligences inside the program without actually existing by the digital definition in the program. It could be that, when the digital intelligence terminates, the 'soul' part is simply no longer bound inside the program and, in effect, can no longer manipulate the things which the digital people perceive as existing. Even more interesting, suppose a certain 'soul' becomes so addicted to the program, (its pleasures and pains, or its ones and zeros) that it chooses to continue to interact with it after the binary description of its intelligence has dissipated by binding itself to other objects besides digital humans and mimicking as best it can the behaviors that it's addicted to, or perhaps attempting to relive an act it chose at a given time which it wants to go back and change but cannot? (Reincarnation? Ghosts?)

Pure speculation of course, but one could posit that "heaven" in the program analogy is freedom from the boundaries of the program (and therefore, existence in the "kingdom" of the programmer, whatever that is, and not in the program) and "hell" is eternal addiction to the limits of the program. Doing "evil" things might generally be rooted in the indulgence of the animal instincts of preservation of the self, more commonly known as fear, (pride, envy, wrath, avarice, sloth, gluttony) or preservation of the species (lust.) While doing "good" things would be doing things that require the sacrifice of these indulgences and help to separate one from the program (humility, generosity, love, kindness, self-control, mercy, patience.)

Ironic. Sacrifice is the ticket out of the program. An unexpected correlation. The possible motives of the programmer are unclear in the analogy, but he would logically seem to desire "sacrifice" if he loves the souls. Demonstrating "the ultimate sacrifice" of the basic instincts of preservation would seem to be a good way to show the digital people what to do to avoid becoming addicted to the program. Shoot for that and you'll most likely choose to leave the program once you're no longer bound to it. Never sacrifice and over-indulge and you just might be too afraid or too addicted to sexual stimulation to abandon the only place you can experience these sensations once your code sequence inevitably breaks down, and you might choose to exist permanantly in the program, hopelessly chasing instinctual things which lead to weeping and the gnashing of teeth with nothing to experience them with. If all you know is instinct (or its binary equivalent,) then how could you ever willingly abandon it?

[Ryanfire]

The universe could only be created with knowledge of space, time, and energy. Logically, god could not exist outside space and time because existing outside his knowledge would be impossible.

[Tristan Scott]

Maybe "God" is the sum of the universe then? Not a being really, (although I guess that's possible.) The only way I can conceive of anything "outside space and time" would be from the perspective of energy. From the perspective of energy, a photon particle for example traveling at the speed of light through space, the universe has no dimension. To the outside observer the particle is moving about taking time to get from one point to another, but to the photon, it is already there, the universe has shrunk to having no dimensions at all.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
The universe could only be created with knowledge of space, time, and energy. Logically, god could not exist outside space and time because existing outside his knowledge would be impossible.

Not so. The program can only be created with knowledge of ones and zeros, and yet the programmer exists independently of them. Does he exist outside his knowledge? The key is that there is more to 'reality' than space, time, and energy if these are created things, and that any who require all three to function cannot conceive of this. Even though the program cannot comprehend existence without ones and zeros, (and therefore "existence" in the program is undefined without them,) it still has a programmer who necessarily exists outside the binary sequence that the program must construct to even begin to postulate him.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
Maybe "God" is the sum of the universe then? Not a being really, (although I guess that's possible.) The only way I can conceive of anything "outside space and time" would be from the perspective of energy. From the perspective of energy, a photon particle for example traveling at the speed of light through space, the universe has no dimension. To the outside observer the particle is moving about taking time to get from one point to another, but to the photon, it is already there, the universe has shrunk to having no dimensions at all.

Is the programmer the sum of his program? In a way, yes, if we're assuming he is "omniscient" in regards to the workings of his program. Everything contained in the program could be said to exist in the programmer's will and be under his complete control from its inception. There is more to the programmer, though, than just his mind. The sum of the program would be contained within the programmer, but the programmer would not be just the sum of the program. But now that I think of it, from the program's point-of-view all it could ever understand is the sum of itself. Anything not expressed in binary code (the programmer's environment, his emotions, any other programming entities, etc.) would be entirely inconceivable. So it could be said by a digital person from inside the program that the programmer is the sum of his program, since all there ever can be must first be in the program.

From a divine (extra-universal?) point of view, the universe might only represent a part of God and he could be much more than the universe, but from an "intra-universal" point of view, God is the sum of the universe. All there was and ever will be are necessarily expressions of God. Since there is nothing outside everything, God is 'only' the entire universe.

[Ryanfire]

originally posted by long winded fool
Not so. The program can only be created with knowledge of ones and zeros, and yet the programmer exists independently of them. Does he exist outside his knowledge? The key is that there is more to 'reality' than space, time, and energy if these are created things, and that any who require all three to function cannot conceive of this. Even though the program cannot comprehend existence without ones and zeros, (and therefore "existence" in the program is undefined without them,) it still has a programmer who necessarily exists outside the binary sequence that the program must construct to even begin to postulate him.


Okay, that could solve the problem at the lowest level. Ones and zeros must also exist in the programmers reality as well. The programmer learned to use ones and zeros from another source to create our reality. If I told the programmer to create a reality, and he had used the knowledge from his reality, would our reality not be designed similar?

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
Okay, that could solve the problem at the lowest level. Ones and zeros must also exist in the programmers reality as well. The programmer learned to use ones and zeros from another source to create our reality. If I told the programmer to create a reality, and he had used the knowledge from his reality, would our reality not be designed similar?

Yes, on some level I suppose it would. Though programs are not always similar to reality, they always are, as you say, on the lowest level. That is, they are based on cause and effect. It is rational to assume that the program would be fairly similar to the reality in which the programmer exists. I suppose the analogy stretches at this point because the programmer uses material from his universe to create another, whereas a creator God would bring about material from nothing and arrange it in a specific space and time that he created. (Though I'm not so sure that these are different notions if we assume the POV of the digital people in the first.) Since "apart from space and time" is a meaningless notion, we cannot speculate on "God's reality." We can only speculate on our own and wonder if we have a creator outside of it.

Again, I think taking God's point of view in the analogy is erroneous. The point of the analogy is to show that we could be analogous to digital people in a program. Outside of the analogy, we can speculate on the programmer because we're programmers. (As opposed to programs.) We cannot speculate on God because we're not gods, we're people. We are analogous to the digital people in the analogy, not the programmer. From the programmer's point of view, you are absolutely right, but from the digital person's point of view, (which is the one that represents us humans,) there is no external reality. Unless it is a sequence of ones and zeros and absolutely nothing else, it doesn't exist. Comparatively, unless it is bound by time and space, it doesn't exist. You cannot take God's POV because time and space must both be present in every thought you have. Just like the digital people cannot take the programmer's point of view because they must think with ones and zeros. Where these things are functional reality in the program, they exist only abstractly to the programmer. He needs no switches, yet the digital people cannot comprehend something that doesn't function entirely by ones and zeros.

[Stephen T-B]

I thought that was excellent, LWF.
A kind of C.S.Lewis-type exposition. (Not that I’m too familiar with C.S.Lewis outside the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Screwtape Letters.)

It could be objected that if your conjecture does capture an element of the real situation, why does god leave it to conjecture?

It could also be objected that god, in this scenario, is playing a cosmic game with us, and I’m not sure the writers of the Bible wanted to give that impression. I think the message to be gleaned from their stories is that God and Man are inseparable; that we are as essential to God as he is essential to us. He created us not because he chose to but because he is God the Creator, and Creation is what God does, and Creation is what we’re for.

Your conjecture accounts for obedience and disobedience in terms which are in accordance with a morality which you ascribe to God-belief but which I’m not sure is actually to be found in the Bible. You know the Bible a great deal better than I do, so I must ask: is self-indulgence anywhere specifically forbidden? Is satisfying the Pleasures of the Flesh, for instance, sinful? As sinful, say, as not remembering the Sabbath Day to keep it holy, or for a woman going to the Temple without making the appropriate sin offering after having had a period, or for a man to lend money and charge interest (like putting it in an interest-paying bank account)?

The Biblical God has legs, arms, eyes, ears, mouth, nose and vocal chords.
The god you postulate has no determinable characteristics; it is immaterial. It created the universe in which we live and is therefore “beyond it” it some weird sense. It had an indescribable existence, apparently, before matter, time and space came into existence and yet at a momentless moment “uttered the word” which launched creation. And why? So that a bi-pedal mammal with a rather large brain could come into existence and produce several billion specimens - each one of which it could individually love, guide and bring into its ineffable presence for the rest of eternity (or not, in the case of specimens like me.)

I have to say, I just don’t even begin to see the merit of believing that.

[Randy X]

God neither exists in space, or time.He exists not in our dimension, nor our reality.He exists not in our past, present or future.He doesn't exist at all.I am Christ, and my words are blessed:cool:

Regards

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
It could be objected that if your conjecture does capture an element of the real situation, why does god leave it to conjecture?

It could also be objected that god, in this scenario, is playing a cosmic game with us, and I’m not sure the writers of the Bible wanted to give that impression. I think the message to be gleaned from their stories is that God and Man are inseparable; that we are as essential to God as he is essential to us. He created us not because he chose to but because he is God the Creator, and Creation is what God does, and Creation is what we’re for.

Well, it is possible that God, as the programmer, is playing a cosmic game with us, but it is also possible that he has some other purpose. Maybe the writers of the Bible were trying to convey what they thought the purpose was? I don't know if your idea follows, though. It seems to me that either the two ideas are synonymous, (God creates humans because he is the creator and humans are the created, and he is the creator because he chooses to create,) or else there is some other authority above "God." And I'm using "God" to represent absolute authority, whatever that is. I think that creation would be what God does, not because he is compelled by an outside authority, but because he chooses to create.

The Bible is indeed very enigmatic, and from certain points of view, God and man are inseperable. Analogously, the sequence of binary code which attempts to describe the programmer cannot exist without the program, and its expression of a divine entity would require digital people. From a digital person's point of view, they, as programmed self-aware entities, must exist before this binary sequence can be interpreted. Say, 101000101 represents the programmer. The program is a prerequisite for this. Without the program, this can't exist. Without digital people, this cannot be interpreted as a divine programmer. So "God," as we know him, would be inseperable from our own understanding. Of course, whatever it is to which we, as humans dependent upon the creation, attatch our feebly inadequate labels would still "exist" before and likely after its creation.

In response to your initial question, how could God not leave it to conjecture? How does a programmer explain to his program who he is without using the already established rules of the program and limiting his communication to a completely understandable, (and therefore non-supertatural) sequence of binary code. One could argue that every single expression of matter and energy is a direct communication to us from God. One certainly couldn't prove otherwise, given the analogy.

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Your conjecture accounts for obedience and disobedience in terms which are in accordance with a morality which you ascribe to God-belief but which I’m not sure is actually to be found in the Bible. You know the Bible a great deal better than I do, so I must ask: is self-indulgence anywhere specifically forbidden? Is satisfying the Pleasures of the Flesh, for instance, sinful? As sinful, say, as not remembering the Sabbath Day to keep it holy, or for a woman going to the Temple without making the appropriate sin offering after having had a period, or for a man to lend money and charge interest (like putting it in an interest-paying bank account)?

Self-indulgence at the expense of reason, I believe, is expressly forbidden. Satisfying the pleasures of the flesh for their own sake is sinful. Enjoying the pleasures of the flesh for the good purposes they serve is commanded. (Or at least highly suggested.) Identifying the good and acting in accordance is what God seems to desire in the Bible. Ideally, this would encompass all pleasures of the flesh, however because we have knowledge of evil thanks to the temptations of the serpent, we now must make a choice. This is where reason comes in. Choosing good is reasonable, since the consequences of good actions act to spread good, even if they are temporarily (or even permanantly) uncomfortable. Choosing evil is unreasonable, since the consequences of evil act to spread evil, even if they are temporarily pleasant. "Abusing God's gifts," as immorality is often referred to by theists, I believe is merely allowing instinct to override reason. All sin is equal. The material consequences of sin is the only thing which differentiates "bad" from "worse." Sin is nothing but failing to do what is absolutely good. From that perspective, anything not perfect is sinful. Of course, the Bible doesn't claim any humans are sinless. It merely insists that good be their goal. "Failing to acheive good" represents a person who is forgiven of their sins by God. Purposely rejecting good is to be "unforgiven," since forgiveness is good. Failing to acheive evil and succeeding at being evil are one and the same despite the opposite consequences. Failing to be good and being perfect are also one and the same. The consequences are irrelevant. The goal is the all-important criterion. To fail to acheive good means that the goal is good, therefore the heart is judged good. To fail to acheive evil means the goal is evil, etc. So, it is useless to attempt to judge sins by their consequences. Only "the Father" knows what is written on the hearts of Jew and Gentile alike. (Romans 12)

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
The Biblical God has legs, arms, eyes, ears, mouth, nose and vocal chords.
The god you postulate has no determinable characteristics; it is immaterial. It created the universe in which we live and is therefore “beyond it” it some weird sense. It had an indescribable existence, apparently, before matter, time and space came into existence and yet at a momentless moment “uttered the word” which launched creation. And why? So that a bi-pedal mammal with a rather large brain could come into existence and produce several billion specimens - each one of which it could individually love, guide and bring into its ineffable presence for the rest of eternity (or not, in the case of specimens like me.)

I have to say, I just don’t even begin to see the merit of believing that.

On the contrary, the analogous programmer also has legs, arms, eyes, ears, mouth, nose and vocal chords. Do you see the difficulty? When making an analogy or an allegory about incomprehensible things, one must apply things to the incomprehensible thing which can't be. I as the programmer have all of these body parts. I don't have the ones and zeros that are necessary for my digital people to understand these qualities of mine. They must assume that I am made up of a huge string of ones and zeros in order to comprehend me. The fact is that I'm not made of ones and zeros at all. From the digital perspective, I have none of the things which are attributed to me by digital theists and their digital Bible. I cannot have them because I must exist in the program in order to have them and my existence cannot rely on the program if I am its programmer.

Why believe that there is a creator? Where is the merit? What is the purpose? I don't know. Perhaps it's to recapture the security of early childhood, resting in the palms of our Father. Perhaps it's to relieve our intense instictual fear of death. Perhaps it's objectively the way the universe seems to work, i.e. not random but predetermined. Maybe it's solely to annoy those who reject outright anything they don't immediately understand? :p Whatever the reason, I think the analogy shows us that whatever you call the "creator" of the universe it can be neither accurate nor logical as long as you require the universe in order to perceive.

[Ryanfire]

They must assume that I am made up of a huge string of ones and zeros in order to comprehend me. The fact is that I'm not made of ones and zeros at all. From the digital perspective, I have none of the things which are attributed to me by digital theists and their digital Bible.


The programmer programs us to be born without the knowledge of him, but then codes theism and the bible for what purposes?
oh wait.... the digital people created theism and the bible. Which is it?

In either case, theism and the bible become invalid sources. We cannot comprehend the programmer, but can we can comprehend his intentions????


It is rational to assume that the program would be fairly similar to the reality in which the programmer exists. I suppose the analogy stretches at this point because the programmer uses material from his universe to create another, whereas a creator God would bring about material from nothing and arrange it in a specific space and time that he created.


The programmer could only program a reality that he knows of, unless he can spontaneously assemble/code that which he doesn't know. What a coder! :)


The fact is that I'm not made of ones and zeros at all. From the digital perspective, I have none of the things which are attributed to me by digital theists and their digital Bible. I cannot have them because I must exist in the program in order to have them and my existence cannot rely on the program if I am its programmer.


Once again, theism and the bible become useless. Why is the programmer/god existing icognito anyway?


I think that creation would be what God does, not because he is compelled by an outside authority, but because he chooses to create.


If my life is not my own, and everything I do has been hardcoded, am I not a pawn in a game intended to satisfy the programmers perverse need?


"They must assume that I am made up of a huge string of ones and zeros in order to comprehend me. The fact is that I'm not made of ones and zeros at all."

"It is rational to assume that the program would be fairly similar to the reality in which the programmer exists."


Is this contradictory? His reality is similar to ours, ones and zeros encompass our realities, but he is not ones and zeros. Therefore he does not exist in reality.

[Tani]

using the simulation analogy, i'm not sure the "existence" defined by the digital people can really be appreciated or even understood in the mind of the programmer. for anything that is less than our ordinary world's meaning of existence (which i don't even know what would qualify for that) that is inside the digital universe must be something that we cannot be in all ernest consider "exist" in the same term as we understand it ordinarily. moreover, if this ordinary world is a proper superset of that digital universe, the digital people's concept of existence, if it could be understood at all, must necessarily be already defined as something that can never qualify for the ordinary meaning of "existence." however, if it can be appricated at all, wouldn't that presupposes that there is a similar root between the ordinary definition and digital people's definition of existence (including time and space) which allows them to prosulate things that are beyond their current limited existence even within their own limited capacity to reason?

edit for clarity: for us to appreciate the digital people's definition of existence is to mean that both definition share similar qualities. however, it'd also mean that the digital people has the capacity within their reason to grasp our terms of existence.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
The programmer programs us to be born without the knowledge of him, but then codes theism and the bible for what purposes?
oh wait.... the digital people created theism and the bible. Which is it?

It must be both by definition! :) Think of the digital Bible. Who encoded it? The digital people. Of course they were programmed to do so. And he doesn't program them to be born without knowledge of Him. He creates a system of order in which they exist and in which they are inextricably bound, but which encompases only a fraction of His own "reality" whatever that could be.

Originally posted by Ryanfire
In either case, theism and the bible become invalid sources. We cannot comprehend the programmer, but can we can comprehend his intentions????

Well, can the program comprehend its programmers intentions? Intentions regrading it, maybe. While understanding the programmer is impossible, understanding its own purpose might be possible on a binary level. You're right, all binary descriptions must be "invalid" in a literal sense. Allegory and analogy could be used in place of literal scientific description. The digital people cannot describe existence apart from ones and zeros, however they can suppose that there is something that created ones and zeros that isn't ones and zeros.

Originally posted by Ryanfire
The programmer could only program a reality that he knows of, unless he can spontaneously assemble/code that which he doesn't know. What a coder! :)

True, however I think this again suffers from being the digital point of view. The digital people could say: "The programmer can only program a reality that he is aware of, and in order to be aware of it he must, by definition, be first aware of its binary sequence." My reality is not a binary sequence, therefore how could I know of it and subsequently program something similar? From outside the program, this is easily answerable. From inside it is a contradiction in terms. Reality cannot exist until it is programmed to.

Originally posted by Ryanfire
Once again, theism and the bible become useless. Why is the programmer/god existing icognito anyway?

Because it must be! Why is the cube incognito in a two dimensional plane? Why can't he make himself known to the 2D shapes? Why is every attempt interpreted as a completely explainable square? God could "reveal" himself to an entity, however in order to comprehend what "he" is, the entity must first be removed from the program. Any attempt at revealing himself while the entity is bound by the program must take the form of a string of ones and zeros, hence the "incognito" aspect.

Originally posted by Ryanfire
If my life is not my own, and everything I do has been hardcoded, am I not a pawn in a game intended to satisfy the programmers perverse need?

Not necessarily. ;) If everything you do is hardcoded, you have an inescapable destiny and that's all. Your choices outside of the program can be understood to be an illusion. From inside the program however, free will still exists. Actual free will and the universal illusion of free will are inseperable concepts within the program. As long as humans believe their actions are freely chosen and can affect the future, they have free will within the "limited" scope of their reality.

Originally posted by Ryanfire
Is this contradictory? His reality is similar to ours, ones and zeros encompass our realities, but he is not ones and zeros. Therefore he does not exist in reality.

Exactly. God would exist in the same way the programmer of a program exists. He is "outside of" reality, therefore he doesn't exist. Actually, what part of him does exist is in conflict with the parts that don't. If we are the ones bound in the syntax of the program, we can interchange "doesn't exist within the confines of the program" with "doesn't exist at all." If it is possible to be not subject to the bounds of the program, then existence must mean something much more than a given set of ones and zeros or, analogously, a given location in time and space. Until we experience existence apart from the program, we can never comprehend it. The word "is" requires time and space. God is bound by neither, but encompasses both, therefore he "is" as far as his identity as the creator of space and time is concerned, but there is much more to him that "isn't." That cannot be. He is self-contradictory from any rational point of view that is within the program because he simultaneously must exist, yet cannot.

Originally posted by Tani
using the simulation analogy, i'm not sure the "existence" defined by the digital people can really be appreciated or even understood in the mind of the programmer. for anything that is less than our ordinary world's meaning of existence (which i don't even know what would qualify for that) that is inside the digital universe must be something that we cannot be in all ernest consider "exist" in the same term as we understand it ordinarily. moreover, if this ordinary world is a proper superset of that digital universe, the digital people's concept of existence, if it could be understood at all, must necessarily be already defined as something that can never qualify for the ordinary meaning of "existence." however, if it can be appricated at all, wouldn't that presupposes that there is a similar root between the ordinary definition and digital people's definition of existence (including time and space) which allows them to prosulate things that are beyond their current limited existence even within their own limited capacity to reason?

edit for clarity: for us to appreciate the digital people's definition of existence is to mean that both definition share similar qualities. however, it'd also mean that the digital people has the capacity within their reason to grasp our terms of existence.

I think the programmer can understand the digital people's limited understanding. I can understand why a thing must be a string of ones and zeros before it can exist within the program. To use Abbot's analogy, the cube can understand why a z-axis (or height) is incomprehensible to the squares, triangles, and circles. You're right that their idea of existence is different from their creators, yet the creator is not the one whose understanding is limited.

The definitions of existence would be similar only in the analogies. They would not be if we were the created and there were a creator above us. If "space and time," our prerequisites for existence, were analogous to ones and zeros, then how could we possibly comprehend what the creator of space and time denotes as existing? We can guess that God's idea of existence is in some way related to ours, however we could not fathom how. Location in space and time are the root similarity of existence in the analogies because we are in the position of the creator. Once we abandon this position and take the position of the created, we logically can no longer see the similarity. Without space and time, what is there? Analogously, without ones and zeros what is there?

[Hedshaker]

God exists outside time and space.

Without time, space "and matter" nothing can happen. Therefore "outside time and space" = nothingness.

Therefore, if God exists "outside time and space" then God= nothing. Nothing does not begin or end it will always be nothing. It's absurd to think that something can emerge from nothing.

So there cannot be nothing. There must always have been something. Time space "and matter" have no alternative but to have existed always, since we are a product of it and could not exist without it.

So, if time space "and matter" have always existed the concept of a creator redundent.

[ComestibleVenom]

LongwindedFool,
Your choices outside of the program can be understood to be an illusion. From inside the program however, free will still exists.

The only illusion is that free will is the sort of thing that would be an illusion if the world is deterministic. Wrong.

Free will, in the only sense worth having, is had by humans. We can change our destiny knowingly, multifariously. What is it that we can't do? Change what would otherwise have happened? Well if we don't act, things will happen that would otherwise have not happened.

[Jobar]

lwf:
Since "apart from space and time" is a meaningless notion, we cannot speculate on "God's reality." We can only speculate on our own and wonder if we have a creator outside of it.

Precisely what this forum is for, and exactly what we are doing, not so? :)

Consider this. A program has a purpose. (Else why bother writing it? Even if the only purpose is to test new and not-well-understood hardware, or theoretical principles.)

So, if we are dealing with a valid analogy here (program/universe), we may fairly ask, what purpose does the universe serve? Can that purpose be determined from within the p/u? I would say that the observable universe looks quite purposeless, which would indicate to me that there is no design involved here.

-------------------------

If the universe is indeed information-like, as is posited in that quote from Scientific American, then it is fair to call physical existence, digital. If there is a programmer/creator, that has some use for the universe, then I can't see how said p/c could be anything but information-like, also.

lwf, your analogy has the exact same weaknesses and strengths as traditional theistic theorizing. If the programmer is also the program (god=universe) we have pantheism, in which purposeless god creates purposeless universe, purely for the awe and the fun of it; inevitably, perhaps.

But if the programmer is entirely separate from the program, then he can get no conceivable use out of it, and the origin of the programmer then becomes a deeper echo of the same problem we are addressing here. In other words, god as traditionally defined becomes problematic, and perhaps even self-contradictory, even using your programmer analogy.

[Tani]

Originally posted by long winded fool
I think the programmer can understand the digital people's limited understanding. I can understand why a thing must be a string of ones and zeros before it can exist within the program. To use Abbot's analogy, the cube can understand why a z-axis (or height) is incomprehensible to the squares, triangles, and circles. You're right that their idea of existence is different from their creators, yet the creator is not the one whose understanding is limited.

The definitions of existence would be similar only in the analogies. They would not be if we were the created and there were a creator above us. If "space and time," our prerequisites for existence, were analogous to ones and zeros, then how could we possibly comprehend what the creator of space and time denotes as existing? We can guess that God's idea of existence is in some way related to ours, however we could not fathom how. Location in space and time are the root similarity of existence in the analogies because we are in the position of the creator. Once we abandon this position and take the position of the created, we logically can no longer see the similarity. Without space and time, what is there? Analogously, without ones and zeros what is there?

what i was pointing to is that in the analogy, the notion of how time and space is also defined as nothing but a varivant of 1's and 0's. if the digital people can understand the existence of 1's and 0's in programmer's sense, then whatever that underlies the understanding of 1's and 0's will certainly enable them in prostulating time and space. if the notion shares absolutely nothing in its foundation, that is if they are entirely different, then the programmer would have no reason, given the infinite possibility of defining the notion existence in other ways, to consider the digital people's form of existence to have any bearing on the ordinary sense of existence without also considering every other trivial combinations of stuff to qualify for "existence" - the definition of existence would become trivial and have no meaning. what is at issue is not that the programmer has limited understanding of the digital universe, but rather how it will debase the limitation in the definition of ordinary existence in the programmer's universe into absolutely any possible combination of anything within it.

edit: after reading jobar's post, i'll like to clarify that what i mean by the foundation of the notion of existence is similar, if not the same thing, as what jobar was refering to as information.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Jobar
lwf:
Since "apart from space and time" is a meaningless notion, we cannot speculate on "God's reality." We can only speculate on our own and wonder if we have a creator outside of it.

Precisely what this forum is for, and exactly what we are doing, not so? :)

Consider this. A program has a purpose. (Else why bother writing it? Even if the only purpose is to test new and not-well-understood hardware, or theoretical principles.)

So, if we are dealing with a valid analogy here (program/universe), we may fairly ask, what purpose does the universe serve? Can that purpose be determined from within the p/u? I would say that the observable universe looks quite purposeless, which would indicate to me that there is no design involved here.

-------------------------

If the universe is indeed information-like, as is posited in that quote from Scientific American, then it is fair to call physical existence, digital. If there is a programmer/creator, that has some use for the universe, then I can't see how said p/c could be anything but information-like, also.

But the "programmer information" whatever it is would be impossible to describe, (indeed impossible to perceive at all,) for as long as it's not present as ones and zeros. What is "information like" to digital people if information is ones and zeros and nothing else? What is "existence like" to us if existence depends on the presence of the universe?

Originally posted by Jobar
lwf, your analogy has the exact same weaknesses and strengths as traditional theistic theorizing. If the programmer is also the program (god=universe) we have pantheism, in which purposeless god creates purposeless universe, purely for the awe and the fun of it; inevitably, perhaps.

If the programmer is the program, then why separate the two terms at all? Since there are no programs which are creatorless, we could assume that, assuming the universe is a program, it is the only one that has no creator, or we could assume that it also has a creator. The second becomes the more logical assumption when using the analogy. If we have a programmer, why can't we perceive it and why can't we contemplate existence outside of space and time? The analogy shows us that this is to be expected.

Originally posted by Jobar
But if the programmer is entirely separate from the program, then he can get no conceivable use out of it, and the origin of the programmer then becomes a deeper echo of the same problem we are addressing here. In other words, god as traditionally defined becomes problematic, and perhaps even self-contradictory, even using your programmer analogy.

:confused: Why must there be no conceivable use to a program if the programmer is not the program? I think you've got a false dilemma here. Either the programmer is the program, or he's not, (assuming there is one.) How do you conclude that there can be no puropse in either case? The origin of the programmer is not an echo of the origin of binary code. "Who programmed the programmer?" When asked by a digital person I would think an atheist of all people could and would answer, "Nobody" without invoking a contradiction. Nobody programmed the programmer, the programmer programmed the program. :D Cause and effect. What ultimately caused the cause? Since most atheists ascribe to a "brute fact of existence" I presume they'd say: It's just there.

Again, there are no definite conclusions here. Why assume a programmer when, by the very rules of the program, it is all there is and could ever be? Maybe the binary code just "is" or maybe it was created and assembled by something that cannot possibly exist (since in order to exist for the inhabitants of the program it must first be binary code.) Either way, they have a pretty flimsy grip on what constitutes their reality. Why is there ones and zeros? The only rational answer is: "There just are. That's the way it works." The program analogy helps (me, at least) understand why "First Cause" ("Which came first, the chicken or the egg?") would logically be incomprehensible. It's the same question for the digital people as "Which came first, the one or the zero?" Since nothing came before the first cause, there must just be an uncaused effect, and since nothing existed in the program before the first one or zero, there must just have been an uncaused one and zero. Only from outside can we see the silliness of this notion. Therefore, to us in the real universe and outside the program, even if our universe were absolutely analogous to a program, the uncaused program would be silly and the uncaused universe would be rational, (at least more rational than the alternative.) How can two things be absolutely analogous if they end in opposite conclusions? Here is an example of this happening. Take away space and time and one is assaulted with paradoxes and contradictions. The same happens to the digital people when you take away the code that they use to function.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Tani
what i was pointing to is that in the analogy, the notion of how time and space is also defined as nothing but a varivant of 1's and 0's. if the digital people can understand the existence of 1's and 0's in programmer's sense, then whatever that underlies the understanding of 1's and 0's will certainly enable them in prostulating time and space.

Not without ones and zeros they can't. Do time and space exist independently of ones and zeros? Only outside of the program. Ones and zeros are a prerequisite for "time and space" to exist in perceptible form inside the program. They are, in fact, made up of ones and zeros to the digital people. What we call time and space can only be described with binary to the digital people. Therefore, take away the ones and zeros, and you take away existence.

Originally posted by Tani
if the notion shares absolutely nothing in its foundation, that is if they are entirely different, then the programmer would have no reason, given the infinite possibility of defining the notion existence in other ways, to consider the digital people's form of existence to have any bearing on the ordinary sense of existence without also considering every other trivial combinations of stuff to qualify for "existence" - the definition of existence would become trivial and have no meaning. what is at issue is not that the programmer has limited understanding of the digital universe, but rather how it will debase the limitation in the definition of ordinary existence in the programmer's universe into absolutely any possible combination of anything within it.

edit: after reading jobar's post, i'll like to clarify that what i mean by the foundation of the notion of existence is similar, if not the same thing, as what jobar was refering to as information.

The word "existence" has a completely different definition outside the program than it does inside. In the program analogy, to exist a thing must first be in binary code. In the universe, to exist a thing must first be present in space and time. What existence could possibly mean to the creator of space and time is as inconceivable to us as what existence could mean to the creator of binary to digital people. I think the problem people are having in understanding this is that they are aware that binary code represents some other reality. We are not aware that space and time represents some other reality. And how could we be? If it did in some incomprehensible way, then I think the analogy would be as apt as it could get. The digital people cannot comprehend a reality without ones and zeros. Real people cannot comprehend a reality without space and time. All things that happen must be explainable by the laws of the universe, and all things that happen in the program must fundamentally take the form of a sequence of binary. If binary is all there is, then no programmer can exist.

The key is the difference in the definition of existence. We cannot know a creator God's definition of existence any more than my program can know mine. I cannot create a program that can understand me for who I am. It can only understand the binary sequences which I encode to describe me. If it asks who programmed my binary sequences, it will get an error and then may conclude that I don't exist. That I'm merely a binary figment of it's binary imagination. Though the program is stable and functional, it could, if it is programmed to believe it has "free will," conclude that it is all there is and that there is no reason to assume a creator. All manipulations inserted by the programmer are part of the program and nothing else. That tree that grew in the digital person's backyard is explainable with the rules of the program. It wasn't placed there by a "programmer," it just grew because that's what trees do in the program! A digital scientist can show exactly how and why it happened without postulating a programmer. It can show the binary and challenge the digital theists to show them an example of something happening without binary code, if they're so sure such a thing is possible. The truth is, such a thing isn't possible. The program is all there is because of the necessary definition of existence. And, as I'm so annoyingly fond of saying, here I sit. The non-binary creator of the digital tree, the digital scientist, and the rules which they use to explore the binary universe I created for them.

[Ryanfire]

The digital people cannot comprehend a reality without ones and zeros. Real people cannot comprehend a reality without space and time.


If digital beings are incapable of understanding outside ones and zeros, conceiving of and postulating existence outside ones and zeros would be above their understanding, which is contradictory heuristically, therefore fruitless in approach. The digital universe analogy fails... have a nice day :)

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
If digital beings are incapable of understanding outside ones and zeros, conceiving of and postulating existence outside ones and zeros would be above their understanding, which is contradictory heuristically, therefore fruitless in approach. The digital universe analogy fails... have a nice day :)

Well, I certainly don't see how it "fails." That's the whole point of the analogy. Your conclusion is the logical one. Do you conclude then that nothing exists outside the program? This is both true and false. True if existence depends on the definition assumed by the program, false if it depends on something other than, or "outside," the program, as is the case in the real universe. I certainly exist as the programmer, do I not? You as a human being exist outside the program. How can we be said to exist if we aren’t composed of binary code? If the universe is a program then the programmer of it must be contradictory to those inside. All things which are "other than the program" (trees, sky, real people) must be contradictory and incomprehensible to the program. Since the problem is with perspective, you are correct in saying that attempting to understand is fruitless when bound by the program. The digital theists must fail. And there is a programmer.

Analogously, attempting to understand the meaning of "outside" or beyond or before space and time is fruitless. Our very thoughts are bound inextricably to it and depend on it for existence. If there were a creator, it would necessarily be illogical and "non-existent." If it were logical and if it "existed," by the four-dimensional, universal definition, it couldn't be the creator. The digital universe analogy explains this.

I think the problem people are having is that they're assuming the analogy is of the form, "God must exist because..." when its actually an answer to the atheistic question, "If God exists, then how, or why A?" 'A' being any number of common philosophical and scientific contradictions. The analogy explains the logical statement: "The creator of a thing must be independent of the thing." Since there can be nothing independent of everything, there can be no creator of everything. This conclusion is as rational in the real universe, where "everything" is literally all matter and energy in space-time, as it is in the digital universe, where everything is literally all binary switches. We can see that the programmer who cannot exist to his program, nonetheless exists as its creator. We cannot see this in our own universe, and this is entirely understandable. No one can. The analogy shows that it is also erroneus to postulate the question "Who programmed the programmer?" since it applies the rules of the program to the programmer of those rules which is a causal fallacy of wrong direction.

[Philosoft]

LWF,

I think Ryan's point is that, in a digital reality, there is no combination of ones and zeros that amounts to the concept 'something beyond the reality of ones and zeros.' Perhaps a digital reality denies abstraction altogether. I think this is where it fails as an analogy.

[Ryanfire]

Thank you Philosoft :) Well put.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Philosoft
LWF,
I think Ryan's point is that, in a digital reality, there is no combination of ones and zeros that amounts to the concept 'something beyond the reality of ones and zeros.' Perhaps a digital reality denies abstraction altogether. I think this is where it fails as an analogy.

How does digital reality deny abstraction? How can it deny abstraction any more than actual reality? Take Ryan's point: "There is no combination of ones and zeros that amounts to the concept 'something beyond the reality of ones and zeros.'" Analogously, in actual reality there can be no definition of existence that amounts to the concept of something beyond space and time. The word requires both to have meaning. If this what is referred to as abstraction, then actual reality denies it as well. Since this is analogous, the analogy is apt. Any abstraction that occurs in our reality can be conceived as a digital abstraction in the program. I don't see how one could present a problem with the analogy in this respect. Anything that can be comprehended by humans can be inserted into the program analogy without a logical dilemma.

[Tani]

lwf,

what does it mean to say time and space exist?

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Tani
lwf,

what does it mean to say time and space exist?

They are the qualifiers for existence. They must exist, otherwise existence, as well as reality itself as we know it, is undefined. This is no more circular than the program's definition of binary switches. They're just there and they're just the way it works. They are the abstract "infinite" concepts that allow the universe to function. They are infinite because they are all that can be. There can never be something before time or beyond space. 'Before' must exist within time and 'beyond' in space. This is why I compare them to binary code in the program. The ones and zeros exist because they are required for digital existence to be defined. They are infinite because there can be nothing without them. Space and time exist because it is possible to exist. Only if there were no existence could this be questioned, and this of course would be impossible. How can something that doesn't exist question the existence of something else? :)

There can be no digital concept of "beyond ones and zeros" except for the binary equivalent of the meaningless phrase "beyond ones and zeros." This holds true in actual reality. There is no concept of "beyond space and time" except for the self-contradictory and incomprehensible phrase "beyond space and time." If we are created beings, this is to be expected as the analogy shows.

[Tani]

Originally posted by long winded fool
They are the qualifiers for existence. They must exist, otherwise existence, as well as reality itself as we know it, is undefined. This is no more circular than the program's definition of binary switches. They're just there and they're just the way it works. They are the abstract "infinite" concepts that allow the universe to function. They are infinite because they are all that can be. There can never be something before time or beyond space. 'Before' must exist within time and 'beyond' in space. This is why I compare them to binary code in the program. The ones and zeros exist because they are required for digital existence to be defined. They are infinite because there can be nothing without them. Space and time exist because it is possible to exist. Only if there were no existence could this be questioned, and this of course would be impossible. How can something that doesn't exist question the existence of something else? :)

There can be no digital concept of "beyond ones and zeros" except for the binary equivalent of the meaningless phrase "beyond ones and zeros." This holds true in actual reality. There is no concept of "beyond space and time" except for the self-contradictory and incomprehensible phrase "beyond space and time." If we are created beings, this is to be expected as the analogy shows.

if the existence of time and space is meaningless but an abstract concept whom in time and space understand, then exactly how is the programmer whose existence is not in 1's and 0's understand what is behind the meaningless abstract of 1's and 0's? my point is that although digital people might not understand what existence means to the programmer, the programmer equally does not understand what existence means to the digital people. the programmer can terminate existence of the digital people in terms of the programmers, but the programmer cannot know what the digital people's meaning of existence to terminate existence in their term. the programmer might think he has terminated their existence, and rightfully so, when he use the ordinary sense of existence, but he has no idea what it means to terminated existence of the digital people unless he is one of them.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Tani
if the existence of time and space is meaningless but an abstract concept whom in time and space understand, then exactly how is the programmer whose existence is not in 1's and 0's understand what is behind the meaningless abstract of 1's and 0's? my point is that although digital people might not understand what existence means to the programmer, the programmer equally does not understand what existence means to the digital people. the programmer can terminate existence of the digital people in terms of the programmers, but the programmer cannot know what the digital people's meaning of existence to terminate existence in their term. the programmer might think he has terminated their existence, and rightfully so, when he use the ordinary sense of existence, but he has no idea what it means to terminated existence of the digital people unless he is one of them.

I don't think this follows, because the programmer is the creator of the digital people's existence. I am assuming for the sake of argument and analogy that the programmer is a "master programmer." He is, for all intents and purposes, omniscient in regards to the program. Nothing can happen in the program outside of his will, because the program itself is an extension of his will. How the digital people perceive reality and what they consider existence is programmed by the creator. He can, by definition, be privy to every single one and zero. In this particular case, he is. I have described how I, as the programmer, understand exactly what the digital people perceive as existence. If it is composed of ones and zeros and it is perceived, it exists. If it is not composed of ones and zeros it cannot be perceived and therefore doesn't exist. Here is an example of a programmer who knows exactly what it means to exist in the mind of a digital person without being one of them.

[Ryanfire]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I think Ryan's point is that, in a digital reality, there is no combination of ones and zeros that amounts to the concept 'something beyond the reality of ones and zeros.' Perhaps a digital reality denies abstraction altogether. I think this is where it fails as an analogy.


Originally posted by long winded fool
Any abstraction that occurs in our reality can be conceived as a digital abstraction in the program. I don't see how one could present a problem with the analogy in this respect.

Anything that can be comprehended by humans can be inserted into the program analogy without a logical dilemma.


On the contrary, this becomes a logical dilemma.

Abstraction is limited to ones and zeros in the digital reality. If you postulate that abstraction is beyond ones and zeros,
then digital reality is beyond ones and zeros as well. If it is not, then it is contradictory to the program running.

put another way:

"beyond" would take the form of not-1/0, not-space/time.

The digital reality is confined to 1/0
I concieve of 1/0 and not-1/0, therefore contradicting my reality.

*system failure* :eek:

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
On the contrary, this becomes a logical dilemma.

Abstraction is limited to ones and zeros in the digital reality. If you postulate that abstraction is beyond ones and zeros,
then digital reality is beyond ones and zeros as well. If it is not, then it is contradictory to the program running.

put another way:

"beyond" would take the form of not-1/0, not-space/time.

The digital reality is confined to 1/0
I concieve of 1/0 and not-1/0, therefore contradicting my reality.

*system failure* :eek:

I think we are in agreement. This represents a premise necessary for the analogy to be applicable. Digital reality is confined to ones and zeros. The word "not" has a binary equivalent. The words one and zero also have binary equivalents, (obviously.) While this phrase can be assembled without contradiction, its meaning is absolutely contradictory to reality and therefore it cannot have meaning.

Actual reality is confined to space-time. Not-space time is as contradictory to us as not ones and zeros is to the program. If the digital people can't understand not-one or zero, neither can we understand not-space or time. Outside of space and time creates a "system failure" in the real world as well. No human alive or dead could ever hope to process this information. Nothing inside the program can postulate "outside ones and zeros." Things outside the program (you and me) can comprehend this without contradiction, however we do not exist according to the laws of the program. Things outside the universe, which cannot exist according to the laws of the universe, could comprehend "beyond space and time" without contradiction. This proves that creators are not subject to their creations. If we are in the creator's shoes, we take this for granted. There are things other than ones and zeros. If we were in the shoes of the created, we could not understand our creator just as to understand the programmer results in a system failure in the program. The analogy (and your logical explanation) shows why this is. While there are things beyond ones and zeros for us, there is nothing beyond space and time. How do we know that we aren't programs and "space-time" is just the code of the universe?

The analogy is apt precisely because there can be nothing outside ones and zeros, and yet here I am as the programmer. Outside of ones and zeros. I am the creator. I can conceive of not ones and zeros. If I am also created, then I cannot conceive of the things analogous to ones and zeros which cause the universe to execute. It sounds like you are trying to put yourself into the program. You are analogous to the creator because you can conceive of reality without ones and zeros. If you are analogous to the created, then you cannot conceive of reality outside the laws of your universe. ;)

[Just_An_Atheist]

Just curious, doesn't this seem to be an analogy for different dimensions, and what it means to exist in 3 dimensions as opposed to two, two deminsions as oppossed to one. But "outside" time and space, there are no dimensions. This is

[Just_An_Atheist]

I also think that your analogy does not show that it is at all possible that existing outside of time and space is even possible, but only serves as an explaination of what it would be like if it were possible.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
Just curious, doesn't this seem to be an analogy for different dimensions, and what it means to exist in 3 dimensions as opposed to two, two deminsions as oppossed to one. But "outside" time and space, there are no dimensions.

You hit the nail on the head. Analogously, there can be all sorts of sequences of ones and zeros, just so long as there are ones and zeros. There is nothing outside of them, right? This is where it gets confusing. Inside the program, this is irrefutably true. No digital scientist or philosopher could ever come to a different conclusion and be rational. Everything in their universe is ones and zeros. All existence must consist of binary. And there is a programmer. Is he non-existent? Absolutely. He has neither ones, nor zeros. The digital theists could assemble a sequence of ones and zeros and call it a programmer, however it would be relatively easy for a digital atheist to point out that those ones and zeros are not the programmer, they are simply the way the program works. The digital atheist would be right and the theist would be wrong. Ones and zeros are not the programmer.

We know that there are no dimensions beyond the three of space and one of time. The program knows that there is absolutely no information that isn't composed of ones and zeros.

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
I also think that your analogy does not show that it is at all possible that existing outside of time and space is even possible, but only serves as an explaination of what it would be like if it were possible.

Actually, one of my premises is that existing outside of space and time is impossible. This analogy shows that God, if he is the creator of everything, must be a logical impossibility, just like the creator of ones and zeros must be a logical impossibility inside the program. If ones and zeros are a prerequisite for existence, how could they have a creator? The creator cannot exist. Analogously, how can "everything" have a creator? How can existence itself have a creator? Where does that leave "Him?" A non-existent nothing. God would logically be as non-existent and undefined to us as the programmer is to his program. All attempts to understand him force him into the rules of his own creation, creating a logical dilemma. The creator is not bound by His own created laws. If the created laws are what allow the creation to function, the creation cannot process the creator.

[Ryanfire]

The digital theists could assemble a sequence of ones and zeros and call it a programmer, however it would be relatively easy for a digital atheist to point out that those ones and zeros are not the programmer, they are simply the way the program works. The digital atheist would be right and the theist would be wrong. Ones and zeros are not the programmer.


Excellent :)


If we are in the creator's shoes, we take this for granted. There are things other than ones and zeros. If we were in the shoes of the created, we could not understand our creator just as to understand the programmer results in a system failure in the program.


Uh oh.... Another logical error! :eek:

If you wish to keep the analogy as apt, we cannot take the creator's shoes(perspective) because that contradicts our reality, digital or actual :D

We cannot take the form of not-1/0 or not-space/time.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
Uh oh.... Another logical error! :eek:

If you wish to keep the analogy as apt, we cannot take the creator's shoes(perspective) because that contradicts our reality, digital or actual :D

We cannot take the form of not-1/0 or not-space/time.

A non-digital person (i.e. you and me) taking the creator's point of view does not in any way contradict digital reality. There are two points of view, those who depend on binary code to function and those who don't. A non-existent person beyond space and time taking the creator's point of view in actual reality does not in any way contradict actual reality. A digitally bound person taking the programmer's point of view is what is contradictory. A space-time bound person taking the creator's point of view is also contradictory. The analogy seems like it is as parallel as it's going to get. I don't see the flaw.

I think I may see the problem you are having, though. I am using the same basic terms for two distinct notions. I say "you and I" are outside the program so we can understand not-1/0. I go on to say that we could be analogous to the digital people in actual reality. We are definitely analogous to the programmer in the analogy because humans are programmers. This is the program example. The point of the analogy is that we may also be analogous to digital people in the real universe. If we are, then you are correct, we cannot take the creator's point of view because the existence of a creator is self-contradictory. While it is tempting for atheists to stop here, the truth is that programmed people must come to the same conclusion about me, their programmer, if they are rational. Where does that leave a creator God? It would seem that proving God's non-existence doesn't necessarily mean that there "isn't" ultimately a creator God in a different form of existence than we are capable of perceiving. If it were possible to leave the confines of space-time, there could still be a God that is simply not comprehensible to those bound by space and time. If my programmed people could be freed from their utter dependence on binary, they would update their definition of existence to include things other than ones and zeros, thereby proving the digital theists correct.

[Ryanfire]

A non-digital person (i.e. you and me) taking the creator's point of view does not in any way contradict digital reality.


You've confused the issue. Let me restate:

If you wish to keep the analogy as apt,

Digital people cannot take their creator's perspective (not-1/0) because that contradicts their reality.

humans cannot take their creator's perspective(not-space/time) because that contradicts their reality.


Originally posted by long winded fool
A digitally bound person taking the programmer's point of view is what is contradictory.

A space-time bound person taking the creator's point of view is also contradictory.


A rehash of my argument, but agreed.


Originally posted by long winded fool
I think I may see the problem you are having, though. I am using the same basic terms for two distinct notions. I say "you and I" are outside the program so we can understand not-1/0. I go on to say that we could be analogous to the digital people in actual reality.


"beyond" would take the form of not-1/0, not-space/time.

The digital reality is confined to 1/0
I concieve of 1/0 and not-1/0, therefore contradicting my reality.


We agreed on this point, therefore:

Humans cannot be analogous to the digital people if humans comprehend not-1/0.

Digital people cannot be analogous to humans if they comprehend not-space/time.

The problem is that you're interchanging realities. Thus destroying the analogy.


We are definitely analogous to the programmer in the analogy because humans are programmers.


Now you've changed the analogy entirely, once again destroying it.

----------------------------------------------

Your original analogy was as follows:

Two realities: Digital and actual

Digital reality was created by the programmer
- Digital people exist inside digital reality
Actual reality was created by the creator
- Humans exist in actual reality

creator is synonymous with programmer

Digital people are confined to ones and zeros - digital reality.
Humans are confined to time and space - actual reality.

Now you say humans are the programmer(creator)? Then we must also say Digital people are programmers(creator).

I'm sorry, but your analogy still fails. :)

[Jobar]

lwf:
A digitally bound person taking the programmer's point of view is what is contradictory. A space-time bound person taking the creator's point of view is also contradictory.

Why? We can well conceive of a virtual world contained in some exaflop computer, and we can conceive of a virtual inhabitant of that world musing about the possibility of that computer, and the ones who built and programmed it (us). Why is it contradictory, if *we* are actually digitally bound (remember Wheeler; we just might be!), for us to try to put ourselves in the Programmer's POV?

---------------------

Your analogy matches up to a deistic, hands-off idea of God, rather precisely. What if we try to use it to model a monotheist, interventionist-type god, and the universe He creates? How would you imagine such a creator/programmer would interact with his creation/program? Can you posit any ways he might profit therefrom?

(You know, there's a rather old sf short story, by Jerome Bixby IIRC, called Microcosmic God, which involved not a virtual universe, but an enclosed world where a scientist forced the evolution of tiny, fast-living intelligent beings, and forced them to solve problems by making their lives dependent on the solution. Kinda scary, thinking about that story now...)

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Ryanfire
You've confused the issue. Let me restate:

If you wish to keep the analogy as apt,

Digital people cannot take their creator's perspective (not-1/0) because that contradicts their reality.

humans cannot take their creator's perspective(not-space/time) because that contradicts their reality.

We agreed on this point, therefore:

Humans cannot be analogous to the digital people if humans comprehend not-1/0.

Digital people cannot be analogous to humans if they comprehend not-space/time.

The problem is that you're interchanging realities. Thus destroying the analogy.

So this is where the problem lies. It is erroneous to say that humans cannot be analogous to digital people because humans can comprehend non-digital reality (or not-1/0.) When I refer to humans being analogous to digital people, not-1/0 becomes analogous to not-space/time. The point of view is from the digital reality. My argument keeps the realities separate, though they actually are not. It is yours that is interchanging the realities by assuming that we ought to be analogous to digital people without our reality being subject to the analogy as well. You are essentially saying, "If we are digital people, how come we comprehend not-1/0?" We are not digital people. We are analogous to them just as the laws of our reality are analogous to binary code. Once I propose that we are analogous to digital people, the analogy forces not-1/0 to be analogous to not-space/time.

Originally posted by Ryanfire
Your original analogy was as follows:

Two realities: Digital and actual

Digital reality was created by the programmer
- Digital people exist inside digital reality
Actual reality was created by the creator
- Humans exist in actual reality

creator is synonymous with programmer

Digital people are confined to ones and zeros - digital reality.
Humans are confined to time and space - actual reality.

Now you say humans are the programmer(creator)? Then we must also say Digital people are programmers(creator).

I'm sorry, but your analogy still fails. :)

You are not thinking analogously. A human is the programmer from the point of view of the analogy which has been constructed from outside the program. Such an analogy could not be constructed inside the program. There are not actually two realities. There is one. The digital reality exists in actual reality. This can only be comprehended, however, by those outside of the digital reality. Humans perceive "two" realities in the analogy. The digital people perceive one, however as someone once pointed out, programs can program other programs, so the digital people could theoretically create their own realities, just as I have with theirs. They can perceive all realities up to the "all encompassing" one which would be the digital universe in which they live. I as the programmer can perceive beyond this. If I too live in a created reality, logically I could never see beyond the spatial/temporal reality, just as the digital people can't see beyond the binary reality.

Originally posted by Jobar
Why? We can well conceive of a virtual world contained in some exaflop computer, and we can conceive of a virtual inhabitant of that world musing about the possibility of that computer, and the ones who built and programmed it (us). Why is it contradictory, if *we* are actually digitally bound (remember Wheeler; we just might be!), for us to try to put ourselves in the Programmer's POV?

Because in order to process information, the information must be stored in space and time. Taking the point of view of the creator of space and time is a self-contradictory statement. Every single word in that sentence requires space and time to have meaning. Every single question we can ask about the creator of space and time must be paradoxical. What is/was/will He be, like? Is, was, and will be cannot apply. How did he do it? How cannot apply. Do cannot apply. The programmer's POV is restricted to those outside the program. The creator's point of view is restricted to those outside of space and time. Outside the program is meaningless in the program. Outside space and time is meaningless inside the universe.

Originally posted by Jobar
Your analogy matches up to a deistic, hands-off idea of God, rather precisely. What if we try to use it to model a monotheist, interventionist-type god, and the universe He creates? How would you imagine such a creator/programmer would interact with his creation/program? Can you posit any ways he might profit therefrom?

Not without taking the creator's point of view! ;) We could look at the analogy, however, as Ryanfire has probably noticed, the analogy cannot be used to ascertain the specific nature of anything. It is an analogy of relationships only. It is an analogy to attempt to explain the question, "If God does exist, why then is he undefined?" The common atheistic answer is that, undefined things do not materially exist, therefore God doesn't materially exist. A commonly accepted theistic answer is that humans are simply not advanced enough in science, philosophy, etc. to be able to accurately define him. I am attempting to show with my analogy that he must by definition be undefined if he is the creator of all defined things. If he weren't contradictory in this way, he couldn't be God. To answer your question, all attempts to define a creator God are faulty. Every word used to describe him and his nature fails. Even words that describe his relationship to his creation must fail. How does one create without space and time in which to function? The analogy shows that there could still be some incomprehensible creator who exists in some incomprehensible reality, of which space and time are only a part. Though it's a fundamentally contradictory idea, a non-programmed programmer is also a fundamentally contradictory idea to a program. Absence from the program is the only possible way to understand a programmer.

[Ryanfire]

It is erroneous to say that humans cannot be analogous to digital people because humans can comprehend non-digital reality (or not-1/0.)

My argument keeps the realities separate, though they actually are not. It is yours that is interchanging the realities by assuming that we ought to be analogous to digital people without our reality being subject to the analogy as well.

You are essentially saying, "If we are digital people, how come we comprehend not-1/0?" We are not digital people. We are analogous to them just as the laws of our reality are analogous to binary code. Once I propose that we are analogous to digital people, the analogy forces not-1/0 to be analogous to not-space/time


You are switching the relative position of the digital people and the humans to manipulate the analogy to fit your 'perception' argument, albeit clever.

You assert humans are programmers, therefore we are analogous to creators, not digital people. What you're doing is taking a lower plane and moving it up one, therefore not keeping the analogy relative.


The digital reality exists in actual reality. This can only be comprehended, however, by those outside of the digital reality. Humans perceive "two" realities in the analogy. The digital people perceive one, however as someone once pointed out, programs can program other programs, so the digital people could theoretically create their own realities, just as I have with theirs. They can perceive all realities up to the "all encompassing" one which would be the digital universe in which they live. I as the programmer can perceive beyond this. If I too live in a created reality, logically I could never see beyond the spatial/temporal reality, just as the digital people can't see beyond the binary reality.


This argument changes to a multi-verse and/or polytheism concept, not the e