Do you believe in God, and did HDM affect your beliefs?

by **Saraneth** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 5:35 am

yeah i hate how you can't even question parts of our religion without somebody jumping down ur throat calling u an atheist. im catholic but i don't belive/like some of the things said in the Bible.. I believe in mostly the core beliefs but a lot of things sent out by the church i just don't know about...

by **eloquent** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 7:27 pm

Blighty wrote:Gabriel is arguing that anything which can make a decision is concious - including computers. I don't think this is true, because computer's don't really make decisions, they just act according to a program. However, the same could be argued for humans - they just run on a biological program instead.

If the term is to be used very broadly, even the universe itself could be called a computer because theoretically, if all the inputs to the 'universe program' were exactly the same as in the current case then the outcome would be exactly the same in both cases.

To explain with an analogy - If two test tube clones who somehow had exactly the same personality and came into existence at exactly the same time in two completely identical rooms, if you monitored them simultaneously they would be doing exactly the same things at exactly the same time indefinitely. This is because their personalities, experiences and environments would be identical. Watching them on two screens would be like watching the same kid on both screens. Of course even the slightest difference in, say, environment would knock one of them 'off course', and this effect would be multiplied over time.

Similarly, going back to the universes, if one remote particle in a tiny corner of your copy universe was slightly out of line, there would be no apparent differences initially, but 3 billion years down the line, the copy would have taken a significant detour from the path of the original. This links in strongly with the 'many worlds' theory (i.e. why each universe is different but some are similar). If you could create a 'copy universe', it could never be a perfect copy (decimals are endless -can't be bothered to elaborate) so would never have the same outcome, but theoretically, if it did happen I would still be typing this same mini-essay in the other universe. This is a bit annoying for somebody who believes in freedom of choice in terms of paths of life, as this could well show that a form of fate or predetermination does exist.

by **Daniel** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:13 am

That is exactly the deterministic philosophy that quantim mechanics makes logically unsound. On the most basic level, even if you were given the exact position and velocity of every particle -- which, by the way, are not able to be measured simultaneously -- you would be unable to predict their positions and velocities with certainty after any (non-zero length) period of time. The best you could do would be to predict the probability of them being in any given configuration. Combined with what you mentioned -- sensitive dependance on initial conditions (SDIC) (sometimes called the "butterfly effect") -- quantum probability and uncertainty of measurement do away with any concept of "fate."

by **Bragi** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:14 am

Perhaps I can clear some things up.

First, I don't think that God created a hell. there is no need for it. What I think hell is is the world which will be created if humans allow their greed, mistrust, and hatred of their fellows to grow and eventually consume their entire lives. I also believe that heaven is a world that will be created by humanity, if we can all fully embrace generosity, trust, and love as our primary values in life. unfortunately, it seems that the world will sooner become hell than heaven.

You may ask, "If an all-powerful God exists, then why doesn't he intervene in this?". I believe that the reason God does not intervene is because he/she wished to raise us above the dignity of his/her other creations. If God always got us out of trouble, if he/she never faced us with adversity or a challenge, then I doubt we would have risen above cave-man status. What is the use of civilization or technology if God gives you everything you need?

I don't believe, however, that God has simply left us to our own devices. I think that God tries to steer us in the direction of what is good, without actively controlling our lives. for example, when i put off doing a project (or a piece of HW, or whatever) for a long time, then i eventually develop this wrenching, nausea-like sensation in my heart/stomach that seems to be tying my spinal column into knots. similarly, when I finish an assignment the minute it is given to me (which is rare

) I feel a lightness in my heart, and i also get an urge to start singing. I believe that these feeling are part of God's way of communicating with me and all humans

PS: I did Read most of HDM (i read GC and TAS) and loved it dearly, so don't make any negative comments related to having not read the trilogy

by **King Ogunwe** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:21 am

Once again, on this topic, i wish to quote an excellent movie... "Dogma"...

Ahem...

"Maybe it's just better to have a sytem of ideas instead of a system of beliefs... Ideas can change easily... Beliefs... now thats another story..."

by **Isobel** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:23 am

I really need to see that movie, cos everyone always talks about it. People were taling about it today in my French class, even. And of course I had no idea what was going on.

by **Sara** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:45 am

I just finally saw Dogma a couple of weeks ago..its pretty good and pretty interesting in my opinion...

by **Tristan** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:50 am

Hey, welcome to the boards Bragi

by **AySz88** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 3:34 am

That last bit of Bragi's post sounds like what I would attribute to Celierra.... :shock:

by **Gabe** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 5:09 pm

Eh, just popping in here to say a couple things...

First, I don't think that we have a fate because of the multiple universes thing. (I promise I won't mention uniclusters...this stuff is real. :wink:

)
You see, if you make a decision then it just changes this universe, the other universes are all just variations on this one. Of course I suppose since time is another dimension, there is a certain path that you'll take, but it'll still be your decision, if you see what I mean...

Also, I don't think we are very random...that's not a very good survival strategy, how many times have you decided to just fall on the ground?

Anyway, as I pointed out before, it would be possible to make a robot that would make intelligent decisions. If you have a robot with a means of detecting its environment and of interacting with its environment, then you could make a program which learns. For the program to work, however, the robot needs a goal. Otherwise life is pointless, right? So, the most obvious goal is to survive...so you could have your robot get its energy from its environment. Now at this point you just have the robot experiment, and every time it comes up with a useful movement, it stores it in its memory. In this way the robot can eventually comprehend its environment! The problem with this is that current computers aren't fast enough to do this particularly quickly...it would take longer then it takes human babies. But with quantum computers...

by **Daniel** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:06 pm

Let me clarify. Although the brain is a very powerful quantum "noise" detector/amplifier, it is also an effective decision-making device. Creativity, for example, stems from the random part, but logical decision-making and learning are aspects of the neural network.

by **AySz88** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:25 pm

It is a VERY bad idea to have a robot whose first goal is to survive! Then, you'd probably eventually have something like Brainiac on your hands...

by **Daniel** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:03 am

IMO, something like the Three Laws of Robotics (from Asimov's Robot series) should be required for all "intelligent" AI.

by **King Ogunwe** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:52 am

*still is scared of robots*

by **eloquent** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:12 pm

The biggest mistake we could make is programming 'self-progressing' robots to value their own survival as a primary goal.

by **Gabe** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 5:23 am

Hmmm, maybe I should point out that such a robot would most likely be small, weak and simply be an example of robot thinking. Its power source could be a special power plug which the robot depends upon for power...

No need to fear robots...well, maybe nano ones like in Prey, but otherwise... :mrgreen:

by **eloquent** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:38 pm

I agree the old fear of machines 'taking over' and 'destroying their creators' is pretty irrational, at least at this stage (and for the foreseeable future).

by **Will** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:51 pm

But if you agree that at the moment computers have 'taken over' our lifes (look what you're typing on :shock:

) and that if they were to fail we would 'be destroyed', it's not so irrational anymore...

by **eloquent** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:01 pm

I meant in a more literal sense

by **Shivy** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:15 pm

wait wait wait.. rewind back to the Three Laws of Robotics..
What were those books called.. i'm sure i've read them.. i think...?

Do you believe in God, and did HDM affect your beliefs?

Who is online