

How to Build a Computer Model of God - iksor99
http://www.bootstrappingindependence.com/technology/how-to-build-a-computer-model-of-god/

======
jgrahamc
"Like most people, questions about the existence of God and all things
spiritual plague me frequently. I want to believe in such things, especially
when it comes to continuity of my consciousness. I don’t like the idea of
disappearing when I die."

One way to address this is to deal with these thoughts rather than entering a
philosophical rat hole of trying to simulate our existence and find an analogy
to the computer. Once you accept that an outside meta-influence is possible
then you don't have to worry about all this "is there a God or not?" If God
exists then God has powers that make Him imperceptible; if God doesn't exist
then He's imperceptible. You can't tell the difference.

Oh well.

Better to live a life of good deeds and actions then worry about what's next.

~~~
acuozzo
> If God exists then God has powers that make Him imperceptible; if God
> doesn't exist then He's imperceptible. You can't tell the difference.

This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives
understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy
Agnosticism' by asking them whether or not God can create a stone that He
can't lift.

> Better to live a life of good deeds and actions then worry about what's
> next.

I agree. This is how I try to live my life, but it's hard to stop worrying
when you have severe thanatophobia[2] like I do.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatophobia>

~~~
TheRevoltingX
> This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives
> understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy
> Agnosticism' by asking them whether or not God can create a stone that He
> can't lift.

Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Never heard an adult seriously
ask that though, usually just as a gag.

~~~
acuozzo
> Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church.

Did you happen to overhear any of them getting an answer? I'd love to read
about how some church-going parents (guardians?) explain the omnipotence
paradox to youngsters. In my experience, at least, I find that Jews treat the
matter gracefully while managing to `uphold the faith', if you will.

> Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag.

You don't know many Tooth Fairy Agnostics, do you?

~~~
wbhart
Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be
improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not.
This argument is a cavil, not a sound philosophical argument. Consider the set
of natural numbers. You (given enough time and patience and brainspace) may
have the ability to count up to any specified natural number. That does not
imply you have the ability to count _all_ natural numbers. Once you start
dealing with infinities, your intuition goes out the window.

The natural numbers can be algorithmically generated. Consider streams in
Computer Science, for example. But note that the existence of streams does not
imply the existence of an actual infinity in the computer's memory, only an
algorithm to reach any finite member of the infinite set.

As mentioned elsewhere. If God is the first cause of the physical universe,
then his existence is necessary (in the philosophical sense) and therefore
changeless (in the philosophical sense) and therefore eternal (as his
existence is necessary - and he exists entirely apart from time).

Once you start to enter into a discussion of infinite things like omnipotence,
omniscience, necessary existence, etc, you enter the realm of infinite
cardinalities, transfinite induction, the axiom of choice, Hilbert's Hotel,
Russel's paradox, and so on. Philosophers have understood the issues regarding
God's natural attributes for thousands of years, but only in the last 100 or
so years have we had the mathematics to start saying things about infinities
that are not nonsensical.

Consider that, as a human being, you are only aware of the present. You
remember the past, and you have no knowledge of the future. Now imagine a
being who is as _aware_ of the past as He is of the present. This is one who
calls himself "I am". He says, "before Abraham was, I am". Or, he calls
himself the "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End". We aren't talking
about a being with changing state and an awareness only of the present, as you
or I. We have to be very careful with our intuition when examining such a
subject.

Only the most rigorous and methodical mathematical argument can hope to
establish anything positive or negative about such an entity.

~~~
acuozzo
> Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be
> improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not.

I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is
`power' defined (for God, that is)?

~~~
wbhart
If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that
God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has _all_ power
with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or
temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no
limits on his power. It is limitless.

This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihilo.
He has all the power there is. "For from Him and to Him and through him are
all things"... forever. In fact, nothing that has power has so without it
being given by Him. All power derives from God.

As God is changeless, his power necessarily cannot be improved.

I'll be honest and say that I do not know of any argument which proves in a
direct way that a God who created the physical universe must be able to do any
thing which is possible. Of course, that does not imply that there is not such
an argument, nor that I do not believe it to be so.

I think that the necessary existence of God implies that there exists no being
greater than God.

~~~
gnaritas
> I think that the necessary existence of God implies

There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish
it so.

~~~
wbhart
Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

~~~
gnaritas
As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that
has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just
because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it.

If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve
the problem by inventing a god that doesn't.

If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the
universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God.

If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the
universe _requires_ a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not
being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.

~~~
wbhart
Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing.

You say that the universe _is_ and that it came from nothing. That means you
believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its
existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause
is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a
first cause.

I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a
beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a
beginning has contingent existence.

Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen
without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better
hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you
live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever.
They just are.

It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no
reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live
in.

~~~
gnaritas
> Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing.

No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe
didn't come _from_ anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born
from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it
came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into
matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing.

> You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing.

No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw
man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much.

> It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet
> then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause.

I did no such thing.

> I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a
> beginning.

False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the
beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is
the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know.

> Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen
> without a cause (e.g. universes).

No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that
believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is
known to exist undeniably.

~~~
wbhart
I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe
may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything.

You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take
it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information
cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes
(singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely
less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to
be headed for a "big crunch", etc.

You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause".
So now are you trying to tell me that _you_ believe things cannot happen
without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that?

If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your
cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that
we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that
must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a
presupposition.)

The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause
which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is
necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe.

If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe
does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need
one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction
from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need
no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are
changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity,
something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up
Hilbert's Hotel).

You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we
just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working
on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self
contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands.

You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.

~~~
gnaritas
You haven't made a deductive argument yet. In fact you've made no argument at
all. If you think you have, please do point it out, as I've seen nothing but a
series of questions trying to pin down what I think and not a one making an
actual argument as to what you think and why it must be. Other than your
original statement which was an assertion, not an argument for why it must be
true.

Your tactic appears to be an attempt to bait me into making an argument that
you can dismantle without actually making your own case hoping that I don't
notice you haven't actually made your case. I'm not biting. I don't need to
explain the presence of the universe to say that claiming gods did it isn't
logical nor do I need to provide a counter argument. If you believe gods did
it, you must make that case; you haven't.

------
padobson
What I admire most about the author is the honest search for Truth. It is a
rare individual that can approach this problem while relinquishing their
biases. I can't count myself among their ranks. It seems the majority of
people, believers and non-believers alike, tend to come to a decision about
God after about an afternoon of thinking about it, at most.

And really, what philosophical question posed to us could be more important
than the question of God? It seems that every human should spend some
significant amount of time deciding where they fall on this problem before
they do...well...anything else.

~~~
kristaps
What does it matter if the answer cannot be known? If the question cannot be
answered than "spending a significant amount of time deciding" is just waste.

~~~
DougN7
What if the answer can be known? Several people in the world and throughout
history claim to _know_ the answer through physical experiences. They are easy
to dismiss as crazy, but what IF they've discovered HOW to search? Some things
just can't be measured by physical apparatus (like love for example).

~~~
icebraining
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Biological_ba...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love)

~~~
DougN7
Lots of "migth be" and "seems to be" in that article. I don't think we
understand it or can replicate it in the laboratory.

~~~
icebraining
Are you claiming that lack of current understanding proves a fundamental
impossibility of doing so?

~~~
DougN7
Certainly not! Lack of understanding of the complete universe is why we don't
know if God exists or not. We don't _now_ know how to define and measure love
in the lab, so there are likewise probably other things that also cannot be
measured and detected physically (at least at the present time).

------
noonespecial
That's called "Simulationism". I happen to quite like it.

<http://www.simulation-argument.com/>

~~~
danteembermage
It's really interesting to think about the theological implications of
simulationism. If the world were really structured as described in the article
(which is not the point he was making, I'm just having fun), then one has to
wonder what the purpose of having simulated, self-contained intelligences
would be. I like to think about the implications of a specific purpose and I
have a favorite.

Suppose one was trying to train up a batch of true AIs that were generous,
moral, loving, responsible, principled, etc. (think Santa, Jesus, or Fred
Rogers). I would submit that the task would be much better suited to some
combination of genetic programming and machine learning i.e. generate a bunch
of AIs with varying characteristics and let them learn for a while and see how
they do at the stated task. I think it would make a lot of sense for a
simulation scientist to want to have a bunch of these around, they could do
some really cool stuff for you and you wouldn't have to worry too much about
IRB approval since they would be certified moral by the previous test.

What kind of test would make sense? It would have to be one with difficult
moral choices, one with an opportunity for failure. One without unnecessary
pain and stress, but one that allows the AIs to make moral mistakes and be
held responsible for them. If the true AIs are interacting, and it makes sense
that they probably would have to, then naturally the duds could make life a
little miserable for the good ones, you'd want to minimize that as much as you
could without restricting the ability of all AIs to choose freely among
available opportunities given to them. On top of that you might put them in a
hostile environment that requires work and effort for survival to see if they
have what it takes to get stuff done.

Now if that doesn't sound like _life_ I don't know what does. I that context
hell doesn't really make a lot of sense (would you really punish bad AIs
forever or just put them in charge of non-morally challenging and easy jobs?
(my first thought was the coffee pot, but maybe putting a misbehaving AI in
charge of that is not such a good idea) and "heaven" becomes more of a "gets
to do cool, interesting stuff" than "chill out playing harp". From my
experience many religious people tend to punt on what actually an afterlife
would be for, other than it would be nice to reward us for being good. The
answer to "Why can't the simulation master give the nice heaven to everybody?"
is pretty clear in this context. She can't because that would be really bad
for whatever task she needed moral AI for, which, if it affected a bunch of
other true AIs has huge moral implications. So sorry, no offence, but based on
your test results you don't get to do the cool stuff.

~~~
Radim
A different take on the same topic:

Greg Egan, Crystal Nights: <http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-
egan/>

~~~
danteembermage
Thank you, that was a fascinating read

------
_THE_PLAGUE
Say I live in a set, set_1, that has some property p_1. I can think about
other sets, like my own, say, set_n, with similar properties for those, say,
p_n. I am confined to set_1 so I can only speculate about what goes on in the
other sets, if, indeed, there be any other sets. I speculate that all these
sets, s, reside in some big super-set, S, with it's own p-like property, P.
But this does not have to follow. I could have an infinite series of sets s,
with their own unique p properties, but a super-set to which they belong does
not itself have to have its own super-p property. It might, but it might not.

This is my problem with "Simulationism". It assumes such a "super P" property
for the "super-set containing all universes". This property of course is time.
The entire universe could be describable by a bit-string (Tegmark, et al) but
that does not mean it has to "run" on anything, any more than a super-set S of
s worlds each with property p has to have its own "super-property" P. I think
it is a common misconception but not easy to clear up for people who don't
have a technical background.

------
wbhart
I don't understand how your model hopes to capture any of the essential
features of God as known to academic philosophers. You mention Godel
incompleteness, but this only applies to sets of axioms which can be generated
algorithmically. Furthermore, pure logic reveals that a transcendental first
cause must be eternal, changeless (without the universe), non-physical, most
likely having a mind with free will, etc. Your model fails to capture any of
these essential features. In fact, I agree with the poster who says that you
should reason about God, rather than try to model Him. Naturally my reason
leads me to different inescapable conclusions than his.

~~~
icebraining
_most likely having a mind with free will_

What does that even mean outside of the physical universe?

~~~
wbhart
Nothing, if you are not a philosophical dualist.

------
hasenj
> Despite my desire to accept religious teachings, I am constantly prevented
> by a simple fact: no one has found any physical evidence of something like a
> soul, or any mechanism which might enable a persistent consciousness beyond
> our current brain.

For a minute, forget about "persisting beyond death".

Consider consciousness, is there any conceptual model at all of how it arises
purely out of the known physical laws?

I can imagine building a computer with strong-AI and I see no reason - what so
ever - to assume that it may possess any form of consciousness. Given all that
we know about how the physical world works, and how computers work, there's no
reason to assume that some particular software configuration will give rise to
subjective consciousness within a computer.

~~~
icebraining
Define consciousness.

~~~
hasenj
That's part of the problem :)

~~~
icebraining
Then the question of whether software can have consciousness is meaningless.

As Dijkstra said, "The question of whether a computer can think is no more
interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."

~~~
hasenj
I think you misunderstood what I meant.

The closest thing to a definition would be something that experiences Qualia,
but then you'd ask me to define Qualia, and at this point I can't give an
objective non-circular definition.

David Chalmers does a good job of explaining it

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo>

------
TheRevoltingX
Kinda interesting, sorta reminds me of Knuth's book on bible verses.

------
vannevar
The author is missing a key element in his model of life, one which
significantly affects the outcome of the thought experiment: his simple loops
are independent, they have no shared state. Real existence is not so clean---
living beings are constantly being altered by their environment, and
conversely altering it. It would be impossible to simply 'save the state' of a
living being without saving the state of the entire universe in which it
resides (the virtual machine). This makes reincarnation (or at least the very
simple model presented in the article) impossible.

~~~
icebraining
One can claim that humans are more like shared-nothing message passing
processes, which can alter and be altered by their "surroundings" without
sharing state per-se.

Shared state/memory seems more like a representation of the Borg ;)

~~~
vannevar
However you choose to model it, the fact remains that there is no clear
boundary between the state of a living thing and its surroundings.

------
soci_rich
ambitious model

