{{{THIS IS READABLE IN FOUR MINUTES}}}
{{{CLICK image to automatically ENLARGE it}}}

.

.

.

.

.

.

Alternatively, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasizIMHKOI

Original article:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a46...

Author:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
http://folioverse.appspot.com/

[Source Code] Naive Approximation/Basis of God:
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God

.

.

.

.

.

.

**INTRIGUING NOTE**

('A')

I had tweeted to Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist), notifying him of my ATHEISTIC nature, WHILST stipulating of his closed mindedness (I had used expletives) - in NOT recognizing the likely hood of non-omniscient Gods, (on scientific observation).

A few weeks after said tweet, Sam conceded of the serious possibility, that mankind shall likely compose a type of 'God' in this video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&nohtml5=False

SEE video section "14:08".

('B')

I have not any certainty, whether I had influenced his video, but I had tweeted him the article stipulated in the original post.
Here is the article once more:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a46...

('C')

Albeit, not all beings are as reasonable as Sam Harris, or other scientists, which is quite disappointing.

('D')

Albeit, it is quite likely, that Gods are on the horizon: http://god-is-coming.appspot.com/

Views: 449

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You do state it, sorry.

Perhaps you did not mean to.

:D

Perhaps it is exigent that you stipulate where I had stipulated such.

I bet you did have some influence on Sam ;)....I'm not sure the idea of god-like aliens or god-like future humans with super computers is earth shattering ( to any one who has watched Star Trek.)

The term "belief" to me is the mechanism that networks humans together in cooperatives with common goals and methods. Do you really believe a small stack of green rectangular pieces of paper is worthy of trading for a new car? Oddly, yes you do; we all must believe in the value of money so we can cooperate and dominate. We know that alone we are nothing, we have evolved to believe. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point "Artificial Belief" emerges alongside AI because something must direct intelligence.

('A')

The article simply postulates scientific data, such that 'God' is redefined.

('B')

Statistically, one computes OPTIMAL actions, ABSENT belief/emotional bias: https://medium.com/@jordanmicahbennett/belief-is-entirely-non-neces...

OPTIMAL is always relative to the observer.

Quote by: _Robert_ 

"OPTIMAL is always relative to the observer."

Such ALTERS NOT, the factum, that one computes OPTIMAL actions, ABSENT belief/emotional bias.

There are numerous problems here which I'll reduce to four particular claims made here:

1. Your definition of God is completely inadequate. God is more than a being with sophisticated math knowledge, technical knowledge and ability to simulate conscious beings. If you can point me towards any monotheistic religion that defines their God as needing only these three aspects...I'd be shocked. You are leaving out the "all seeing", "all knowing", "all creating" and "all doing". Just about every monotheistic God drempt up includes most of those or all of those. And I highly doubt a single human could generate a simulated enviroment with conscious beings and have created the whole thing from the ground up, is aware of everything that happens in the simulation at all times, can make changes to the enviroment whenever they please and instantly know the ramifications of changing even one single variable or the ability to answer questions your subjects might ask. We would always have limited knowledge of that enviroment as our brains could not possibly handle observing a gazillion events everywhere every microsecond. We'd be less than God. What you are talking about is a God-lite which is nothing special and not as remarkable an achievement as becoming God.

2. Even if we could be all knowing about the simulated enviroment we created (could we ever create that?) we still wouldn't be all knowing and all doing. We certainly don't know everything about the universe we live in nor can we snap our fingers and make the stars in the sky dissappear. When one talks about the all powerful God...we don't talk about a God that could control everything in the world he created. No...we talk about a God that created everything and controlls everything. We wouldn't be such a God no matter what sophisticated simulated world we created...because we are highly limited in our own universe and in fact we are limited over what we can do with the simulated universe we create if we run out of spare parts, processing space, electricity or ability to protect the server from sabotage/accidental-damage. I highly doubt when people think of God they imagine a being who created a world yet cannot protect it from accidental damage from outside. We'd be mere semi-Gods. What you are talking about is a God-lite which is nothing special and not as remarkable an achievement as becoming God.

3. The brain is not an organic circuit board. It is nothing at all like it. One neuron is not the same as another, some have thousands of connections with others, one neuron may have many different kinds of connections with other neurons, data is transmitted in an entirely different way, it is not a 1s and 0s world and the only way that could be generated on a computer is by generating every single molecule in the brain thereby circumventing the problem of converting neural networks into digital ones, somehow controll the whole network of gazillions of objects (representing particles) that from the outside as well as observe it and make changes...and do so without requiring a central processor the size of California. Add 100 more people in your world and you'll need to cover the planet. Add a whole planet and its enviroments and a moon and sun...and you'll need a central processor a few hundred times the size of the average star. I'm pretty sure if we somehow reduced the size necersary (with some magical quantum processor in a few thousand years) to just...say the size of our sun...it would still implode, ignite and turn into the weirdest star in existence...with extremely high quantities of complex elements...who knows what will happen then. Hopefuly not tear a 13 dimensional hole into the fabric of our simulated universe. Will be a nice light show. On top of that...will we create a form of consciousness where sentient beings have autonomous emotions and memories...where they can truly suffer and love in a way that say, animals don't (internalise the emotions?). Is it simulated pain or pain pain? If it's the first...what you are talking about is a God-lite which is nothing special and not as remarkable an achievement as becoming God.

4. Quantum computing will not be somehow able to reduce this amount of processing power necesary to maintain the simulation. It can cut things down no doubt (as we are reaching a lower limit of jamming processing power into each square nanometer) and the space needed will exponentially shrink...but one of you must have special knowledge about an incredible quantum computer that could handle a gazillion gazillion objects and even more gazillion relationships between objects every mircrosecond...without needing a computer the size of the moon. If you do anything less...then you have a shadow of a world that you are simulating...what you are talking about is a God-lite which is nothing special and not as remarkable an achievement as becoming God.

There are a lot of assumptions in the theory you give here...and they are all based on "it's inevitable" that we will get here. It's a big fallacy as we have no idea what technology we are capable of producing and if we ever will/can. It also assumes there's no limit to how much processing power we can jam into one space, how much quantum computing will liberate us from these limits, how to model a conscious brain in a digital machine, if we can ever render beings that feel pain pain and have thought thoughts, that we could augment our brains to be all knowing and all doing in a simulation we created and if a being could create a simulated enviroment starting with nothing by raw materials working their way up. A whole lot of assumptions no? I think we are the tinest step on our way to an improbable journey to being Gods. We are not well on our way.

('A')

I have identified your errors:

1) You have failed to reduce/understand the passage (despite's it's simplicity).

2) In contrast to the FACTS/viable MOORE's law bound probabilities AS STIPULATED VIA MYSELF, YOU have RATHER expressed ZERO scientific data.

The sum of your expressions rather encode emotional/theistic bias.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('B')

1. I own not any definition; such a definition simply reduces the traditional God definition, amidst scientifically observed/OBSERVABLE sequences, such that mankind shall likely satisfy CERTAIN properties of SAID DEFINITION; namely, THE ABILITTY TO GENERATE UNIVERSES/NON-TRIVIAL INTELLIGENCE. [THIS OCCURS ON THE HORIZON OF FACT as seen in items 3-6 below]

.

.

2. God (is therein PROPERLY redefined) as any likely MORTAL, NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT, NON-OMNI..., entity, with the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence. [Thusly, other traditional God-properties, including omniscience, OMNIPOTENCE, omni... ARE NOT LIKELY, on the horizon of said scientifically observed/OBSERVABLE sequences] [THIS occurs on the horizon of FACTS]

.

.

3. Man-made brain based artificial intelligence has already EXCEEDED mankind on individual non-trivial COGNITIVE TASKS/task groups, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. [THIS IS A FACT]

http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/11/exponential-medicine-deep-lear...

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/skype-translator-offers-live-interpret...

ETC, ETC...

.

.

4. Brain based models have entered more cognitive fields, as computational parallelism enhanced via MOORE'S LAW. [THIS IS A FACT]

.

.

5. MOORE'S LAW HAS PROGRESSED FOR 50 YEARS. [THIS IS A FACT]

.

.

6. Brain based models, shall likely enter more cognitive fields, as time passes. [as seen in FACT AMIDST #4]

.

.

7. Brain based models shall likely encompass all cognitive fields, given that some technological acceleration speed obtains. [See #5, Moore's Law has held true for 50 years]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('C')

It appears you are simply quite IGNORANT, OF FACTS THAT PERMEATE YOUR ENVIRONMENT.

HERE ARE SOME USEFUL RESOURCES:

[i] THE TERRYFYING implications of computers THAT already LEARN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx310zM3tLs

[ii] THE TERRIBLE EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL MACHINES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&t=571s

Are you incapable of absorbing new information that is in conflict with your initial opinions?

You are not, it seems, capable of actually answering the questions about your premises, without pasting truly irrelevant verbiage...simply because it almost discusses topics with the same terms in them.

Perhaps take ONE pointed out deficiency in your premise list, a description of god...and, expound upon that w/o yet another Einstein Tongue/chalkboard/irrelevant paste?

:D

('A')

Nonsense.

I have absorbed many a stream of datum of expression, PARTICULARLY on the horizon of errors; for the human brain, is but an error-minimizing fabric.

.

.

.

.

('B')

I have not any opinion.

.

.

.

.

('C')

There exist not any such deficiency.

Albeit, herein, persists a SIMPLIFICATION, qua probabilities described, that occur on the horizon of scientifically observed sequences/FACTS, faces:

[a] The traditional God definition includes OMNISCIENCE, OMNIPOTENCE, ..., the ability to generate NON TRIVIAL intelligence/generate universes.

[b] On Moore's Law (or other graphs), MAN SHALL likely build brain based models that entirely exceed man, while having already built models that exceed man on individual cognitive task/task groups. (NON TRIVIAL intelligence)

[c] On Moore's Law (or other graphs), MAN SHALL likely build complex, precise simulations of the cosmos, while having already built sophisticated models, with non-trivial properties, see ILLUSTRIS. (UNIVERSE construction)

[d] Man partially satisfies the traditional God definition, possessing the ability to likely generate non-trivial intelligence, and or generate universes.

[e] The traditional God definition is likely WRONG/partially accurate, for man, is NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT, but yet possesses the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence and or generate universes.

[f] Thusly, God is likely any NON-OMNISCIENT, NON-OMNIPOTENT entity, with the ability to generate universes, and or generate non-trivial intelligence.

So, no then, gotcha.

:D

('A')

Herein, an emergence in clarity permeates; the prior stipulations OF MINE are simply, BEYOND that of your synonymous mental capabilities.

Perhaps, it is exigent that one prior absorbs mathematically, at minimum, the premise par QUANTUM COMPUTING.

.

.

.
('B')

Herein, is a 4-line mathematical QUANTUM COMPUTING summary of mine: https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-computing-work/answer/Jordan...

Such an exercise shall perhaps enhance the cognition of thine, such that the aforesaid expression sequences, are trivially reducible.

Any other sufficiently complex sequence of maths is feasible. Larger complexities are in the like, optimal.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service