{{{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: 451

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Garbage in/Garbage out.

:D

TJ are you saying you don't want to enhance the cognition of thine? You're passing up an opportunity of a permeating clarity of a blah-blah-time.

  • Davis QUOTE: TJ are you saying you don't want to enhance the cognition of thine? You're passing up an opportunity of a permeating clarity of a blah-blah-time.

@Davis Goodman

Such is precisely as it appears....

Davis Goodman QUOTE: Except of course several of us have punched enormous holes in your theory and your responses have been inadequate. 

One simply shan't breach FACTS; whence the entirety of the prior stipulations of mine, are FACT-bound.

Said FACTS persist, regardless of that of the ignorance of thine. Such is the nature of FACTs/(probabilities of FACTUM-aligned boundaries.)

.

.

.

.

Post Scriptum:

The human brain is estimated at roughly 1 exaflop. (10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers) 

There already exist low power, efficient chips that compute 10^14 synaptic operations per second.

As time had passed, brain based models had breached larger numbers of cognitive fields, particularly as computational parallelism (synaptic operations per second) likewise increased.

This field broadening persists this day.

https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/deep-learning-nutshell-h...

.

.

.

.

One need not a degree qua Quantum Mechanics, such that one observes said FACTS.

  • TJ QUOTE: Garbage in/Garbage out. :D

@TJ

Indeed; for such is the nature of your expression, nonsensical input, absent logical outcome....

Albeit, you are yet to describe any error amidst the expressions of mine. It is rather observable, that I have but reduced that of the prior non-issues of thine.

THEREAFTER, perhaps it is pertinent, that you postulate of separately expressed errors...

THEREAFTER, perhaps it is pertinent, that you postulate of separately expressed errors...

I can't tell if you are for serious. 

Albeit, you are yet to describe any error amidst the expressions of mine. It is rather observable, that I have but reduced that of the prior non-issues of thine.

What's with the poetic-pseudo-academic-ornamentational-shakespeare narrative?

Indeed; for such is the nature of your expression, nonsensical input, absent logical outcome....

Except of course several of us have punched enormous holes in your theory and your responses have been inadequate. I don't think anyone has any reason to take this seriously anymore. Perhaps if you think about this theory a little more, cut away the cruft and the poetry as well as learn about fallasies and how to avoid them...you might come up with something interesting.

OK, to be more specific...look at your premise.

For all intents and purposes, you equate god and knowledge/ability to think.  Everything that follows relies upon this equivalency.

If you did not realize that you have done this, please, go back and remove all references to knowledge and ability to process information...and reframe the argument.

Until you realize your premise is groundless, we will either believe you to be spoofing an academic approach, or, perhaps a bit whacky.

:D

Stating things in a grandiose way is comical, albeit not compelling.

We CAN parse the wheat from the chaff and, well, you need to eat your Wheaties....and stop dropping chaff when under attack.

Our radar can see through the chaff you are spewing.

:D

If you are a kid trying to sound smart, you are failing at it. Its like adults listening to kids playing at trying to talk like adults.  Its cute...but we don't magically think the kids ARE adults...because the kids do not realize that the terms and phrases, etc, have contexts that are not applicable or appropriate, but, they don't know it...so misuse/misapply the language.

YOUR words follow this pattern.  If meant to be funny/cute...mission accomplished.

If meant to be an actual compelling argument...not so much.

If you are just playing, trying to get a laugh, that's fine, its how it was read from the beginning, and participated in to see where you went with it.

You seem to have stalled though, and, need to either fess up that its a joke, or, be honest with yourself and reanalyze your premises, etc.

:D

TJ QUOTE: For all intents and purposes, you equate god and knowledge/ability to think.

It appears you have failed to reduce the passage.

Simply:

1) the traditional god definition entails properties, including sequence [A]: omniscience, omnipotence, omni... and [B] the ability to generate non trivial intelligence.

2) Mankind is a non-omniscient entity with ability [B], but not property sequence [A]. 

3) We know not whether a God exists. I simply redefined God, on the premise of (2), where God is likely non-omniscient entity with ability [B].

No other premise persists. (as is observed amidst the original passage of mine)

Soo, re-make your argument without referring to intelligence /processing ability.

:D

TJ QUOTE: Soo, re-make your argument without referring to intelligence /processing ability.

:D




Nonsense.
There exists not any mathematical reason betwixt such a boundary.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.
NOTE: PERTINENTLY, the universe’s best description (Quantum Mechanics), REDUCES amidst PROBABILITIES/numbers; the universe is quite likely computable.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Albeit, the man-made definition of God is but redefined.

It appears you garner that the article re-construes any pre-existing-empirical God. (Of course, the existence of God is but unfounded)

The article rather simply re-defines that of the existent DEFINITION qua God.

Are you a human or a robot?

:D

Sooo, now we have a proof that god exists as a definition, the way Santa Claus is an agreed upon entity, etc?

The references to computing power, etc, seemed a tangent then....OK.

:)

Robot

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service