[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[BCS]

Reply to Gregor,
> BCS wrote:
>> Reply to Gregor,
>
> If one is
> willing to accept that a being is nothing more than an (potentially
> extremely complex) algorithm, then the laws of physics and god are the
> same thing, one is just a person-centric view where the other is an
> algorithm-centric view. I don't think that most people would accept
> this view of life though.
> 

I see in the universe a creator that has attributes like humor, an appreciation 
for beauty and an interest in relationships. If a random algorithm has those 
attributes than the difference between it and god not only may be impossible 
to detect, but be utterly irrelevant.

>> At least in the canonical way, illogical asserts that something is
>> opposed to logic. By your own assertion, logic can't prove either
>> conclusion so neither can be counter to logic.
>> 
> Exactly. Because logic cannot prove or disprove either, it is
> illogical to believe either: That is, it is only logical to believe
> what perception, reason and yes, logic itself can show us.

You assert that you can't know if there is or is not a god, so you refuse 
to act on either and in effect chosen to act as if there were not (how would 
you act different if you /had/ chosen this?). You have chose this without 
a logical bases because, as you asserted, there is no logical bases for this 
choice. The only way to not act on faith (choice without evidence) is to 
never ask the question and practically everyone over the age of three has.

By that you, and in fact practically everyone on the planet, is acting "illogically" 
(but not anti-logically).

>> You have a point, but only if you equate fear and terror or phobias.
>> A (reonable) fear of hights is not a bad thing. A fear of danger
>> (again within reason) is a *good* thing. A well behaved dog fears
>> displeasing you (this is distinct from fearing your reaction to it)
>> more than anything else, otherwhise they would disobey you the first
>> time somthing scares them.
>> 
> I have a fear of heights. It happens to correspond with reason: If I
> fall a long distance, I will in all likelihood not enjoy the result
> :P. But resting a fear of the unknown with knowledge you haven't
> gained by any legitimate means is allowing that fear to subsume
> reason.

Then what is your point? I have no fear of the unknown. If there is no higher 
purpose then "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" and who cares? 
The only fear around here is a result of faith (I fear hell to put it bluntly) 
not a cause of it.
 
>> IIRC there is a $10K prize for the first person to prove evolution.
>> The juges are secular and last I heard, no one had clamed it.
>> 
> Ha. Ha. Yeah, I've seen this. Two problems:
> 
> 1) There is no such thing as scientific proof.

put species A in a box, don't let in anything else, pull out species B. q.e.d.

> 2) You cannot convince them of evolution, because they're not
> unbiased.

IIRC the judges are from groups like NSF and the Smithsonian. Hardly unbiased 
I'll agree...