[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Georg Wrede]

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Gregor Richards wrote:

Apology: In this post I'm just mudding the waters, I'm not actually 
pursuing my own points here.

>>Any god which did not create the rules of logic and reason is not 
>>a god
> 
> If there existed a unique structure which was all powerfull, then:
> 
> 1) How did it preserve its own existence?
> How can anyone, including that structure, be sure, that that structure 
> has not eliminated itself by purpose or accident?

Well, if that structure (or whatever) actually did create logic and 
reasoning, then obviously logic and reasoning is something within what 
he created (i.e. our universe). That is, the best we can do is try to 
think and reason logically, but since they are his creation (and 
presumably he created them to sort-of "rule" or be "valid" in this 
universe he created), he himself is beyond their realm.

If I create a world in my kids' sand box and I get to create the rules 
and logic -- that obviously does mean it doesn't apply to me. Suppose I 
define /and/ to be /xor/ and /or/ to be /nand/ and /not/ to be 
/equivalent/. (Or whatever else arbitrary or random setup.) I bet the 
tin soldiers in the sand box would have a hard time figuring out stuff. 
Like should we build a bridge or fence here or there. And they sure 
couldn't do any successful reasoning about me existing or not existing, 
or about my world or life. Not with their crappy "logic"!


So, what I'm saying (I guess), is that assuming or reasoning about a god 
who created logic and reason -- is simply futile.

OTOH, the above statement, of course, is the result of my logical 
thought process, and therefore as futile, too!

OTTH, so is the now-above statement.

(Am I on a wild goose chase here?)   :-)

> 2) How did it preserve its uniqueness? I.e. what had happened when that 
> structure has multiplied itself by purpose or accident and thereby 
> created some copies of itself, that are as powerful as itself?
> How can anyone, including that structure and its copies, be sure, that 
> the original and those copies did not eliminate each other?
> 
> The answers to these questions are especially crucial under the 
> assumption, that there is no logic under which that structure can 
> reason about itself, until it started to eliminate itself, which that 
> structure did not recognize, because its powerfulness blocked it from 
> realizing the self elimination.
> 
> -manfred