[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Georg Wrede]

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
> 
>>Apology: In this post I'm just mudding the waters, I'm not
>>actually pursuing my own points here.
> 
> That's completely okay.
> 
>  
> 
>>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).
> 
> Please note, that the act of creation allows at least me to conclude 
> that that structure has some state, which may change; I don't dare to 
> write "over time".

Using the logic "he's given you", yes. But "actually" he may not even 
have a state.

And if, like some say, "time itself was created with the big bang" 
(which I personally /believe/ is utter nonsense!), there might be no 
concept of time out there, and therefore things like "change" (which are 
inherently time dependent (i.e. you have one state /before/ and then 
another) also become irrelevant.

>>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. 
> 
> But only if the structure wants to be beyond their realm. This does 
> not exclude that the structure will use its powerfulness to become 
> part of the realm it created. Please note, that staying out of some 
> realm allows at least me to conclude that there is another part of 
> state within that structure. 

Well, suppose that (instead of me creating my own logic for the tin 
soldiers) there didn't exist any logic at all outside our world. Then 
reasoning about the structure having a state is useless. That is, it 
does not necessarily /have/ a state, since having a state at all is a 
product of our own logic.

>>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"! 
> 
> Therefore they are unable to recognize that you may have faded away.

Yes. But if he first created our world and then shot himself in the 
foot, that would really be weird. :-)

>>So, what I'm saying (I guess), is that assuming or reasoning about
>>a god who created logic and reason -- is simply futile.
> 
> I see this exception: the created logic may allow for proving the 
> existence of its creator.

It may. But it may also be that this creator may not be able to create a 
logic for us that would allow any reasoning about his world.

This might be because he is "all powerful" only within our world (as I'm 
"all powerful" in my sand box) and not in his own.

Or that he didn't have that as a goal when creating the logic.

Heh, or he may even not be smart enough to achieve it!
(I'm not saying he's stupid, the task just may be too hard.)

>>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?)   :-)
> 
> Try to hide behind the tree over there :-)

It might be like the difference between Newtonian mechanics and Quantum 
mechanics. N works well until you really start to dissect things and Q 
takes over.

Somebody (quotation needed here, anyway it was one of the Quantum 
mechanics gurus) said that "anybody who claims to understand quantum 
mechanics either doesn't understand it, or is plain lying".

That folks now tinker with stuff they definitely don't understand does 
scare me. And even worse is, Q still does seem to work.


Another big thing is the energy of a closed system. Where does the 
energy come from? Is there unlimited energy available outside of our 
world for creating universes and giving them enough energy to "run" for 
billions of years? And what about the total energy in the super-universe 
(where this our creator lives)?

And, where does the energy there come from?

I guess ultimately it may be that some things simply will forever remain 
outside of our reach, philosophically and scientifically. BUT THAT is 
not the same thing as "there is a creator" or god.

The fact that ancient people attributed everything they didn't 
understand to spirits and gods, seems to be inherent in our genes. The 
same goes even for some people living today. Whatever they don't 
understand is "the doings of God" or "proof that God exists". (God, 
Allah, Buddha, whoever, depending on where you were born.)

In our genes yes. But not like its "programmed" there that we have a 
predisposition for believing in [insert your god here]. It's more like 
that our kind of brain is a fairly recent construction, and as a result 
of our brain inherently trying to make sense of the scene we're on, 
assuming even the wrong thing has historically been better than not 
assuming anything.

Like an infant at dusk finds scary faces all over her room, that once 
you turn on the light turn out to be just flowers in the wallpaper. (I 
think most of us either remember this from childhood or has seen our own 
children experience this at bedtime.) This is a result of our brain 
trying to find the face of a lion in the foilage outside our cave at 
nightfall. False positives here are way less damaging than not noticing 
the lion face when it really is there.

Similarly, assuming an intelligence behind everything we don't 
understand, has at least let us try to relate to it. Of course it has 
its downsides, like human sacrifices to the god of weather, and such. 
But obviously that kind of Darwinian pruning has not occurred to an 
extent that would eradicate this property from our newish brain.

In other words, I guess we simply have to accept that we live in a world 
where many people still believe in gods.

Heh, and totally beyond them is the thought that religions (and 
therefore gods, too) themselves are subject to Darwin's laws. That is, 
evolution and selection. Survival of the fittest rules here, too.