[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Gregor Richards]

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Gregor,
> 
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>
> 
>> Abiogenesis is life forming naturally from constituent matter, not
>> existence forming from nothing. These are two completely unrelated
>> arguments, and the existence-from-nothing one is one I've chosen not
>> to touch at all since it cannot be reasoned about.
>>
>> However, since you brought it up, sure, I'll argue.
>>
>> The reason that scientists explain things in a naturalist way (that
>> is, without assuming or questioning a creator) is because we cannot
>> reason about a creator, we cannot make conjectures about a creator,
>> and so we cannot make theories about a creator based on anything but
>> imagination.
>>
> 
> Going back the "book" model. If the world was entirely created by a 
> single inelegance, would you not expect to be able to learn something 
> about it by examining the world? Can you not tell something about the 
> people who write programs by examining the programs they write? In all 
> human tasks, the "thumb print" of the maker is stamped on the work. I 
> would find it more of a stretch for this to NOT be true of a created 
> universe.

However, a universe created by a (perhaps partially random) algorithm 
would leave the algorithm stamped on the work in the same way. Whether 
we can determine the difference between the algorithm and a personified 
god is a whole different argument, and whether there actually is a 
difference is an entirely different one. 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.

> 
>> So, to counter some specific arguments:
>>
>>> is it better to suppose
>>> something came from nothing, [...]  Or is it more ludicrous to believe 
> in a
>>> spritiual sphere of existance outside of time that is not subject to
>>> the
>>> physical law, a God that created all things for his Own purpose.
>>
> [...]
>> So, to answer your fundamental question of
>> whether it's better to suppose one or the other, the answer is no.
>> It's illogical to believe either, because we cannot argue about
>> either.
> 
> it is not illogical to believe without evidence or argument. That in 
> fact is faith.

Faith is illogical. I don't feel like arguing this, since any arguments 
I make will go nowhere against a person who believes otherwise.

> 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 might have a 
> case for unlogical (the neutral assertion) but that is unavoidable
> 
>> This piece of knowledge is forever beyond human understanding,
>> and any arguments you make to answer it are no better than the foolish
>> gibbering of a child.
> 
> I will agree with part of what you claim, It is my belief that it is 
> fundamentally impossible to prove this question one way or the other, 
> and that this is intentional. However I also belive that anyone willing 
> to accept the existence of a higher power will eventually conclude that 
> one exists, as a mater of faith.

An unprovable assertion.

> 
>> The usual response to this is "don't you want to
>> know, doesn't your innate drive of curiosity cause you to try to
>> know?" Sure, but not at the cost of reason: I will never sacrifice
>> reason and accept faith.
>>
> 
> Belief at the expense of reason is stupidity. Faith is belief beyond 
> reason, belief where reason is mute.

If you choose to believe something in the realm that reason cannot by 
definition touch, fine. Such beliefs often, as is proven by history, 
branch into the realm of the physical world, and that is when they 
become dangerous to human progress. This is why I'm biased against them.

> 
>>> Interestingly, the bizarre and unnatural is often pursued
>>> relentlessly even to those that aspire to "realism" and reject the
>>> existance of a God:  a look at modern physics theorists and science
>>> fiction to see the yearning they have for an existance that, while
>>> relentlessly circumventing the spiritual (accusing it of not being
>>> observable), still doggedly pursue ideas and existances that amount
>>> to the same.
>>>
>> Scientists seek knowledge. Ultimately science seeks to have all
>> knowledge, although that is of course impossible. The fact that you
>> have a convenient and unprovable answer is not useful: Science seeks
>> knowledge which is testable and repeatable.
>>
> 
> Evolution is convenient and not provably wrong (short of some sort of 
> second coming or the like)

Let's break evolution down to look at how it could be proven wrong. 
Evolution by natural selection comes down to three components: 
Reproduction, variation, selection.

Reproduction: We'll ignore this one :)

Variation: Proof that variation cannot create useful results. 
Admittedly, it's difficult to prove anything with "cannot" in the 
definition, but it's moot since there are numerous examples of positive 
variation. My favorite is the lizards relocated to test evolutionary 
change which gained a new component in their digestive tract for the new 
food supply. I don't have a link to the paper off the top of my head, 
but I can dredge it up if need be. Since such things are easy to find, 
anti-evolutionists keep moving lines arbitrarily (where's the line now, 
wings?), but unless a line can be defined clearly instead of 
arbitrarily, it's not useful. Suffice to say that any arbitrarily 
invented line has a different proof.

Variation (take 2): Anti-evolutionists have this bizarre notion of 
"macro" vs "micro" evolution. There is no useful definition of "species" 
however, so we'll need that first. The simplest definition (ability to 
reproduce) results in a form of speciation that's been observed numerous 
times, particularly in plants. Anyway, if a useful definition of species 
was produced, a useful way to disprove it could be generated.

Selection: Again this is completely moot, as selection is quite easy to 
observe and known to happen.


I suppose you could try to argue that the sum cannot be disproved, but 
it can be simply simulating the three constituent parts and showing that 
result does not evolve. Ever implemented a genetic algorithm?


> 
>>> absolute Creator, nor is there any basis for social, ethical, or
>>> ideological constraints, nor is there any meaning to existance, no
>>> motivation to hope in a future, no meaning or reality to respect
>>> life, no subjection to conscience, rules or authority, no existance
>>> of right or wrong beyond a rapidly changing social definition of
>>> morality; such an existance is one without laws and rules,
>>> self-perpetuated by survival of the fittest; no room for mercy, care,
>>> or gentleness in the ever "evolving" pursuit to the be the most
>>> evolved.
>>>
>> And yet, atheists are significantly under-represented in prisons.
> 
> [[citation needed]]

All over the place:
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4149
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226173812AApM54e

That was just the first three results from Google. Admittedly they're 
all sites biased towards that, but the statistics are straight from the 
bureau of prisons.

(That's just the US, I'm not sure if similar studies have been done 
elsewhere)

> 
>> The
>> fact that you find such a universe to be distressing is irrelevant,
>> the evidence should not be weighed against opinions. In all
>> probability there is no purpose to life that we can discern by any
>> means other than ludicrous faith. Boo-hoo, get the hell over it.
>>
>>> The existance of a
>>> person who perceives himself only subject to what is "real" is
>>> forever
>>> without hope describing what is real or what real means, or if what
>>> he
>>> observes through science is really "real".
>>
>> Our understanding of the universe is and will always be subjective.
>> This is a fact.
> 
> You contradict your self in that statement.

Heh, touché. In fact I can only argue for myself: I think therefore I am 
(in some sense of "am"), but I cannot experience anyone else's view of 
the universe, it will always be filtered through me. This is why it's 
impossible to distinguish a solipsistic delusion from a "true" shared 
universe.

> 
>> I do not claim that the universe I perceive and act
>> upon is a true, shared universe, I only act within it because I have
>> no other option.
>>
>>> Instead, he is finally
>>> dominated only by a will to self-indulge and self-satisfy -- an
>>> entirely
>>> empty existance for anyone who has pursued that mode for any amount
>>> of
>>> time (most of us know what that feels like).
>>
>> This has not happened to me. I do not believe in your bizarrely
>> personified deity, nor do I believe that it is possible to reason
>> about the existence of an omnipotent being, and I think that the
>> concept of an omnipotent being who gives a damn about us is silly. And
>> yet, I go through life without this problem you believe that I must
>> have. This worldview is based on extremist individualism, not atheism.
> 
> That is not necessarily a counter argument. The fact that the bulk of 
> the world does /not/ act like that might be taken to be evidence that 
> there /is/ a higher power because, if there were not, why would people 
> not act like that?

This is quite possibly the worst argument for anything I've ever heard. 
How about this: A society that is self-destructive cannot evolve.

> 
>>
>> And more importantly, again, the fact that you find it distressing is
>> irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that one should believe in a higher
>> being out of fear. Fear subsumes reason, and then you choose to
>> believe that you have some higher purpose determined by a grand and
>> powerful entity. As I've already said, I will /never/ allow reason to
>> be overcome by faith. (To read the previous statement, you must
>> realize that I consider faith to be a flaw, and so I spit the last
>> word). It's possible that faith in general is a result of fear, but
>> that's a whole argument I'm not getting into.
>>
> 
> 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.

> 
>>
>> We can,
>> however, explain things that happen in the physical world, and we know
>> evolution to happen in the physical world (the evidence is
>> overwhelming).
> 
> 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.
2) You cannot convince them of evolution, because they're not unbiased. 
They wouldn't have created this "prize" if they were unbiased.

There are numerous similar bullshit prizes, and they're all bullshit. If 
someone offers money to the first person to prove or disprove something, 
they're just an idiot preying on other idiots.

> 
>> Evolution is based on overwhelming amounts of evidence, and yes, I'll
>> say it: Anyone who does not believe in evolution when presented with
>> the evidence is irreparably incompetent. I have no respect for these
>> people. Evolution is repeatable, and evolution has been observed
>> numerous times and in numerous situations, not just in the fossil
>> record but in current times. That includes speciation, although these
>> idiots generally choose to ignore all the examples of speciation.
>>
> 
> The only reasons that evolution can claim "overwhelming amounts of 
> evidence" is because the counter evidence is considered one piece at a 
> time and discarded.

The evidence for evolution is taken one piece at a time and discarded by 
the anti-evolution squad. Congratulations, we've accomplished nothing.

> If you look at all the evidence that has been 
> discarded a flukes and anomalous data, evolution begins to seem no more 
> persuasive than the alternative. I wont even bother stating any of it as 
> Google should find more links than you have time to read.

I could swap words here and produce an equally useless argument from my 
side, but I'm too lazy. *yawn*

  - Gregor Richards