Comments | jessejoe: A funny sort of religious realization

jessejoe

A funny sort of religious realization

Mar 30, 2005 16:14

If I sat down at a computer, I could write a program that was a physics engine that simulates things down to the Plank distance. Now, I couldn't precisely simulate our universe, because we don't understand all the rules, but I could make something that was consistent, and workable, and sustainable ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

seldomawake March 31 2005, 05:43:29 UTC

A few questions for you:

Part 1
Would you, as author, be omniscient? As in, would you know everything, regardless of whether you were paying attention or not?

Part 2
Would your lifeforms sleep? If so, why?

Part 3You just created an entire universe. In doing so, you asked me to believe that you had a very big, very fast computer. Given this computer, I see no reason why the impetus to optimize usage (by not writing a "hell" program, and simply deleting programs) exists ( ... )

goodgoodwill March 31 2005, 12:48:39 UTC

What if the version of Hell were not a punishment program after all, but just a disused file where you stored all the life-programs that you aren't proud of? As evidence, I know I still have copies of most of my schoolwork. I'm not proud enough of it that I open it up and read it, but I don't want to delete it either.

msbeanhead March 31 2005, 22:58:02 UTC

You could always donate it as "word" for your frat...

rockmanandforte March 31 2005, 17:58:18 UTC

why should the bad programs continue existing? they havn't deserved the right to tax your resources, albeit a small tax. by having a hell program, the program in hell could realize you cared enough about teaching it a lesson to make a hell and put it in hell. however, if you throw the program into /dev/null, they will never experience the bitter joy of knowing you still care about them.

seldomawake March 31 2005, 19:39:22 UTC

Er...

See above, with the unlimited resources and whatnot.

Also, "teaching a lesson" implies a limited time in hell, that once the lesson is learnt, the program may leave.

No such luxury is stipulated. Simply put, hell is eternal pain. With emphasis on eternal.

rockmanandforte April 1 2005, 01:55:09 UTC

1) even with infinite resources, i wouldn't want something taxing any of them. they don't deserve my infinite resources.
2) leave for where?
3) once again, the entire fact of being in hell could bring some programs joy, thus defeating the purpose of it.

jessejoe April 1 2005, 05:52:40 UTC

Part 1

I could be if I so chose. Since I have proposed a big, big computer, I could simply turn on logging. Additionally, I could freeze the clock at any point, without the 'verse knowing the difference, to examine things at my leisure.

What really limits my omniscience is the length of my own life.

Part 2

Really depends on how they evolved. There are many out there that think that we sleep because our distant nocturnal ancestors invented sleep as a way to stay very still during the day, thus avoiding the attention of their reptilian contemporaries.

If I were designing them, rather than letting them evolve, then I'd make them not sleep, as I don't see the point. If they are designed without a brain keyed for a sleepy downtime, then they've no need to sleep, right?

Part 3I did propose a very big, very fast computer. However, I never proposed anything physically impossible. I do not have infinite computational resources, nor do I have infinite time to play with this ( ... )

Back to all threads