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... )
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 3
You 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.
I propose that since you have asked me to imagine a computer that is arbitrarily powerful, the Hell program will not cause any significant increase in the usage of your (apparently) infinite resources.
Consequently, writing a Hell program, which would lend weight to your rules, would be most prudent. I ask you to consider the fact that your decrees may be required for (and, in fact, the only form of) control over the program state space, which, I imagine, you would like to maintain.
Granted, you may control the program at will by jumping in and changing things, but I suspect that doing so would violate some encapsulation rules and involve messing with variables and functions that are private. I know I wouldn't enjoy that. So, the easiest way to maintain your control would be through decrees, and, as mentioned previously, a Hell program would give these decrees meaning.
Consequently, I find that writing a Hell program would be the sensible thing to do, as doing so would give you more control in exchange for only a small increase in resource usage.
Part 4
What would be more vengeful: punishing a program for (effectively) eternity, or allowing it to dissipate into /dev/null?
Part 5
What would be more desirable, from a program's perspective: being rewarded for eternity, or being allowed to dissipate into /dev/null?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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 3
I 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.
Therefore I see usage of resources to punish sentient things, as a waste.
Now, I suppose I could design a very simple simulator where the only thing hooked up was the organism's pain receptors, and the thing couldn't move, reproduce, etc. And at the same time, I could make a corresponding heaven where most physics is broken, and the things just enjoy a continuous orgasm.
But I feel like physical reward/punishment like that would lose meaning very quickly. To make a worthwhile reward would take a fully thought-out paradise, likewise with hell.
You know, it might be easier to just implement Karma.
Part 4 & 5
To answer that, I'd almost have to have a St. Peter type who looks into the brains, err, souls, err, microcode of my charges, and figures out what would tick them off more.
My own sense of aesthetic really tends toward final and permanent destruction, if for no other reason that most life one encounters (1) really wants to keep existing and (2) is pretty adaptable to adverse conditions.
Reply
Leave a comment