NYTimes on Theodicy August 21, 2007
Posted by mwj as games, mind, philosophy, technology. trackback.It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.
– NYTimes, Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch
Comments»
Real good article, and presents, in my opinion, a real good philosophical argument for Intelligent Design. To take it further in that direction, it seems likely that the ability to simulate a world like ours would pre-date our ability to discover, for certain, how universe came to exist. So if the designer did not know how our world came to be, and he still wanted to create a full simulation, then the logical step would be to simply find something that works. In reality the universe that the designer lives in may have very different evidence pointing to a more complex, but realistic way in which the universe could have began. Evidence that we are not aware of and so simply cannot make any serious scientific claims about.
For instance, perhaps the law of conservation of mass does not apply in the designer’s universe, but is simply a way to limit the amount of memory that is needed for our universe (every unit of mass or energy would have an address point in memory, and so the program would never need more memory to be run and can therefore run all the way through without fear of crashing the computer due to random occurences or the acts of the AI themselves). Without that law, even the big bang would make more sense.
It could even validate literal versions of the Bible as the simulation may have been in fast forward mode until man gained cognitive functions (which could have been the point that the designer wanted to study), and so the earth may have been created in 7 days for him, and on the seventh day, the day of rest, that could be interpreted to mean that that was the day that God returned the program to real-time.
Keeping with the idea that (using the correspondance theory of truth) what corresponds to facts in the dreamworld can still be said to be true within the dreamworld (which is a concept that I still fully believe in though my phil prof dilligently does not), this is a way for the big bang, evolution, and intelligent design to all coexist. Shame neither side of that debate is willing to believe that that’s possible.
Well sure this is a possibility, but what evidence exists to suggest that this is actually the case, not just some abstract possibility?
and what’s wrong with possibilities? No one’s claiming that it’s true. The claim is simply that we can’t say that it’s false.
free online poker no downloading
Any number of jeux poker virtuel black jack online online casino gambling site free no download video poker home poker game
jeu baccarat
A ruleta europea portal web partie poker net strip poker pc online jack black machines sous