Is "supernatural" a useful word?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2016, 11:53 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 01:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And I do not know how God and/or the Supernatural operate. As I suggested earlier God could be a programmer and we could be living in a simulation.
So if we were living in a computer simulation, you would expect that the programmer would have purposefully created random quantum fluctuations?
I mean, if I were programming a simulated universe I don't think I would bother with quantum fluctuations. Certainly not random ones, what would be the point in that? Why would you expect that an intelligent programmer would do that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2016, 12:28 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 11:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 01:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And I do not know how God and/or the Supernatural operate. As I suggested earlier God could be a programmer and we could be living in a simulation.
So if we were living in a computer simulation, you would expect that the programmer would have purposefully created random quantum fluctuations?
I mean, if I were programming a simulated universe I don't think I would bother with quantum fluctuations. Certainly not random ones, what would be the point in that? Why would you expect that an intelligent programmer would do that?

If I were a programmer creating a simulation I would use a random number generator on the smallest of scales to introduce a certain amount of randomness into the simulation. To the inhabitants of the simulation that would appear as quantum randomness. It would appear as an effect without a local cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2016, 03:06 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 11:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In its simplest form Bell's Theorem states:

Quote:No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

This means in a quantum mechanical world(which ours seems to be), some effects are not going to have local causes.
From what I gather, he is talking about quantum entanglement. And in particular the problem where two particles are said to be entangled, for each particle it is undetermined what properties it has, perhaps spin, so each particle has both up and down spin. But we know that when an observation is made then the spin is either up or down, not both. And if we observe particle A and it has up spin then we know that particle B has down spin because it must have the opposite (as they are entangled). The observation is termed as collapsing the wave function and hence making real the properties. They can no longer be both, and must be one or the other. The argument is that you haven't made an observation of particle B hence you shouldn't have collapsed its wave function and hence it should have both up and down spin (at the same time). But Bohr's argument is that they are entangled and hence observing A also collapses B. Einstein's problem with that is that this equates to "spooky action at a distance". This is want is meant by "non local". "Local" means that actions can only occur at best within the time it takes light to travel the distance. So if two particles are 100,000 light years apart it would take 100,000 years (at least) for any action on A to affect B, rather than instantaneous, which is what happens with quantum entanglement.

"non local" does not mean that god did it, or that supernatural forces are at play. No-one believes that when you observe particle A that god makes sure particle B's properties become consistent with the wave function collapse of particle A.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2016, 03:09 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(20-08-2016 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 11:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So if we were living in a computer simulation, you would expect that the programmer would have purposefully created random quantum fluctuations?
I mean, if I were programming a simulated universe I don't think I would bother with quantum fluctuations. Certainly not random ones, what would be the point in that? Why would you expect that an intelligent programmer would do that?

If I were a programmer creating a simulation I would use a random number generator on the smallest of scales to introduce a certain amount of randomness into the simulation. To the inhabitants of the simulation that would appear as quantum randomness. It would appear as an effect without a local cause.
Why on earth would you do that? For what purpose? Randomness isn't a watermark of intelligence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 02:11 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(20-08-2016 03:09 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-08-2016 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If I were a programmer creating a simulation I would use a random number generator on the smallest of scales to introduce a certain amount of randomness into the simulation. To the inhabitants of the simulation that would appear as quantum randomness. It would appear as an effect without a local cause.
Why on earth would you do that? For what purpose? Randomness isn't a watermark of intelligence.

Randomness is a tool used by intellects. Computer programmers write routines to generate it to make their programs work properly.

Here is a thread on randomness

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...light=Dice
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2016 02:41 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(21-08-2016 02:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-08-2016 03:09 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Why on earth would you do that? For what purpose? Randomness isn't a watermark of intelligence.

Randomness is a tool used by intellects. Computer programmers write routines to generate it to make their programs work properly.

Here is a thread on randomness

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...light=Dice
I've been a professional programmer and I don't make use of random generators.
As Einstein said , God does not play dice.
An all knowing, all powerful god would never need a random generator. Random generators are for those that can't decide, for those that leave things up to "luck".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 04:03 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(21-08-2016 02:37 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I've been a professional programmer and I don't make use of random generators.
As Einstein said , God does not play dice.
An all knowing, all powerful god would never need a random generator. Random generators are for those that can't decide, for those that leave things up to "luck".

It is trivially easy to write a program to play rock-paper-scissors in a way in which it would be impossible for the program's competitor to find and take advantage of an exploit. I'd like to see you do that without using randomness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(21-08-2016 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It is trivially easy to write a program to play rock-paper-scissors in a way in which it would be impossible for the program's competitor to find and take advantage of an exploit. I'd like to see you do that without using randomness.
Rock, paper scissors is a stupid game for stupid people. It is purely on "luck" no skill or intelligence required.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 01:42 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(21-08-2016 01:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It is trivially easy to write a program to play rock-paper-scissors in a way in which it would be impossible for the program's competitor to find and take advantage of an exploit. I'd like to see you do that without using randomness.
Rock, paper scissors is a stupid game for stupid people. It is purely on "luck" no skill or intelligence required.

Are you admitting you couldn't solve the problem you were asked to solve without randomness?

Actually great skill and intellect are required to beat win this game and the only way to negate the skill edge an opponent might have over you is to employ randomness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 07:00 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 01:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, your definition is not reasonable. You are trying to say a magical god personality without substance affects our reality by the will of its mind.

You say my definition is unreasonable but then instead of criticizing it, you criticize the conclusion of my argument.

And I do not know how God and/or the Supernatural operate. As I suggested earlier God could be a programmer and we could be living in a simulation.

Or he could not be. While logic is a great tool, that we primates rely on a lot, we are not supposed to be slaves to it. This is a perfect example of the use of logic to say exactly nothing.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: