PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
The state of the universe at any given time can be calculated from the state of the universe an arbitrary amount of time before.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe the universe is working towards an outcome, a solution?The state of the universe at any given time can be calculated from the state of the universe an arbitrary amount of time before.
It's working towards a final state.Do you believe the universe is working towards an outcome, a solution?
Is there an intelligence behind the procedure?It's working towards a final state.
Let me put it this way: can there be a procedure without someone to reduce the solution?Not as far as I know.
Let's take a simple algorithmic example: baking a cake.What do you mean, "reduce the solution?"
I think that it is very much an open question whether the universe is "algorithmic in nature". There does appear to be randomness (truly unpredictable phenomena) in nature, and I do not fully comprehend how it relates to the deterministic reality that we perceive in our everyday interactions with it. However, intelligence does strike me as something that can be reliably computed. That is, I do not see randomness as a factor in intelligent behavior.Considering the universe itself is algorithmic in nature as far as anyone has suggested, then wouldn't it?
A non-deterministic Turing machine is equivalent to the deterministic version. Additionally, it is possible to compute the entire solution set "simultaneously", merely more arduous.I think that it is very much an open question whether the universe is "algorithmic in nature". There does appear to be randomness (truly unpredictable phenomena) in nature, and I do not fully comprehend how it relates to the deterministic reality that we perceive in our everyday interactions with it. However, intelligence does strike me as something that can be reliably computed. That is, I do not see randomness as a factor in intelligent behavior.
Are we still talking about cakes? Because if I mix one cup of pebbles, three goldfish, and a tank of water, I'm not going to end up with the solution I'd hoped for.But there are an infinite variety of procedures that produce the same solution. How can you derive the former from the latter?
But you could begin baking your cake by taking out the bowl first, or plugging in the oven, or putting the cheese-grater away. (Or taking it out.)Are we still talking about cakes? Because if I mix one cup of pebbles, three goldfish, and a tank of water, I'm not going to end up with the solution I'd hoped for.
The essence of me. Specifically, my personality and memories, as that is really what makes me me. But I'm okay too with the idea that memories could be submerged and known only subconciously. But yes, for me to continue after death and still be me, I would think those two components would have to be conserved in some way.What do you exactly mean by 'me'?
There are a number of procedures that might produce the desired outcome --there may even be a unique one for each person who tackles their algorithm, and for each instance they tackle it. The point is, there's tacklers there to reduce the cake to recipes --to reduce the outcome to the steps that will derive that outcome. To make the algorithm.But you could begin baking your cake by taking out the bowl first, or plugging in the oven, or putting the cheese-grater away. (Or taking it out.)
But if you gave me a cake, I could not tell you a recipe for it, nor could I tell you which recipe was used to make it.There are a number of procedures that might produce the desired outcome --there may even be a unique one for each person who tackles their algorithm, and for each instance they tackle it. The point is, there's tacklers there to reduce the cake to recipes --to reduce the outcome to the steps that will derive that outcome. To make the algorithm.
Is that significant to the definition of an algorithm?But if you gave me a cake, I could not tell you a recipe for it, nor could I tell you which recipe was used to make it.
It is in the context of how algorithms relate to their outputs. All algorithms have a single output, but a given output is calculated by an infinity of algorithms.Is that significant to the definition of an algorithm?
But I can evolve algorithms.Euclid's algorithm for the greatest common devisor of two numbers is an algorithm regardless that I couldn't calculate or devise it. Regardless, it requires an intelligence to make it.
Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding this argument, but it seems, Willa, that you are making a similar mistake as many creationists who claim that there obviously must have been a Creator since there is Creation. By defining Polyhedral's statement that the universe has an orderly direction in which it is going as an algorithm, you are artificially importing the need for an algorithm creator.There are a number of procedures that might produce the desired outcome --there may even be a unique one for each person who tackles their algorithm, and for each instance they tackle it. The point is, there's tacklers there to reduce the cake to recipes --to reduce the outcome to the steps that will derive that outcome. To make the algorithm.