• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith in permanent death

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.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
What do you mean, "reduce the solution?"
Let's take a simple algorithmic example: baking a cake.

We have an outcome or solution: a cake. We devise an algorithm (a series of steps in the form of a recipe) to accomplish the outcome. We've reduced the solution to a procedure.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
But there are an infinite variety of procedures that produce the same solution. How can you derive the former from the latter?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Considering the universe itself is algorithmic in nature as far as anyone has suggested, then wouldn't it?
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.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
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.
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.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
But there are an infinite variety of procedures that produce the same solution. How can you derive the former from the latter?
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.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
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 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.)
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
What do you exactly mean by 'me'?
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.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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.)
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.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
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 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.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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.

Euclid_flowchart_1.png
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Is that significant to the definition of an algorithm?
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.
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.
But I can evolve algorithms.
 
Last edited:

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
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.
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.

It's like the natural laws. Gravity doesn't exist because the Law of Gravitation was created by Isaac Newton. The Law of Gravitation exists because Newton observed a phenomenon present in nature. The existence of the law doesn't imply that there was someone there to set the law in motion; it only required the existence of an observer to see it in effect.
 
Top