Donate SIGN UP

Who Was The Creator?

Avatar Image
naomi24 | 23:10 Wed 23rd Apr 2014 | Religion & Spirituality
173 Answers
The God of Abraham is just one among many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity

Other ideas welcome.
Gravatar

Answers

101 to 120 of 173rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
//just not mathematically important//

It doesn’t need to be mathematically important. This thread is not about mathematics and my interest is not restricted to mathematics. In the context of this thread, depending upon which way you look at it, history might be very important.
In regards to the Matrix idea, I gave this a bit of thought a while back and I reckon that it might actually be possible to test this idea! The idea behind the test would be the principle that, regardless of how fantastically fast and brilliant a computer is, it would be fundamentally incapable of coping with doing the continuous calculations required to model continuous space and continuous time. This would show up as a signature of a sort of "blocky" space-time that would leave various signatures that could in principle be searched for.

The idea of testing this isn't original, and related ideas have been around before. I found this in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10451983/Do-we-live-in-the-Matrix-Scientists-believe-they-may-have-answered-the-question.html

The headline is a lie, I think. Scientists haven't answered the question, they've suggested how it could be answered. Still, this is typical of media portrayal of Science. The criticism at the end of the article may have a point, too, but I think it's reasonable to say that even the most powerful computer would have to discretise spacetime at some level, otherwise it would take a billion billion years to calculate the first 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second (both numbers made-up, but the point is still correct. If you have to calculate what happens at every number possible you'll never be able to manage it, be the very nature of uncountably infinite numbers).

Anyway, if space is discretised in a way that echoes what is called "Lattice Quantum Field Theory", it could be suggestive that we're living in a computer simulation after all. It would certainly be nice if the idea could be tested, anyway, although on the face of it the answer is almost certainly "No". Whatever computer it is would have to be phenomenally powerful, capable of simulating the behaviour of something like 10^90 atoms (and goodness only knows how many smaller particles still) over a volume of at least 10^80 cubic metres, for something like 10^17 seconds. That would be no mean achievement to pull that computing task off, especially as you need finer graining than atoms (need to operate at the level at least of quarks), and finer spacing than metres (scales of something like 10^-25 metres required) and shorter times than seconds.

All I'm saying is, I would want to do more than just tip my hat to whoever wrote the computer capable of simulating an entire Universe.

"//just not mathematically important//

It doesn’t need to be mathematically important. This thread is not about mathematics and my interest is not restricted to mathematics. In the context of this thread, depending upon which way you look at it, history might be very important."

Yes, on the face of it I probably answered my own question really. I do find the History of Maths interesting. I suppose when I said it didn't particularly matter, I was mainly wondering why Khandro was making such a big thing of it in the first place.
Question Author
The Telegraph website won't let me copy the text to paste it here - but I really like the last four paragraphs of that report. That's real progress!
for reference:

//Professor Millican did, however, add that he believed it was beneficial to conduct research into such theories.

"It is an interesting idea, and it’s healthy to have some crazy ideas. You don’t want to censor ideas according to whether they seem sensible or not because sometimes important new advances will seem crazy to start with."

"You never know when good ideas may come from thinking outside the box. This matrix thought-experiment is actually a bit like some ideas of Descartes and Berkeley, hundreds of years ago.

“Even if there turns out to be nothing in it, the fact that you have got into the habit of thinking crazy things could mean that at some point you are going to think of something that initially may seem rather way out, but turns out not to be crazy at all."//
Hey you guys, please stop "educating" me about the NON-EXISTENCE of our great men.
Just when did real people start to exist?. After scribing or printing? Nope that won't wash as the writers could have been fantasists.
It's important for our education of the young that they identify an established fact with a name.
Besides, in ancient times, word-of-mouth was vital for survival and at least, I believe, was as accurate as wikipoedia today.
So I believe Pythagoras did exist, he did visit India where he learned or confirmed his theorem. It was 100's of years BC so why not accept the previously accepted "facts" - rejection get's us nowhere!
As regards myth or reality, be careful what you look for - the finding of absolute truth could well be devastating.
Yup, don't tell me, that's my version of the arabic truism: "be careful what you wish for".
SIQ.


Dear scooping,
Very well done: you have put 12 questions, given 305 answers of which 2 were awarded best answers - percentage-wise I wish I had that record!
You must be a potential great contributor to this thread are you still tracking this thread or the alternative?
I hope so despite your apparent innocent confusion - any probs?
Regards,
SIQ.
Question Author
jim, thanks for that. Do you subscribe to the Telegraph on-line? Your link wouldn't allow me to copy the content.
Re: The Matrix -

From what I've seen, it seems apparent that for any possibility that our reality is merely a computer simulation, said computer is not unduly laboured with simulating the behaviour of a predominantly rational species. ;o)
There is the possibility that the computer in which our 'reality' is modelled is itself just a simulation in a bigger computer...
Question Author
... and there's a possibility that when we talk about computers, we don't know what we're talking about.
possibility seems to have an inverse relationship with probability.
I don't subscribe to the Telegraph, no, so not quite sure why you weren't able to copy the text.
Dear jomifl,
Re your Possibility/probability "relationship".
Nice answer to an insult even if the relationship is not universally applicable (although it could well-be so within our closed world of AB).
As usual, I admire your stick-toitive-ness in favour of seriousness allied to humour.
But I think that the answer lies in Star Trek. not in logic or science.
Best Wishes,
SIQ.
Question Author
Jim, I tried again - still no joy – yet from today’s Telegraph, no problem....

//Senior Liberal Democrats have privately been warned that the party could be left with no MEPs after next month’s European Parliament elections, The Daily Telegraph can disclose…..//

Just one of life's little mysteries I suppose.

solvitquick, what insult?
Dear Naomi,
I may have got it wrong, but I read your answer re: computers using the phrase "we don't know what we're talking about" as a bit insulting to jomifl. I thought his response amusing but maybe I stuck my nose into a private spat or joke.
No harsh feelings involved,
Sincerely,
SIQ.
Question Author
solvitquick, you have got it wrong - again – my sentiment being that jom could well be right and we may know less than we imagine we know. Sheesh! Treading on eggshells or what? Defending myself against other people’s paranoia is becoming hard work!
I read it the same way.
Question Author
The same way as solvitquick? In that case I really must try harder. Fortunately, I think Jom knows me better than that - at least I would hope so.
Yes, sorry. I'm following the thread out of interest.

101 to 120 of 173rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Who Was The Creator?

Answer Question >>