Franko's "Universe as a Computer Program" Debunked

[Franko]

MRC it is very simple ...

A consequence you like is a Reward.

A consequence that you don't like is a Punishment.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Posting that twice doesn't make it make more sense. But probably your mind IS that simple

Hans

 

[Franko]

Your nothing woo-woo posts are more substantive?

When are you going to explain what YOU believe MRC?

What are you hiding?

So TLOP does not control YOU, what does that mean? Isn't your mind made of atoms? Are you saying that the laws of Physics are NOT determining your behavior?

Explain what you mean?

 

[Franko]

Franko: (Logical Deist)
So the picture of what the Mandelbrot set looked liked (the fractal) already existed before the program was entered, run, or plotted on the screen?

MRC: (A-Theist)
A work of art is not deterministic. You need to explain how Mona Lisa is created in a determinstic universe.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Do you mean just like the Mona Lisa existed from the start – before Da Vinci got around to painting it?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Once more since you apparantly cannot read English: A work of art is not deterministic. Not preordained. Not predictable. Get it?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
The Mona Lisa is no different then the Mandelbrot set. It is just a fractal, the result of many many iterations of a very simple algorithm. Explain why you believe that the Mandelbrot set is different then any other art work? What specifically is different about it MRC?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Sad for you that you don't know the difference. But perhaps you can give me the formula for Mona Lisa?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC? Is photography more evidence for indeterminism?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Photograps are quite quite probabilistic. But you are not telling me you believe that they always show the truth?

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Explain why you believe that Fractals are not artwork?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I already did. DO read my posts. Tha fact that you dont understand the explanation doesnt mean that it isn't there.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Define Artwork. Explain why artworks are not predetermined, but the Mandelbrot set was?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I can explain that the Mandelbrot set is predetermined, but I cant prove a negative. YOU provide evidence that the Mona Lisa was predetermined.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
Wasn’t the painting of the Mona Lisa preDETERMINED by what Mona Lisa (the person) actually looked like? How is the Mona Lisa ANY different then a photographic portrait MRC?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I would say that you are culturally deprived. I'm sorry, I neither have the ability nor motivation to educate you culturally. A photo can be art too, however.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
When you take a photograph of you wife does a different person ever show up when you have the film developed?

MRC: (A-Theist)
I sure hope not. That might get me into serious trouble.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
According to your view of reality are photographs deterministic like a fractal, or are they magical like “artwork”?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Nothin is magical, but some art comes close, heheh. Photograps are less deterministic than fractals.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
How is the Mona Lisa any different then a photograph (portrait) of any other women MRC?

MRC: (A-Theist)
Well, if you insist on exposing your cultural poverty repeatedly, I shall not stop you.

So Hans-Job since you seem to be claiming to have superior art-detection abilities then I assume if I showed you some “artwork” – let’s say some landscapes – you could tell me which ones were done manually (“not deterministic” “Not preordained” “Not predictable” Get it?), and which ones were just fractals generated by a deterministic algorithm?

You seem to be making this claim, if not, then wouldn’t that constitute: the formula for Mona Lisa? where: Mona Lisa = Landscape Artwork

 

[MRC_Hans]

So Hans-Job since you seem to be claiming to have superior art-detection abilities then I assume if I showed you some “artwork” – let’s say some landscapes – you could tell me which ones were done manually (“not deterministic” “Not preordained” “Not predictable” Get it?), and which ones were just fractals generated by a deterministic algorithm?

You seem to be making this claim, if not, then wouldn’t that constitute: the formula for Mona Lisa? where: Mona Lisa = Landscape Artwork

Well, we are getting off topic, but who cares? I only claim superior art detection capabilities compared to you, and you provided the evidence.

Yes, I suspect I would quite often be able to distinguish between (pictures of) landscapes created by artists and landscapes created by computer programs. Now the Mona Lisa is not a landscape, so maybe you should try for computer generated faces instead.

Ask yourself this: Has the Mona Lisa been celebrated and admired through centuries for its photographic likeness with the lady depicted? Or for something else? The question is rethoric: It is not the portrait qualities, because it is not even known for sure who was the model, much less how well the painting resembled her (although it probably did well).

Hans

 

[Franko]

MRC:
Well, we are getting off topic, but who cares? I only claim superior art detection capabilities compared to you, and you provided the evidence.

Yes, I suspect I would quite often be able to distinguish between (pictures of) landscapes created by artists and landscapes created by computer programs. Now the Mona Lisa is not a landscape, so maybe you should try for computer generated faces instead.

What difference does it make? What if I had an artist paint up something, or do an artwork on a computer that kind of looked like it might be a fractal? Are you telling me you could tell the difference? I thought you said it was easy to tell the difference because ART is NOT the result of deterministic Algorithms?

Have you ever seen any of those computer generated 3D holographic artworks? Is that art? ... because it wouldn't have been possible without a Deterministic computer algorithm.

Ask yourself this: Has the Mona Lisa been celebrated and admired through centuries for its photographic likeness with the lady depicted? Or for something else? The question is rethoric: It is not the portrait qualities, because it is not even known for sure who was the model, much less how well the painting resembled her (although it probably did well).

Ohhh, I understand exactly what you are saying MRC, as hard as it may be for you to believe it -- I understand what puts the “magic” in the Mona Lisa even better than you do.

 

[MRC_Hans]

What difference does it make? What if I had an artist paint up something, or do an artwork on a computer that kind of looked like it might be a fractal? Are you telling me you could tell the difference? I thought you said it was easy to tell the difference because ART is NOT the result of deterministic Algorithms?

Yes that is what I claim. Since art is undefinable, it is not always recognizable, so there might well be instances whre you could not destinguish between the result of a computer program and art. So what?

Have you ever seen any of those computer generated 3D holographic artworks? Is that art? ... because it wouldn't have been possible without a Deterministic computer algorithm.

Thats irrelevant. Paints and brushes are also rather deterministic. Brushes or computers, it's just tools.

Ohhh, I understand exactly what you are saying MRC, as hard as it may be for you to believe it -- I understand what puts the “magic” in the Mona Lisa even better than you do.

OOooh? Then do explain it.

Hans

 

[Franko]

MRC:
Yes that is what I claim. Since art is undefinable, it is not always recognizable, so there might well be instances whre you could not destinguish between the result of a computer program and art. So what?

So maybe it is ALL done by a computer program? Maybe you are part of the program, and therefore you only comprehend the greater program to a relative degree corresponding to your degree of self-awareness?

How is your not knowing if the Mona Lisa was generated by an Algorithm EVIDENCE that the Mona Lisa was not generated by an Algorithm?

You ever seen a scanner? You ever seen a large architecture plotter -- a computer printer that use colored pens or sprayed paint to produce very large sized documents and drawings? You ever seen one of those “paint-brush” filters in any of the slew of graphics programs on the market these days?

Suppose I set up a digital camera in some tourist area, I hook the camera to a computer. I have the thing set up so that someone can hit a button, and it will take their family’s picture in front of some local landmark. Okay, so now digital photo goes to computer, where a graphics program applies a filter algorithm to deterministically modify the image from photo realism to Renaissance Master’s style painting, then … using a slightly modified plotter, the image is painted onto a canvas with real brushes and real oil paints.

You gonna tell me that people wouldn’t be willing to shill out some bucks for these “hand-painted” art masterpieces? What if you hide the computer and plotter in a little shed, and tell them that you have a team of the world’s fastest reclusive artists whipping these things out at 1 every 15 minutes?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ehr, yes. I'm sure you could fool some there. Like I say, it is not possible to define art. What about it? What are you arguing for?

So you ask if I'm sure we're not part of some great computer program. Well, basically no, but if we are, then it's a probabilistic program.

Hans

 

[Franko]

Mrc:[/b[
So you ask if I'm sure we're not part of some great computer program. Well, basically no, but if we are, then it's a probabilistic program.

How specifically is your model of the Cosmos different then a great computer program? Aren’t all of your “models” of it literally on computers?

Suppose that you are a computer program MRC. Even if it were probabilistic, would that mean you were NOT bound by the laws (code) the program was written in?

Isn’t DNA a lot like computer code/data MRC? How is DNA unlike a computer program?

 

[MRC_Hans]

How specifically is your model of the Cosmos different then a great computer program? Aren’t all of your “models” of it literally on computers?

Suppose that you are a computer program MRC. Even if it were probabilistic, would that mean you were NOT bound by the laws (code) the program was written in?

Try to get it into your head, Frank: I do not deny that I am bound by tlop. I never have denied being bound by tlop. You dont need to keep arguing that point. I do, however, deny that tlop is a conscious entity. Is the code of a program conscious?

Isn’t DNA a lot like computer code/data MRC? How is DNA unlike a computer program?

I would say DNA is more like a blueprint. We are built according to the blueprint, but it doesn't control our actions, like a computer program would.

Hans

 

[Franko]

MRC:

Try to get it into your head, Frank: I do not deny that I am bound by tlop. I never have denied being bound by tlop. You dont need to keep arguing that point. I do, however, deny that tlop is a conscious entity. Is the code of a program conscious?

It is impossible for you to be more conscious then the source of a force which is controlling your actions. To claim otherwise is analogous to claiming that your legs are more conscious then your mind, because mind controls Legs.

 

[Franko]

MRC:
I would say DNA is more like a blueprint. We are built according to the blueprint, but it doesn't control our actions, like a computer program would.

So your DNA does not effect the appearance or performance of your physical body???

DNA is the data (blueprint), then an algorithm runs which reads the DNA and makes your body.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So your DNA does not effect the appearance or performance of your physical body???

DNA is the data (blueprint), then an algorithm runs which reads the DNA and makes your body.

Of course it affects my possibilities. It also decided whether I had the ability to learn English. And it might have a part in making me stubborn enough (or silly enough) to keep attempting to communicate with you. But the fact that I'm writing these words, and indeed my everyday actions have nothing to do with DNA.

The blueprint decides whether a computer is a PC or a Mac, but whether it runs a word-processor or a spreadsheet is not determined by the blueprint.

Hans

 

[Franko]

Franko:
DNA is the data (blueprint), then an algorithm runs which reads the DNA and makes your body.

MRC:
Of course it affects my possibilities. It also decided whether I had the ability to learn English. And it might have a part in making me stubborn enough (or silly enough) to keep attempting to communicate with you. But the fact that I'm writing these words, and indeed my everyday actions have nothing to do with DNA.

Really?

So you are claiming that even if you had the DNA of a housefly that you would still be carrying out the same daily routine? If you had housefly DNA, I would notice nothing different in the style or content of your posts?

Is that what you are claiming?

MRC:
But the fact that I'm writing these words, and indeed my everyday actions have nothing to do with DNA.

And I thought that Tricky was a nutcase for believing that TOAST was superior to Human Beings.

MRC:
The blueprint decides whether a computer is a PC or a Mac, but whether it runs a word-processor or a spreadsheet is not determined by the blueprint.

I suppose that you’ll tell us Magic determines what software is run? I suspect that next you will tell us that we should “just take your word for it”? You sound like that Mystical A-Theist – UCE.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Really?

So you are claiming that even if you had the DNA of a housefly that you would still be carrying out the same daily routine? If you had housefly DNA, I would notice nothing different in the style or content of your posts?

Is that what you are claiming?

Your mind really works in mysterious ways. If I had the DNA of a housefly, I would be busy buzzing around in the kitchen. Mmm, I dont think I can explain it more clearly. If you don't understand it, -- tough luck.

And I thought that Tricky was a nutcase for believing that TOAST was superior to Human Beings.

Yet another strawman of yours. Do you never get tired of them?

I suppose that you’ll tell us Magic determines what software is run? I suspect that next you will tell us that we should “just take your word for it”? You sound like that Mystical A-Theist – UCE.

Take my word for what?

Hans

 

[chessmanskeptic]

Yeah, you A-Theists are probably right ... it's just all magic.


heehehe ... retards ...

Well then again your dam*** theory leaves plenty of open ends.

example: Psychics are probably hackers of TLOP.

Which in turn leaves the open possibility of "magic" althought the psychic would not be able to perceive it.

Can you not realize your theory is flawed. It leaves open ends for free will. Consciousness can not be emulated in any way shape or form. Your da**** Goddess is also forced to obey TLOP so in turn she is also a figure of predestination.

 

[wraith]

Can you not realize your theory is flawed. It leaves open ends for free will. Consciousness can not be emulated in any way shape or form. Your da**** Goddess is also forced to obey TLOP so in turn she is also a figure of predestination.

It has been said many times that the Higher Power is bound to Fate...