Franko's "Universe as a Computer Program" Debunked

[wraith]

Hmm... how long did something with no time last for? My guess is at least two blartfuncts.

it's ok Tricky

Yes, I can imagine it. All it takes is a good imagination. You should be able to manage it easily, since you believe in the Logical Goddess. Evidently, you have an excellent imagination.

OH YOU CAN?
....if you think so
I take it that you can be aware when youre pushing daisies?

Nope. The secret of the four-sided triangle will remain a secret until you give me good reason to reveal it. As good reason, I will accept your admission that humans have free will. If you want to bargain for something else, well, I am open to reason.

Ill be right

And your the one with the double standard. You criticize atheists for positing a beginning with no creator, but you also have a beginning with no creator. What created the "Progenitor Solipsist"? I am waiting for a reasoned response.

Unlike yourself Tricky, I dont believe in a "no-time" period

Nope. Dead means that there is no consciousness remaining. If you want to test this, try sounding a large alarm clock next to a dead body. If they wake up, then I am wrong. If you can give me any evidence of consciousness in a corpse, then I am wrong. If you decide to test this, please be considerate of the feelings of the bereaved.

but if you test this on a sleeping person, I'll bet you'll find that there is some consciousness remaining. I'll also bet that you'd better haul ass if you have just woken this "consciousness" up for no reason other than that you wanted to test it's consciousness. It might not care for your method of scientific inquiry.

You just said that you can imagine "no-time". Surely, when youre pushing daisies, you can still say "I am alive."

Alas. I was hoping that you might be an intelligent, independant, reasoning human being. It grieves me to hear you declare that this is not the case.

Sorry that I didnt agree with you

 

[Tricky]

You just said that you can imagine "no-time". Surely, when youre pushing daisies, you can still say "I am alive."

Honestly, wraith, I truly wish you would address the points that people make. Your short "clever" answers are not even remotely like a debate. You seldom even bother to take a position.

But in response to the one intelligible thing you asked, the answer is no. When you are dead you cannot say anything. This is why I say that when you are asleep, you still have some consciousness. If you have zero conscousness, then you are dead, and cannot communicate at all.

 

[wraith]

Honestly, wraith, I truly wish you would address the points that people make. Your short "clever" answers are not even remotely like a debate. You seldom even bother to take a position.

But in response to the one intelligible thing you asked, the answer is no. When you are dead you cannot say anything. This is why I say that when you are asleep, you still have some consciousness. If you have zero conscousness, then you are dead, and cannot communicate at all.

So how can you say "I am asleep" when youre sleeping?

Even if you were dreaming, and you knew that you were asleep, youre still awake in your dream.

 

[Tricky]

So how can you say "I am asleep" when youre sleeping?

I gave you examples, and you agreed the same thing had happened to you. Do you not even believe yourself?

Even if you were dreaming, and you knew that you were asleep, youre still awake in your dream.

Then you admit that you can be conscious, even while dreaming. What is the point that you are trying to make?

 

[wraith]

I gave you examples, and you agreed the same thing had happened to you. Do you not even believe yourself?

You have missed what I am trying to say. So I used the "I am dead" line. You missed that point aswell

Can you say "I am unconscious"?

Then you admit that you can be conscious, even while dreaming.

Yes. Why wouldnt I?
Just how are you able to recall these dreams if youre not aware of them?

What is the point that you are trying to make?

That you cant think of "no-time".

 

[whitefork]

The existence of the past:

In my head

Just then

I am aware of my past

How long are you able to stop "present time" without calling lapsed time the past?

So, the past exists as memory. But memory exists in the present. If you forget something, you've destroyed the past? If you remember it, you've recreated it? If two people have contrary memories of the same event, which actually occurred?

If the present is the result of the past, and the past exists as your memory, you are the creator of the present. Sounds like that old time solipsism to me. Magic.

So many questions....

 

[Tricky]

You have missed what I am trying to say. So I used the "I am dead" line. You missed that point aswell

No I didn't. I responded to it two posts ago. I realize, though, that you have a very poor memory, so I will repeat it

Tricky said
When you are dead you cannot say anything. This is why I say that when you are asleep, you still have some consciousness. If you have zero conscousness, then you are dead, and cannot communicate at all.

Wraith said:
Can you say "I am unconscious"?

Sure, but not truthfully. Reminds me of one of those "Funniest things ever said in court" pieces of spam I saw once.

Judge: Was the defendent conscious or unconscious
Witness: He was pretending to be conscious, but he wasn't really.

Wraith said:
Yes. Why wouldnt I?
Just how are you able to recall these dreams if youre not aware of them?

Well, then I don't see your point. I'm arguing that you are still slightly conscious when you are sleeping, but not at all when you are dead. You don't seem to be contesting these points.

Wraith said:
...you cant think of "no-time".

Actually, I can. I can think of it as a concept, just as I can think of infinity as a concept. I am surprised that you cannot. Really, I thought you had more imagination than this.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In other words....the past is not based on the present?

Mostly, but not entirely.

If it was based entirely on the past, it could never be more complicated than the past (it might be more fragmented but not more complicated). So the initial state would have to be more complicated than the present state, and things could only devolve. However, this is not what we observe.

In your own logic: 2+2 can only become 4. Possibly, it could be 1+3 or 1+1+1+1, but never more complicated.

Cheers,
Hans

 

[evildave]

well then, it should be hard for you to show me your free-willy god then

Well, if you want to imagine I have a "free-willy god", then I should be free to imagine you have an inflatable girlfriend.

 

[wraith]

So, the past exists as memory. But memory exists in the present. If you forget something, you've destroyed the past?

at least youre recollection of events

If you remember it, you've recreated it? If two people have contrary memories of the same event, which actually occurred?

I think that this speaks for itself

If the present is the result of the past, and the past exists as your memory, you are the creator of the present. Sounds like that old time solipsism to me. Magic.

Creator of the present?

Perhaps youre thinking me up right now?

 

[wraith]

Sure, but not truthfully. Reminds me of one of those "Funniest things ever said in court" pieces of spam I saw once.

Judge: Was the defendent conscious or unconscious
Witness: He was pretending to be conscious, but he wasn't really.

How does this answer my question?

Well, then I don't see your point. I'm arguing that you are still slightly conscious when you are sleeping, but not at all when you are dead. You don't seem to be contesting these points.

hence my point
you cant say "I am not conscious"

Actually, I can. I can think of it as a concept, just as I can think of infinity as a concept. I am surprised that you cannot. Really, I thought you had more imagination than this.

you can imagine "no time"? What does it feel like? Describe it to me

 

[wraith]

Mostly, but not entirely.

If it was based entirely on the past, it could never be more complicated than the past (it might be more fragmented but not more complicated). So the initial state would have to be more complicated than the present state, and things could only devolve. However, this is not what we observe.

In your own logic: 2+2 can only become 4. Possibly, it could be 1+3 or 1+1+1+1, but never more complicated.

Cheers,
Hans

Are you saying that a simple event cant yield a complex one?

Are you saying that as we gain information, we become less complex?

 

[wraith]

Well, if you want to imagine I have a "free-willy god", then I should be free to imagine you have an inflatable girlfriend.

Judging by your avatar davey, it's not me that has an inflatable girlfriend.

 

[Tricky]

Are you saying that a simple event cant yield a complex one?

Are you saying that as we gain information, we become less complex?

According to Logical Deism, yes. LD says that an entity MUST be less complex than it's creator. Of course, this is bollocks, but that is what Franko insists you believe. Are you going to dispute him on this matter? Can I watch?

 

[evildave]

Judging by your avatar davey, it's not me that has an inflatable girlfriend.

Seems to me someone who keeps changing their imaginary avatar probably has bigger self image issues than someone with a real image that stays the same.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Are you saying that a simple event cant yield a complex one?

Are you saying that as we gain information, we become less complex?

No, Frank, that is what YOU are saying. That is the unavoidable result of determinism.

How could a complex event come from a simple one? Where should the extra information come from? In determinism, the present is based entirely on the past, no new information is generated.

How can we gain information, if the only information that exists is the INITIAL STATE?

A totally deterministic universe works like the second law of thermodynamics; entrophy can only increase. Locally, information may be concentrated, so some systems might become more sophisticated, but overall, the system can only devolve, because no new information is created.

You are so fond of the Mandelbrot set (at least you have frequently referred to it). The Mandelbrot set is a good example of this: After each iteration, it appears to become more complex, but in reality it just becomes more fragmented. No information enters the system except that contained in the original formula.

I'm sorry, but this is simple and plain logic: If you want to believe that the universe is deterministic, then this is the only way it can work. If you start assuming that information is generated along the way ("evolving"), then it is no longer deterministic.

Hans

 

[wraith]

According to Logical Deism, yes.

According to my understanding, you couldnt be more wrong...

LD says that an entity MUST be less complex than it's creator. Of course, this is bollocks, but that is what Franko insists you believe. Are you going to dispute him on this matter? Can I watch?

How does this conflict with anything that I have said?

 

[wraith]

Seems to me someone who keeps changing their imaginary avatar probably has bigger self image issues than someone with a real image that stays the same.

My current avatar is the only one that Ive used actually

besides, I dont want to cause a fight among the ladies by using my face as an avatar muhaha!

deary me

 

[wraith]

No, Frank, that is what YOU are saying. That is the unavoidable result of determinism.

How could a complex event come from a simple one? Where should the extra information come from? In determinism, the present is based entirely on the past, no new information is generated.

If you were going back in time, then this is the case.
How can you not obtain new information if youre moving forward in time?

How can we gain information, if the only information that exists is the INITIAL STATE?

?
Only the initial state existed?
As in, there is a "no-time" period at this point?

A totally deterministic universe works like the second law of thermodynamics; entrophy can only increase. Locally, information may be concentrated, so some systems might become more sophisticated, but overall, the system can only devolve, because no new information is created.

How can information not be obtained if youre moving forward in time?

You are so fond of the Mandelbrot set (at least you have frequently referred to it). The Mandelbrot set is a good example of this: After each iteration, it appears to become more complex, but in reality it just becomes more fragmented. No information enters the system except that contained in the original formula.

I am not that familiar with the mandlebrot set.
Does being more fragmented mean "not more complex" according to you?

I'm sorry, but this is simple and plain logic: If you want to believe that the universe is deterministic, then this is the only way it can work. If you start assuming that information is generated along the way ("evolving"), then it is no longer deterministic.

So we evolve because of free-will?

 

[Tricky]

According to my understanding, you couldnt be more wrong...

Then you need to read your Lexicon again. You obviously are ignoring large portions of Franko's teaching.

How does this conflict with anything that I have said?

You say information enters the system and makes it more complex. Logical Deisim says things always move from higher complexity to lower complexity. I agree with that complexity increases, but this is directly in conflict with LDeism. Careful, Wraith. You are in grave danger of being excommunicated, and having your graviton rerouted towards the abyss.