Bananas

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 29 2008,15:04)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 29 2008,10:52)

Quantum computing is supposedly possible in decades from now.
Possibilities with technology this include nano-cryptology and cloning of 3d models (3D Fax). I suppose it would be possible to eventually create the Matrix with such.

Yet even in all that evolution without a designer happen just plain will not happen. It is an impossibility and not even in 14 billion years will make it possible. Whatever happens in the Virtual World will be the result of at least one designer.

I reasonably cannot accept that our reality/cosmos came about by something with less intelligence than a monkey. Not even a monkey in 45 billion years could create 1 atom. Never mind all the galactic spirals, suns, planets, and life.

Wake up.

Hi t8

You are quite right about digital 'life' requiring a designer, for the reasons that I gave above.

You not accepting something does not equate to a demonstration that it did not happen.

Stuart

Quantum computing makes use of quantum mechanical phenomena. So instead of binary you have quantum bits.

So when these computers are made/created do you think that evolution will start to happen in the Quantum computers virtual space? Or will inputted data (that has been created ) be able assemble itself in a virtual explosion that created it's own order enabling AI to spring from the quantum bits?

I like to see you argue that this would be the case, yet you do it with regards to Quantum Mechanics in real space.

Wake up Stu.

March 29, 2008 at 9:11 pm#85273

Participant

The truth is that GOD is the only logical explanation for anything we know.

Faith aside…which you need faith as well as Logic. However,

As humble as science is, and as little as they know even still at this day and time…

They have still proven that our whole existence is more than just some hodge-podge of in-adamant matter that just “Accidentally” Animated itself into motion.

However, non-believers have their heart so hardened that they will cling on to what ever little bit of information they can say explains their way of thinking.
Which is still yet very admirable…if they would put that same faith in GOD they would probably be able to move mountains indeed.

March 30, 2008 at 4:40 am#85336

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 30 2008,08:59)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 29 2008,15:04)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 29 2008,10:52)

Wake up.

Hi t8

You are quite right about digital 'life' requiring a designer, for the reasons that I gave above.

You not accepting something does not equate to a demonstration that it did not happen.

Stuart

Quantum computing makes use of quantum mechanical phenomena. So instead of binary you have quantum bits.

I like to see you argue that this would be the case, yet you do it with regards to Quantum Mechanics in real space.

Wake up Stu.

No I don't think this will happen.

“Wake up”? Should I report you to a moderator for abuse?
Oh I forgot, there is no point. Moderators here delete posts and impose limits despite the worthy platitudes listed in the rules.

Stuart

March 30, 2008 at 4:45 am#85337

Participant

Quote (Samuel @ Mar. 30 2008,09:11)

The truth is that GOD is the only logical explanation for anything we know.

Faith aside…which you need faith as well as Logic. However,

As humble as science is, and as little as they know even still at this day and time…

They have still proven that our whole existence is more than just some hodge-podge of in-adamant matter that just “Accidentally” Animated itself into motion.

You see Samuel the problem with that is that god is not an explanation for anything. It is the anti-explanation.

I concede a tiny chance that you could be right. Although my worldview is atheistic, I appreciate that I cannot disprove god, or Baal or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am philosophically agnostic towards all of these possibilities.

I will ask you the same question that I have asked t8 and Nick with no reply, despite several attempts:

Do you accept the possibility that there is no god of the kind you propose?

If the answer is no, then who is it who has their heart so hardened that they will cling on to what ever little bit of information they can say explains their way of thinking?

Stuart

March 30, 2008 at 6:21 am#85343

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 30 2008,16:45)

Quote (Samuel @ Mar. 30 2008,09:11)

The truth is that GOD is the only logical explanation for anything we know.

Faith aside…which you need faith as well as Logic. However,

As humble as science is, and as little as they know even still at this day and time…

They have still proven that our whole existence is more than just some hodge-podge of in-adamant matter that just “Accidentally” Animated itself into motion.

You see Samuel the problem with that is that god is not an explanation for anything. It is the anti-explanation.

I will ask you the same question that I have asked t8 and Nick with no reply, despite several attempts:

Do you accept the possibility that there is no god of the kind you propose?

If the answer is no, then who is it who has their heart so hardened that they will cling on to what ever little bit of information they can say explains their way of thinking?

Stuart

I can say no to that question because I know that its not true.

I have felt the spirit of the Holy Ghost and thus it has been a divine proof to me that GOD is very alive and Real.

I always knew that there was a GOD even before I received the Holy Ghost though.

You see our Faith is so strong that we can not accept the fact that there is not GOD. Our faith is built on a very strong Foundation…Jesus Christ. Which it may rain, storm…whatever. There is no way that foundation is going to be torn down. He was raised from the dead…death could not hold him…it had no power over him. Thus, the battle is already won. And, this age is almost over. We are vastly approaching the next age. The end times.

So do you watch vampire movies? Underworld, Blade Trinity, or whatever this new one is?

Do you believe in ghosts?

Do you believe in other life in the universe…well…thats a stupid question…because if you believe in evolution…then it has most assuredly happened else where in the universe…out of the six trillion, billion, billion, billion,billion, billion, billion, billion, billion other possible planets that it could have happened on.

I find it very naive to think that we evolved from monkeys. Of course I'm quite aware of the fact that you most probably think its naive that I believe in GOD. But you know what…I'm glad you think that.

Matthew 5:10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.

Luke 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake.

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

The more you run my attempts of bringing the gospel to you …the more my Favor with the Father goes up.

The more you test my faith the stronger it gets.

March 30, 2008 at 6:47 am#85346

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (Samuel @ Mar. 30 2008,18:21)

I find it very naive to think that we evolved from monkeys.

I do also. In fact if we did evolve from monkeys then that begs the obvious question – what are all these monkeys still doing on earth?!?! Shouldn't they have evolved by now? And what of the single celled organisms like bacteria? (some which have been found preserved in fossil that supposedly millions of years old but identical to modern day species) – shouldn't they have evolved to a multicelled organism already??

Who would buy into this nonsense?

March 30, 2008 at 8:38 am#85376

Participant

It is sort of “Ironic” though.

Bananas have always been my favorite fruit…aside from cantaloupe. Peanuts are cool too!

When you think about it every thing that GOD made truly is awesome! I like to watch that video where the Big Bang theory happens. It gives me goose bumps every time I see it.

If that is in fact the way GOD made everything…I would love to have been there for that!

Can you imagine how super cool that would have been!?
4th of July ain't got nothing on that man!

March 30, 2008 at 8:45 am#85377

Participant

Hi Samuel

Quote

I can say no to that question because I know that its not true. I have felt the spirit of the Holy Ghost and thus it has been a divine proof to me that GOD is very alive and Real.

Do you hear voices? You are being more honest than Nick or t8 but I’m afraid I am still of the opinion that the human brain is capable of this deception of your perception. People believe they have been abducted by aliens too. Do you accept that claim? Also, if you can perceived god, why is god called a supernatural being? Surely perception is part of our natural world.

Quote

I always knew that there was a GOD even before I received the Holy Ghost though. You see our Faith is so strong that we can not accept the fact that there is not GOD. Our faith is built on a very strong Foundation…Jesus Christ. Which it may rain, storm…whatever. There is no way that foundation is going to be torn down. He was raised from the dead…death could not hold him…it had no power over him. Thus, the battle is already won. And, this age is almost over. We are vastly approaching the next age. The end times.

You accept the story that Saul of Tarsus wanted you to accept. Have you questioned his motives?

Quote

So do you watch vampire movies? Underworld, Blade Trinity, or whatever this new one is?

Used to, no and no. I found that fantasy world of vampire movies entertaining as a child but now I find the religious references make me laugh. I tried to watch the Omen recently and had to turn it off because I just could not take it seriously enough to get involved in the story. There was a murder mystery recently which developed a very good plot for most of an hour, and I just couldn’t see where it was going. In the end it turned out that the murder was organised by some kind of bad angels. I nearly threw the TV out the window. Such scriptwriters should be confined to a mental institution for the sanity of the viewing public.

Quote

Do you believe in ghosts?

Of course not.

Quote

I don’t know if there is life elsewhere in the universe.

Quote

Well we didn’t evolve from monkeys, so there is no disagreement on that point.

Quote

Matthew 5:10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.
Luke 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

It is a useful resource having these verses together, and if you don’t mind I might repost them elsewhere. These are evidence that early christians, in particular Paul, put a lot of effort into immunising believers against questioning. I would say without wanting to be unkind that it has worked on you. I’m sure modern advertising works on me as much as I would want to deny it, because otherwise why would retailers advertise? It must work, and these verses are an ancient equivalent of communist party propaganda.

Quote

The more you run my attempts of bringing the gospel to you …the more my Favor with the Father goes up.
The more you test my faith the stronger it gets.

That is a very interesting piece of ethical reasoning, which rates at Stage 2 on the Kohlberg scale.

Stuart

March 30, 2008 at 8:59 am#85378

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 30 2008,18:47)

Quote (Samuel @ Mar. 30 2008,18:21)

I find it very naive to think that we evolved from monkeys.

Who would buy into this nonsense?

Hi Is1:18

We did not 'evolve from monkeys', although we share an ancestor with 'old world monkeys' 25 million years ago and 'new world monkeys' 40 million years ago.

Evolutionary change is not compulsory! If you are a member of a monkey species, making a good living high in the canopy of a not too crowded rainforest, what selection pressure is there on you? Groups of monkeys may have split off and undergone genetic drift, and our ancestor went their separate geographical ways, but as long as being a monkey is a way to survive and reproduce then there will still be monkeys. Humans occupy a different ecological niche.

Bacteria are fantastically well adapted, some species to the most hostile conditions on earth. There has always been a good living to be made as a single cell.

Stuart

March 30, 2008 at 9:05 am#85379

Participant

Quote (Samuel @ Mar. 30 2008,20:38)

It is sort of “Ironic” though.

Bananas have always been my favorite fruit…aside from cantaloupe. Peanuts are cool too!

When you think about it every thing that GOD made truly is awesome! I like to watch that video where the Big Bang theory happens. It gives me goose bumps every time I see it.

If that is in fact the way GOD made everything…I would love to have been there for that!

Can you imagine how super cool that would have been!?
4th of July ain't got nothing on that man!

Just reading some of your recent posts I think you actually might not be quite in Paul's spell as I imagined. You posted links to intelligent design videos – these are people who do not believe Genesis is literally true, and they do accept Darwin. You are happy that the Big Bang happened as well. You are not rejecting science out of hand, you are just injecting god into bits of it. The goose bumps bit is a common experience for the scientist who cares to think of the bigger picture, for theist and atheist alike.

Stuart

March 30, 2008 at 2:08 pm#85389

Participant

Stu…

Your so very entertaining. I love it. Thank you for your wonderful conversation.

April 4, 2008 at 1:40 am#85964

Participant

Copied from
http://technology.newscientist.com/article….ay.html

Are supercomputers on the verge of creating Matrix-style simulated realities? Michael McGuigan at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, thinks so. He says that virtual worlds realistic enough to be mistaken for the real thing are just a few years away.

In 1950, Alan Turing, the father of modern computer science, proposed the ultimate test of artificial intelligence – a human judge engaging in a three-way conversation with a machine and another human should be unable to reliably distinguish man from machine.

A variant on this “Turing Test” is the “Graphics Turing Test”, the twist being that a human judge viewing and interacting with an artificially generated world should be unable to reliably distinguish it from reality.

“By interaction we mean you could control an object – rotate it, for example – and it would render in real-time,” McGuigan says.
Photoreal animation

Although existing computers can produce artificial scenes and textures detailed enough to fool the human eye, such scenes typically take several hours to render. The key to passing the Graphics Turing Test, says McGuigan, is to marry that photorealism with software that can render images in real-time – defined as a refresh rate of 30 frames per second.

McGuigan decided to test the ability of one of the world's most powerful supercomputers – Blue Gene/L at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York – to generate such an artificial world.

Blue Gene/L possesses 18 racks, each with 2000 standard PC processors that work in parallel to provide a huge amount of processing power – it has a speed of 103 teraflops, or 103 trillion “floating point operations” per second. By way of comparison, a calculator uses about 10 floating operations per second.

In particular, McGuigan studied the supercomputer's ability to mimic the interplay of light with objects – an important component of any virtual world with ambitions to mimic reality.

He found that conventional ray-tracing software could run 822 times faster on the Blue Gene/L than on a standard computer, even though the software was not optimised for the parallel processors of a supercomputer. This allowed it to convincingly mimic natural lighting in real time.
Not there yet

“The nice thing about this ray tracing is that the human eye can see it as natural,” McGuigan says. “There are actually several types of ray-tracing software out there – I chose one that was relatively easy to port to a large number of processors. But others might be faster and even more realistic if they are used in parallel computing.”

Although Blue Gene/L can model the path of light in a virtual world both rapidly and realistically, the speed with which it renders high-resolution images still falls short of that required to pass the Graphics Turing Test.

But supercomputers capable of passing the test may be just years away, thinks McGuigan. “You never know for sure until you can actually do it,” he says. “But a back-of-the-envelope calculation would suggest it should be possible in the next few years, once supercomputers enter the petaflop range – that's 1000 teraflops.”

But others think that passing the Graphics Turing Test requires more than photorealistic graphics moving in real-time. Reality is not 'skin deep' says Paul Richmond at the University of Sheffield, UK. An artificial object can appear real, but unless it moves in a realistic way the eye won't be fooled. “The real challenge is providing a real-time simulation that includes realistic simulated behaviour,” he says.
Fluid challenge

“I'd like to see a realistic model of the Russian ballet,” says Mark Grundland at the University of Cambridge. “That's something a photographer would choose as a subject matter, and that's what we should aim to convey with computers.”

Grundland also points out that the Graphics Turing Test does not specify what is conveyed in the virtual world scene. “If all that is there is a diffusely-reflecting sphere sitting on a diffusely-reflecting surface, then we've been able to pass the test for many years now,” he says. “But Turing didn't mean for his vision to come true so quickly.”

McGuigan agrees that realistic animation poses its own problems. “Modelling that fluidity is difficult,” he says. “You have to make sure that when something jumps in the virtual world it appears heavy.” But he remains optimistic that animation software will be up to the task. “Physical reality is about animation and lighting,” he says. “We've done the lighting now – the animation will follow.”

So will these virtual worlds be the result of virtual explosions that were created by no one? Or is it more feasible that they are the product of a creator?

April 4, 2008 at 4:16 am#85969

Participant

See…man can't understand the fact that there is a creator…

Because then they would want to know who created the creator?

And…so on and so forth.

At some point though you have to be honest with your self …there is an Almighty Creator.

April 4, 2008 at 8:24 am#85981

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 04 2008,13:40)

So will these virtual worlds be the result of virtual explosions that were created by no one? Or is it more feasible that they are the product of a creator?

It will only be possible as the result of the work of a creator.

Stuart

April 4, 2008 at 8:26 am#85983

Participant

Quote (Samuel @ April 04 2008,16:16)

See…man can't understand the fact that there is a creator…

Because then they would want to know who created the creator?

And…so on and so forth.

At some point though you have to be honest with your self …there is an Almighty Creator.

Yes I do want to know how your creator was created. Do you have an answer?

I am being honest with myself. Who else here has no doubts about whether they have honestly appraised their worldview?

Stuart

April 4, 2008 at 11:08 am#85995

Participant

Stu do you think that if things can be created that it just maybe possible that there is uncreated too?

April 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm#85999

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 04 2008,23:08)

Stu do you think that if things can be created that it just maybe possible that there is uncreated too?

What is 'uncreated too'? Is it a brand of icecream?

Seriously t8 what strings are you trying to clutch here? Are they ones that we have been over ad nauseam already?

Stuart

April 4, 2008 at 1:44 pm#86001

Cato

Participant

Quote (Samuel @ April 04 2008,16:16)

See…man can't understand the fact that there is a creator…

Because then they would want to know who created the creator?

And…so on and so forth.

At some point though you have to be honest with your self …there is an Almighty Creator.

Samuel,

I think man can understand that there is a Creator, evidently the majority of the world's population believe this also.

The problems lie in describing this Creator, his methods and purpose. I think this is by definition impossible as any being capable of a feat like creating the universe would need to be outside of such creation and thus not subject to any of the laws of same, and so would have to be undefined. We may infer things from his creation but only indirectly. So while I can agree on the Almighty creator I find those attempting to describe or define him in any but the most nebulous fashion, mistaken or delusional, especially attempts to make him an anthropomorphic, limited, negatively emotional entity as described in the OT.

April 4, 2008 at 9:53 pm#86015

Participant

If God created humans with feeling, emotions, and characteristics, what did he base that on?

April 4, 2008 at 9:56 pm#86016