Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[optimumtact]

I wonder if it deals +2 damage to all divine beings 

[Max White]

What is the current debate? I want to get into this again.

God does not explain himself because he can no understand him, because he is greater then ourselves, and one thing can not understand something greater then itself.

However, thats not exactly how the theory goes down. One thing can understand something else greater then itself, but not calculate something greater then itself.

[Zrk2]

And a weakness to iron weaponry. That's got to be a big part of it.

Only if god is chaos in The Saga of Recluce.

[Shade-o]

Well, I meant the one in The Bible, but that one too, I guess.

[Siquo]

One thing can understand something else greater then itself, but not calculate something greater then itself.

Then what do you mean by "understand"? My girlfriend "understands" a computer in the sense that she can make it do what she wants to, but every time I start about how it works internally she just goes glassy-eyed and zones out

And even you, do you really understand how semi-conductors work on a quantum level? Or even smaller than that?

To get back to being Socratic: "Understanding" is just an assumption.

[Max White]

I can understand a computer because I know about it on a functional level and could construct one. While I do not know how the semi conducters work (well, I do to a certian level know the theory on a chemical level, I don't have a great level of understanding) that dosn't matter, in fact for a function understanding I would not even know how to make a logic gate from a transistor. This is because the logic gate is a fundemental compenent of the computer, and the transistor is not.

Were I to discover another way to build a logic gate without a transistor, then I could easily rebuild the same computer with the same logic gates, without transistors, so logic gates are fundemental, transistors are not. This is why the photon powered computer is still a computer in the common meaning of the term, despite the fact that it lacts the electrons that computers depends on. So I can understand a computer without understanding an electron.

To calculate something, however, requires me to be able to predict what outcome a computer will produce. If I build a computer that only multiplied two numbers (And doing this with analog is a walk in the park compaired to digital, but possible in both) and then put in the numbers 2264567 and 948576 I could understand what the computer was doing to produce it's outcome, but I couldn't predict what outcome it would produce (Not without a pen and paper anyway, but then I'm using additional hardware apart from just my brain).

[Siquo]

To calculate something, however, requires me to be able to predict what outcome a computer will produce. If I build a computer that only multiplied two numbers (And doing this with analog is a walk in the park compaired to digital, but possible in both) and then put in the numbers 2264567 and 948576 I could understand what the computer was doing to produce it's outcome, but I couldn't predict what outcome it would produce (Not without a pen and paper anyway, but then I'm using additional hardware apart from just my brain).

This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.

[Max White]

But I wasn't saying that at all. I couldn't predict what number my computer would produce... I could just make sence of the process it took in getting there.

Another example would be that we now have a very good understanding of evolution. We made predictions about mutation, and inherited propertys, and then when we found DNA it supported a lot of our predictions. Darwins theory has been refined to the point were it isn't going anywere fast, but we are far from being able to predict what path evolution will now take.

[Siquo]

But I wasn't saying that at all. I couldn't predict what number my computer would produce... I could just make sence of the process it took in getting there.

Another example would be that we now have a very good understanding of evolution. We made predictions about mutation, and inherited propertys, and then when we found DNA it supported a lot of our predictions. Darwins theory has been refined to the point were it isn't going anywere fast, but we are far from being able to predict what path evolution will now take.

Then "understanding" means nothing. It just means you have some basic grasp on the world, from which you could theoretically recreate the entire world. I'm in the process of doing that (building a sim), and although I understand the basic rules themselves, I have no illusions that I understand how they work together. It's saying you understand psychology because you know how a neuron works.

[Max White]

Do you mean to imply that understanding evolution is meaningless because we can not predict it's coarse of action?

[lemon10]

And a weakness to iron weaponry. That's got to be a big part of it.

Only if god is chaos in The Saga of Recluce.

Well, I meant the one in The Bible, but that one too, I guess.

I may be wrong, but i think he is referring to this part of the bible:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron
Therefore iron>god

[Andir]

To calculate something, however, requires me to be able to predict what outcome a computer will produce. If I build a computer that only multiplied two numbers (And doing this with analog is a walk in the park compaired to digital, but possible in both) and then put in the numbers 2264567 and 948576 I could understand what the computer was doing to produce it's outcome, but I couldn't predict what outcome it would produce (Not without a pen and paper anyway, but then I'm using additional hardware apart from just my brain).

This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.

Psychology.  Just because you may not have studied it in depth doesn't mean "we" do not "understand" and "predict" human behavior.  I never thought I'd enjoy those classes, but they were some of the most thought provoking and insightful classes I took.

[Leafsnail]

This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.

You've kindof deflected from the point here, though.  Even if there's no way to understand the actual nature of God, it should still be possible for us to understand a message if he puts it to us in the right way.

[malimbar04]

This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.

You've kindof deflected from the point here, though.  Even if there's no way to understand the actual nature of God, it should still be possible for us to understand a message if he puts it to us in the right way.

Or at least know that the message doesn't fit the current way we think about the world. If god explained something even relatively directly to a human, through another human, it should be clear that the message could not have come from the human anyways.

Let's go back to dwarf fortress as an example. If you were to possess a dwarf, or give the manager a specific instruction, it should be apparent that the manager never would have done the exact same on his own. Other dwarves have an idea of how dwarves think (yes! I want a elephant bone gate!, though I'll settle for an iron one if you'll give me that, I like iron gates). However, if you instead ask the dwarf to build a iron short sword, which he would never have built on his own, then it could become apparent that there is an outside intelligence acting on it.

However, in our world, we only see people behaving exactly as we would expect them to, considering psychology and culture as we currently know them. Leviticus has laws that make absolutely no sense because they fit the ancient culture that they came from. They do not make sense by what we know now in our modern cultures.

[Urist is dead tome]

I may be wrong, but i think he is referring to this part of the bible:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron
Therefore iron>god

That was the Israelites that could not conquer them because of the chariots. They were just on foot.