God and the Halting Problem

[titanignaz]

The halting problem can't be solved by a computer, true enough, but it's not impossible to solve it: if God or a machine could perform infinite computations in limited time (i.e. resolve the infinite recursion) or store infinite amount of data (i.e. have all scenarios precomputed and thus only having to select the correct one, not solve it) - this would only require a violation of the laws of physics (potentially), not of logic and thus would be very much possible for a supernatural God... foo'.

[Entertainmentwf]

@titanignaz actually it's unsolvable. Looks like someone didn't do enough Theoretical Computer Science... You cannot precompute things with the halting problem, because you just introduced the halting problem again (because, you can't logically decide if you need need finite or infinite storage). Even if you assume that you have a given state, you just introduced the Mortality Problem which is also undecidable. I think you are mixing up universal quantification with existential.

[LordUdedenkz]

I fucking love you.

[sahibvirk]

And you speak like Agent Smith

[sahibvirk]

I dint quite understand it completely

But seems an interesting concept

..............................­..................

But whatever u say buddy, the theists will always find a reason to believe in God

[Stretch427]

Interesting analogy. There a few flaws however. Because we are talking about the God of the bible, you have failed to include his omnipresence as well, being everywhere at once (including outside and inside the universe) at the same time. I don't need to connect the dots... I always find it interesting how people use the logic and reason they were created with by God to try and explain Him. It's like the pot explaining the potter, and fully understanding him. Laughable almost...

[quietCorpseSociety]

Are you aware that "God" is not a computer, and isn't necessarily part of our universe in the way that we think of things as part of our universe? Also, he's not warning anyone, so his predictions won't create infinite recursion, since no one knows what's going to happen.

One last thought, couldn't the algorithm for the robot always produce the result, "The future would happen this way if I weren't here to warn you?" That way the robot would ignore itself and produce truth? Hypothetically.

[Entertainmentwf]

@quietCorpseSociety but, it still means that God can't do it. Can God produce an infinite list of infinite lists. No. Even if he had an infinite amount of time or the ability to hold anything on premise, "God" cannot. If you need a good example of this, I recommend this to people who aren't specialists (like me) in Computability Theory for interest. Computability and Logic by Boolos. Makes it nice and easy to comprehend. He gives an example of why a God cannot.

[JamesRRedford]

Prof. Frank J. Tipler demonstrates that the Omega Point (i.e., God) is an unavoidable consequence of the known laws of physics. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to reject the known laws of physics (of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date), and hence reject empirical science. For that and the quantum gravity TOE, see F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Rep. Prog. Phys., Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Tipler's website.

[JRJ1234]

To understand God is like a hamster memorizing Britannica, all editions ever generated and to come.

You give me a number and I'll give you a higher one ;-)

[kkallebb]

Actually if you look into most theological text books you will find that theists interpret "omniscience" as the knowledge of all things actual and possible. In other words, omniscience does not include future actualities. So God cannot "acurately predict" the future.

[creten69]

my computer keeps halting,the little circle keeps popping up,can i halt that,is the cia after me?wtf?

[jamesthecheezeburger]

imo the free will thing is the ability to choose wether we want to follow the whole plan set before us and act as part of the chain reaction leading to whatever is...planned lol my brain hurts :(

[SDZAKKMF]

do you have aim i would like to speak with you further. i love the argument.

[allonblack10]

I'm glad you leave the dot connecting up to us. I like connecting dots, but instead of a sandcastle, this time the dots created a picture of a devestating blow to the abrahamic god.

[Judelicious1971]

Ooh I like that...infinitely self referential recursion. Nice one.

[squarecircle]

Well, I wouldn't say that "god" is not possible. Just this specific rendition.

[garronsc]

A programmer can know all possible outcomes of his own code because he sets the rules of the program. He can interact with the program as he chooses and know the outcome of his interactions. To the objects in software program, he would be considered omnicient about their world.

I don't think I need to connect the dots for you. ;)

[squarecircle]

But the programmer wouldn't be omniscient; the program would be. And I don't know what you mean about interacting with the program. You seem to be saying that the program is the universe. I didn't make that connection.

[garronsc]

If I wrote a software program that is very limited in its rule structure and could also make the program aware of it own existence, its own boundaries and limitation (the rules of its world) and even make it aware that I created it, then when I accurately tell the program what it will do and when (because I programmed it to do that) - then to this self-aware software program, I would be considered omniscient about its world. The program exists in its own bounded universe - not my universe.

[squarecircle]

But what you're describing is a program that lacks any form of potency whatsoever. It becomes merely an observer unto itself, unable to take any real action.

[garronsc]

When I "use" my software program, I change events dramatically. If I modify code on thefly to change events or introduce new rules, objects, I change events dramatically. If (in a game) I write in a new character or even a super character that does not have to live by the normal rules of the program (gamers call this "God-mode" funny enough) - I believe that qualifies me a pretty "potent" in the software's world.

[xybersurfer]

@squarecircle very interesting video. but have you considered a machine that can predict the future but only so that it carefully chooses to predict things that will be true regardless of it's predictions?

[garronsc]

To extend this concept into something that compares better to our "world": a game programmer creates multiple characters that each act within predefined (coded) rules. That programmer can accurately predict the future actions each of his game characters will take in reaction to events that occur external to the character - whether the events are caused by the programmer (interactively or through code updates) or in reaction to other characters within the software.

[twiliteminotaur]

I'd agree with garronsc. Omniscience with respect to a universe is possible for entities outside of that universe. This also means that there can be God-programmer entities, omniscient/omnipotent entities with respect to other omniscient/omnipotent entities in an arbitrary number of layers: Gods of Gods of Gods... each being within a universe that is a subset of the previous'.  Omniscience of absolutely everything, all meta levels, is another trickier question.

[Kaeles]

Have you ever heard of non-deterministic rules?

What about emergent behavior?

Both of those show that programs can do things that the programmer did not IMPLICITLY program into it.

[overide1234]

than there is no free will. so the bible god is impossible. it only does what u tell it

[Olucatei]

@garronsc NO! That's wrong. The outcome of an arbitrary program is unsolvable. That's the whole point of the halting problem. Outcomes of specific programs can be evaluated, either by running them (which means it is unknown to begin with), or describing it's behavior. Our universe is a chaotic system, so its behavior is non-integrable. In other words you have to simulate the universe to know what it does.

[garronsc]

The falacy in your analogy is that you are assuming God is the software program running on the computer. A more accurate analogy would be viewing God as the programmer who creates a software program which exists in a boundaried existence, "pre-determined" (by the programmer), that is completely separate from the programmer's world of existence.