(November 6, 2016 at 10:49 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 12:37 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Your thought cycles are but nonsensical.
Are you of theistic descent?

[*A*]

Simply, aforesaid statistics persist on the boundary of prominently religiously described Gods. [As encoded amidst the original post]



[*B*]


Re-Stipulation:

Tradition (theistic deity definition) contains (on the horizon of scientifically observable probabilities/statistics) non-evident properties.


In contrast, the definition (as observed in the original post) reduces traditional deity-bound properties, abound scientifically observable probabilities/statistics, such that a particular property is evident - thusly the ability to forge non-trivial intelligence, and thereafter, said intelligence shall likely exceed the net intelligence of the creator's(s') species...whilst separately theist-theorized properties [omniscience, omnipotence etc] likely shan't obtain, particularly on the horizon of aforesaid observable probabilities/statistics.)


Thusly, God is properly statistically definable, as observed amidst the original post.  (Only the theistic mind adheres to the concept of omniscient, omnipotent deities)

Separately, here are 20 God definitions, via international dictionaries:

1.[wikipedia] 
In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe.

2.[merriam-webster]

The perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe


3.[dictionary]
The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

4.[oxford-dictionaries]
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

5.[the freedictionary]
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

6.[learner's dictionary]
The perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe.

7.[yourdictionary]
The definition of a god is an image, person or thing that is worshiped, honored or believed to be all-powerful or the creator and ruler of the universe.


8.[webster-dictionary]
The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

9.[colliins-dictionary]
Theology the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

10.[assemblyoftrueisrael]
Yahweh, the Almighty Creator.

11.[biblestudytools]
Bible gives is God as Creator of the heavens and earth (Gen:1:1). The phrase "heavens and earth" is a merismus, which means that everything in the universe as we know it was created by God.

12.[god-defined]
GOD creator of all. 

13.[brainy-quote]
The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

14.[whoisgod]
God is the creatorof mankind and He loves you.

15.[catholic]
God is the Creator of the world -- the producer of its whole substance...

16.[islam-101]
God is the creator of the universe. 


17.[jewfaq]
God created the universe

18.[whojesusis]
Jesus is God...and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1 ESV). He created the world and all that is in it 

19.[bible ca]
Unchangeable Qualities of God: Creator, not creature.


20.[theopedia]
God is the triune Supreme Being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe, the principal Object of the Christian faith.

---

(November 6, 2016 at 10:31 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: You know what PGJ, if you'd like to start over and state your positions/opinions in the thread without all the the text manipulation I would be willing to read it/them. Then we can discuss substance rather than form or motivations. 

If you can't, I'm OK with going our separate ways.

What do you think?

I have not any opinion.
Rather, I stipulate scientifically observed/observable statistics.

---

(November 6, 2016 at 9:47 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

Wow, nice dodge. 

OK, my manner is nonsensical, that is your opinion about me. I'll ask again, Can you explain why you feel it is necessary to draw attention to your words/posts with manipulation of font, size, and color? If you don't respond what am I suppose to think? 

And dodge again. I answered your "descent" question, you neglected to answer mine, so I'll ask again. What is your religious descent? Are you going to respond or evade?

[*A*]
I have not any opinion/faith/belief.
Simply, your commentary contains inaccurate blather.

[*B*]
I am of christian descent. 
However, one need merely disable emotional bias, such that one observes that religion is nonsense.

Thereafter, I had doffed my religious bound 4 years prior [2012], thusly synonymously, I had encountered logic (atheism).

Post Scriptum: I am of course, atheistic.

Borg? Is that you?

LOL< 20 definitions of -one- god.  Good job, must have taken some real digging. I can see that you're approaching the subject in a super thorough manner...so as to avoid any mistakes of omission, and lend credence to your airtight argument.

ProgrammingGodJordan, why the fuck do you make your text so large?

I think we should all agree with him so we can end this stupid thread.

(November 7, 2016 at 1:48 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I think we should all agree with him so we can end this stupid thread.

You need not agree. [Said statistics occur irregardless]

You merely need observe said statistics.

You needn't believe, nor emote thereafter.

---

(November 7, 2016 at 12:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: LOL< 20 definitions of -one- god.  Good job, must have taken some real digging.  I can see that you're approaching the subject in a super thorough manner...so as to avoid any mistakes of omission, and lend credence to your airtight argument.

Said definitions largely stipulate of multifarious Gods via multifarious religions.

Sample: Wikipedia descries God en theism, as aforementioned.


Albeit, said composition is not of my accord, as I own not said statistics.

*getting dizzy*

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: NOTE [1]: No opinion, faith, emotion, nor bias was used in this thread.

Oh ye of little faith......

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: WARNING: Some statistics/words occur in UPPER CASE FORM or various colours, because reading all lower case/uniform colour is simply quite tiresome.

Reading this in an explosion of fonts and colors only makes reading it more tiresome.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: God is PROBABLY quite real. (however, not the omniscient, all powerful kind seen in religion)

You're simply redefining the word god here.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: We are simulating more and more detailed universes (Example 'illustris') as computing power increases, and creating more and more sophisticated artificial intelligence.

If this computing increase doesn’t end (ie we aren’t all wiped out) our simulations will eventually get detailed enough to contain INTELLIGENCE or create  artificial intelligence. that exceeds humans on all tasks (God-like software).

Perhaps, or perhaps we will need to fully understand animal intelligence in order to create human level intelligence and we never actually reach that point. We could also fail to achieve such goals do to currently unknown technological limitations or political failures of the will. Unknowns are unknown.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Then, (probably when we are a still a mortal species, having not yet solved ageing…) we BECOME GODS, however NOT the OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT God specified in religion.

We become gods only in the figurative sense of the word, not the literal.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: In the same way, it is likely that THE VERY UNIVERSE WE OCCUPY may have come about, and thus likewise, God (it’s creator(s)) is non-omnipotent, non-infinite etc.

This is pure speculation. What's that you said about your post containing no opinion?

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


**(1)** Man-made 'General Artificial intelligence' (The brain based software we invent [that shall exceed humans in all tasks, not merely individual tasks as they do now]). [Eg Google Deepmind's atari q or alpha go]

Neither of Deepmind's projects can be said to approach general intelligence in any meaningful sense. Saying that it's likely we will create superhuman intelligence based upon such examples is just pie in the sky speculation. We don't know what obstacles, human or intellectual, might face the creation of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). It's possible that intelligence doesn't scale linearly and so novel intelligence architectures are required to advance beyond the human level. You don't know. This is more speculation.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(2)** Intelligence that EVOLVES in our own simulations to become God-like (ie they create universes, or ‘general artificial intelligence’-like programs).

This assumes we can program a self evolving simulation with the right end results. That's far from a given. We don't remotely understand how to create general intelligence, much less evolve it.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(3)** The non-omnipotent, non-infinite Gods (human like?) that created our universe stemming from the same way that we simulate more and more detailed universes via **(4)** — constrained paths. (eg illustris)

illustrus is a toy compared to the amounts of data that a real simulation of even a trivial universe would require. The failures along this path may take the form of political and financial obstacles, but they are none the less real for their being so.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(4)** Mankind; for mankind shall perhaps promptly possess God bound capabilities, via **(1)** and **(2)**.

Are you simply repeating yourself here?

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: SCIENTIFIC-STATISTICS PAR PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


In SUMMARY, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, AND OR compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), IS THAT WHICH classifies said species as God-bound.

If you mean this figuratively, well then, so what? And as noted, there may be difficulties that you simply haven't accounted for in your 'probabilities'. I notice a lot of talk of probability, but no actual numbers. Why do you think that is?

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: INTRODUCTION [A-B]:

['A'] What data purports that SUPER-human ARTIFICIAL INTELLECT [Seen in **(1)** prior] is possible?
The human brain operates at roughly 10¹⁵ floating point operations per second.

Human like intelligence consists of more than raw processing speed. You can't predict the achievement of Artificial General Intelligence solely on the basis of information processing power.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: NON-TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE super-computing platforms already exist, such that this operation cycle is attained.
TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE resources shall exist at 2020’s horizon, in tandem with KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS, (and perhaps MOORE’S LAW/modern Moore’s law variants).

Kurzweil's so-called law is nothing but speculation. And predicting that Moore's law will continue to hold is nothing but a groundless assertion. You don't know that either of these principles are valid for the long haul. And forecasting that it will occur by 2030 is just crazy stupid. I've been in the business long enough to know that computer business cycles will likely dictate a longer horizon.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: ['B'] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(2)** prior] ARE possible?

Our universe is at least linear scale [Dirac], AND at most exponential order [inflation].
Therein, a simulation of such shall require an exponential order capable machine.
Exponential order capable machines exist today. 
These are called quantum computers. (See Dwave)
These quantum computers, though superior, are not yet sufficient to encode detailed universes (that contain intelligence).
However, VIA non-exponential machines (super-computers), THERE EXISTS QUITE DETAILED simulations of our universe. (see illustris)

Dwave is a toy at best, and according to experts, far from being a practical solution. Exponential in the abstract, MAYBE, but not in the concrete. And illustris is not "quite detailed" in the relevant sense; in that sense, it's a toy as well.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: CONCLUSION [C-D]:

Artificial intelligence, together with quantum computers, are enhancing in concurrence with measures such as KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS.

Particularly, from these MEASURES, super-human Ai is PERHAPS INEVITABLE, and such shall therein PROBABLY occur within the scope-of 20-40 years. (See Nick Bostrom's super intelligence)

Naive prediction is naive. As noted, Kurzweil is mere opinion, not well supported by the facts.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: At this juncture, mankind shall maintain non-omniscience/non-omnipotence (Ageing yet solved, Energy issues persist et cetera).

[C] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(4)** prior] ARE possible?

Thereafter, man becomes non-omniscient, non-omnipotent Gods, having created super-human artificial intelligence, therein **(4)** is probable.

We don't yet know if its possible (see scaling problem), much less "probable."

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: [D] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(3)** prior] ARE possible?

SEPARATELY, physicist James Gates’ adinkra postulation, (AND or the simulation hypothesis) shows that our universe, possesses
simulatory features, thereafter our universe may be simulatory.

The jury is still out on the simulation hypothesis, and likely to remain so for some time. Again, you're engaged in groundless speculation.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: If our universe is indeed simulatory, in the same way [C] is probable, our creators are probable, and thereafter probably non-omniscient/non-omnipotent in the like.

This depends on superhuman AGI being achievable, which, while possible, is hardly a foregone conclusion.



Besides, as noted, we may destroy ourselves through a man-made disaster long before any of these hypothesized events becomes a reality. In that case, your probable becomes a question of which is more probable. Given humanity's anemic response to the challenge of global warming, there's a high likelihood that we won't be around long enough for any of these hypotheticals comes to fruition..

(November 7, 2016 at 4:09 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: NOTE [1]: No opinion, faith, emotion, nor bias was used in this thread.

Oh ye of little faith......

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: WARNING: Some statistics/words occur in UPPER CASE FORM or various colours, because reading all lower case/uniform colour is simply quite tiresome.

Reading this in an explosion of fonts and colors only makes reading it more tiresome.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: God is PROBABLY quite real. (however, not the omniscient, all powerful kind seen in religion)

You're simply redefining the word god here.

[0]
I need not redefine God, for on observable statistics, a particular theistic bound-property is evident; the ability to generate non trivial intelligence. Mankind thereafter satisfies such a property.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: We are simulating more and more detailed universes (Example 'illustris') as computing power increases, and creating more and more sophisticated artificial intelligence.

If this computing increase doesn’t end (ie we aren’t all wiped out) our simulations will eventually get detailed enough to contain INTELLIGENCE or create  artificial intelligence. that exceeds humans on all tasks (God-like software).

Perhaps, or perhaps we will need to fully understand animal intelligence in order to create human level intelligence and we never actually reach that point.  We could also fail to achieve such goals do to currently unknown technological limitations or political failures of the will.  Unknowns are unknown.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Then, (probably when we are a still a mortal species, having not yet solved ageing…) we BECOME GODS, however NOT the OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT God specified in religion.

We become gods only in the figurative sense of the word, not the literal.

[1]

Nonsense. See [0].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: In the same way, it is likely that THE VERY UNIVERSE WE OCCUPY may have come about, and thus likewise, God (it’s creator(s)) is non-omnipotent, non-infinite etc.

This is pure speculation.  What's that you said about your post containing no opinion?

[2]

See Jeremy England's work via 'Dissipative Adaptation'.
[2.a] Such work shows that matter shall likely attribute life-like properties.
[2.b] See James Gates' Adinkra Postulation [and by extension digital phyiscs]
[and or 2.c] See Simulation hypothesis.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


**(1)** Man-made 'General Artificial intelligence' (The brain based software we invent [that shall exceed humans in all tasks, not merely individual tasks as they do now]). [Eg Google Deepmind's atari q or alpha go]

Neither of Deepmind's projects can be said to approach general intelligence in any meaningful sense.  Saying that it's likely we will create superhuman intelligence based upon such examples is just pie in the sky speculation.  We don't know what obstacles, human or intellectual, might face the creation of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).  It's possible that intelligence doesn't scale linearly and so novel intelligence architectures are required to advance beyond the human level.  You don't know.  This is more speculation.

[3]

Nonsense. 
[3.a] Alpha Go is quite significant, as such approximates a regime, that garners profound neuronal sample space reduction capability; beyond human scope. (where Go's possibilities exceed the number of atoms in the known universe.)
It appears you are quite ignorant regarding alpha go's impact.

[3.b] On Moore's Law, at 2020's horizon, brain based hardware shall likely approximate the HUMAN NEURONAL COMPUTATION CYCLE, 10^15 FLOPS. By Extension, see [7] and [8].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(2)** Intelligence that EVOLVES in our own simulations to become God-like (ie they create universes, or ‘general artificial intelligence’-like programs).

This assumes we can program a self evolving simulation with the right end results.  That's far from a given.  We don't remotely understand how to create general intelligence, much less evolve it.

[4]

Nonsense. See [3].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(3)** The non-omnipotent, non-infinite Gods (human like?) that created our universe stemming from the same way that we simulate more and more detailed universes via **(4)** — constrained paths. (eg illustris)

illustrus is a toy compared to the amounts of data that a real simulation of even a trivial universe would require.  The failures along this path may take the form of political and financial obstacles, but they are none the less real for their being so.

[5]

Nonsense. 
Indeed. Keenly observe Moore's Law. Such models are but only ENHANCING.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(4)** Mankind; for mankind shall perhaps promptly possess God bound capabilities, via **(1)** and **(2)**.

Are you simply repeating yourself here?

[6]

Nonsense. 
['i']Isolated-Ai-models, [ii] Simulation-bound-Ai, [iii] This universe's creator(s) [iv] Mankind.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: SCIENTIFIC-STATISTICS PAR PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


In SUMMARY, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, AND OR compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), IS THAT WHICH classifies said species as God-bound.

If you mean this figuratively, well then, so what?  And as noted, there may be difficulties that you simply haven't accounted for in your 'probabilities'.  I notice a lot of talk of probability, but no actual numbers.  Why do you think that is?

[7]

Nonsense. See [0] and [3]. Such difficulties are entailed in the Von Neumannian regime. There are already non-von neumanian paradigms, that begin to reduce such problems. See IBM synapse, and or IBM Phase change device.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: INTRODUCTION [A-B]:

['A'] What data purports that SUPER-human ARTIFICIAL INTELLECT [Seen in **(1)** prior] is possible?
The human brain operates at roughly 10¹⁵ floating point operations per second.

Human like intelligence consists of more than raw processing speed.  You can't predict the achievement of Artificial General Intelligence solely on the basis of information processing power.

[8]

Nonsense. Deep Neural Modelings, enhance as parallelism enhances.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: NON-TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE super-computing platforms already exist, such that this operation cycle is attained.
TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE resources shall exist at 2020’s horizon, in tandem with KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS, (and perhaps MOORE’S LAW/modern Moore’s law variants).

Kurzweil's so-called law is nothing but speculation.  And predicting that Moore's law will continue to hold is nothing but a groundless assertion.  You don't know that either of these principles are valid for the long haul.  And forecasting that it will occur by 2030 is just crazy stupid.  I've been in the business long enough to know that computer business cycles will likely dictate a longer horizon.

[9]

Nonsense. One shall trivially observe [unless brain damaged] that there has occurred, technological exponential transition, for 50 years. Kurzweil's graphs unavoidably entail such a complexity.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: ['B'] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(2)** prior] ARE possible?

Our universe is at least linear scale [Dirac], AND at most exponential order [inflation].
Therein, a simulation of such shall require an exponential order capable machine.
Exponential order capable machines exist today. 
These are called quantum computers. (See Dwave)
These quantum computers, though superior, are not yet sufficient to encode detailed universes (that contain intelligence).
However, VIA non-exponential machines (super-computers), THERE EXISTS QUITE DETAILED simulations of our universe. (see illustris)

Dwave is a toy at best, and according to experts, far from being a practical solution.  Exponential in the abstract, MAYBE, but not in the concrete.  And illustris is not "quite detailed" in the relevant sense; in that sense, it's a toy as well.

[10]

Nonsense.
[10.a] Dwave machine has reduced quite profound problems. [ie protein folding]
[10.b] Such problems require the accumulation of all non-quantum computing machines, whence [8.a] is perhaps reducible.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: CONCLUSION [C-D]:

Artificial intelligence, together with quantum computers, are enhancing in concurrence with measures such as KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS.

Particularly, from these MEASURES, super-human Ai is PERHAPS INEVITABLE, and such shall therein PROBABLY occur within the scope-of 20-40 years. (See Nick Bostrom's super intelligence)

Naive prediction is naive.  As noted, Kurzweil is mere opinion, not well supported by the facts.
[11]

Nonsense. It is rather ironic; Kurzweil predicted the internet, the very construct you have utilized to scribe your silly commentaries. See [9].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: At this juncture, mankind shall maintain non-omniscience/non-omnipotence (Ageing yet solved, Energy issues persist et cetera).

[C] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(4)** prior] ARE possible?

Thereafter, man becomes non-omniscient, non-omnipotent Gods, having created super-human artificial intelligence, therein **(4)** is probable.

We don't yet know if its possible (see scaling problem), much less "probable."

[12]

Nonsense. See [5].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: [D] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(3)** prior] ARE possible?

SEPARATELY, physicist James Gates’ adinkra postulation, (AND or the simulation hypothesis) shows that our universe, possesses
simulatory features, thereafter our universe may be simulatory.

The jury is still out on the simulation hypothesis, and likely to remain so for some time.  Again, you're engaged in groundless speculation.

[12]

Nonsense. See [2].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: If our universe is indeed simulatory, in the same way [C] is probable, our creators are probable, and thereafter probably non-omniscient/non-omnipotent in the like.

This depends on superhuman AGI being achievable, which, while possible, is hardly a foregone conclusion.

[13]

Nonsense. The human intellect (that consists of non-special matter) is proof of general intelligence. Furthermore, See [3.b] and [7].


Besides, as noted, we may destroy ourselves through a man-made disaster long before any of these hypothesized events becomes a reality.  In that case, your probable becomes a question of which is more probable.  Given humanity's anemic response to the challenge of global warming, there's a high likelihood that we won't be around long enough for any of these hypotheticals comes to fruition..

[14]

Nonsense. Keenly observe the usage of 'likely', amidst stipulations of mine. By extension, see original post, whence the likelihood of erasure had long been mentioned.


CONCLUSION:
You have but failed to express a single valid response. Such a profound failure exists on the boundary of IGNORANCE.

This thread is making eyes bleed.

(November 7, 2016 at 4:09 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: NOTE [1]: No opinion, faith, emotion, nor bias was used in this thread.

Oh ye of little faith......

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: WARNING: Some statistics/words occur in UPPER CASE FORM or various colours, because reading all lower case/uniform colour is simply quite tiresome.

Reading this in an explosion of fonts and colors only makes reading it more tiresome.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: God is PROBABLY quite real. (however, not the omniscient, all powerful kind seen in religion)

You're simply redefining the word god here.

[0]
I need not redefine God, for on observable statistics, a particular theistic bound-property is evident; the ability to generate non trivial intelligence. Mankind thereafter satisfies such a property.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: We are simulating more and more detailed universes (Example 'illustris') as computing power increases, and creating more and more sophisticated artificial intelligence.

If this computing increase doesn’t end (ie we aren’t all wiped out) our simulations will eventually get detailed enough to contain INTELLIGENCE or create  artificial intelligence. that exceeds humans on all tasks (God-like software).

Perhaps, or perhaps we will need to fully understand animal intelligence in order to create human level intelligence and we never actually reach that point.  We could also fail to achieve such goals do to currently unknown technological limitations or political failures of the will.  Unknowns are unknown.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Then, (probably when we are a still a mortal species, having not yet solved ageing…) we BECOME GODS, however NOT the OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT God specified in religion.

We become gods only in the figurative sense of the word, not the literal.

[1]

Nonsense. See [0].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: In the same way, it is likely that THE VERY UNIVERSE WE OCCUPY may have come about, and thus likewise, God (it’s creator(s)) is non-omnipotent, non-infinite etc.

This is pure speculation.  What's that you said about your post containing no opinion?

[2]

See Jeremy England's work via 'Dissipative Adaptation'. 
[2.a] Such work shows that matter shall likely attribute life-like properties.
[2.b] See James Gates' Adinkra Postulation [and by extension digital phyiscs]
[and or 2.c] See Simulation hypothesis.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


**(1)** Man-made 'General Artificial intelligence' (The brain based software we invent [that shall exceed humans in all tasks, not merely individual tasks as they do now]). [Eg Google Deepmind's atari q or alpha go]

Neither of Deepmind's projects can be said to approach general intelligence in any meaningful sense.  Saying that it's likely we will create superhuman intelligence based upon such examples is just pie in the sky speculation.  We don't know what obstacles, human or intellectual, might face the creation of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).  It's possible that intelligence doesn't scale linearly and so novel intelligence architectures are required to advance beyond the human level.  You don't know.  This is more speculation.

[3]

Nonsense. 
[3.a] Alpha Go is quite significant, as such approximates a regime, that garners profound neuronal sample space reduction capability; beyond human scope. (where Go's possibilities exceed the number of atoms in the known universe.)
It appears you are quite ignorant regarding alpha go's impact.

[3.b] On Moore's Law, at 2020's horizon, brain based hardware shall likely approximate the HUMAN NEURONAL COMPUTATION CYCLE, 10^15 FLOPS. By Extension, see [7] and [8].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(2)** Intelligence that EVOLVES in our own simulations to become God-like (ie they create universes, or ‘general artificial intelligence’-like programs).

This assumes we can program a self evolving simulation with the right end results.  That's far from a given.  We don't remotely understand how to create general intelligence, much less evolve it.

[4]

Nonsense. See [3].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(3)** The non-omnipotent, non-infinite Gods (human like?) that created our universe stemming from the same way that we simulate more and more detailed universes via **(4)** — constrained paths. (eg illustris)

illustrus is a toy compared to the amounts of data that a real simulation of even a trivial universe would require.  The failures along this path may take the form of political and financial obstacles, but they are none the less real for their being so.

[5]

Nonsense. 
Indeed. Keenly observe Moore's Law. Such models are but only ENHANCING.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: **(4)** Mankind; for mankind shall perhaps promptly possess God bound capabilities, via **(1)** and **(2)**.

Are you simply repeating yourself here?

[6]

Nonsense. 
['i']Isolated-Ai-models, [ii] Simulation-bound-Ai, [iii] This universe's creator(s) [iv] Mankind.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: SCIENTIFIC-STATISTICS PAR PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS


In SUMMARY, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, AND OR compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), IS THAT WHICH classifies said species as God-bound.

If you mean this figuratively, well then, so what?  And as noted, there may be difficulties that you simply haven't accounted for in your 'probabilities'.  I notice a lot of talk of probability, but no actual numbers.  Why do you think that is?

[7]

Nonsense. See [0] and [3]. Such difficulties are entailed in the Von Neumannian regime. There are already non-von neumanian paradigms, that begin to reduce such problems. See IBM synapse, and or IBM Phase change device.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: INTRODUCTION [A-B]:

['A'] What data purports that SUPER-human ARTIFICIAL INTELLECT [Seen in **(1)** prior] is possible?
The human brain operates at roughly 10¹⁵ floating point operations per second.

Human like intelligence consists of more than raw processing speed.  You can't predict the achievement of Artificial General Intelligence solely on the basis of information processing power.

[8]

Nonsense. Deep Neural Modelings, enhance as parallelism enhances.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: NON-TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE super-computing platforms already exist, such that this operation cycle is attained.
TRIVIALLY ACCESSIBLE resources shall exist at 2020’s horizon, in tandem with KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS, (and perhaps MOORE’S LAW/modern Moore’s law variants).

Kurzweil's so-called law is nothing but speculation.  And predicting that Moore's law will continue to hold is nothing but a groundless assertion.  You don't know that either of these principles are valid for the long haul.  And forecasting that it will occur by 2030 is just crazy stupid.  I've been in the business long enough to know that computer business cycles will likely dictate a longer horizon.

[9]

Nonsense. One shall trivially observe [unless brain damaged] that there has occurred, technological exponential transition, for 50 years. Kurzweil's graphs unavoidably entail such a complexity.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: ['B'] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(2)** prior] ARE possible?

Our universe is at least linear scale [Dirac], AND at most exponential order [inflation].
Therein, a simulation of such shall require an exponential order capable machine.
Exponential order capable machines exist today. 
These are called quantum computers. (See Dwave)
These quantum computers, though superior, are not yet sufficient to encode detailed universes (that contain intelligence).
However, VIA non-exponential machines (super-computers), THERE EXISTS QUITE DETAILED simulations of our universe. (see illustris)

Dwave is a toy at best, and according to experts, far from being a practical solution.  Exponential in the abstract, MAYBE, but not in the concrete.  And illustris is not "quite detailed" in the relevant sense; in that sense, it's a toy as well.

[10]

Nonsense. 
[10.a] Dwave machine has reduced quite profound problems. [ie protein folding]
[10.b] Such problems require the accumulation of all non-quantum computing machines, whence [8.a] is perhaps reducible.

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: CONCLUSION [C-D]:

Artificial intelligence, together with quantum computers, are enhancing in concurrence with measures such as KURZWEIL’S LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS.

Particularly, from these MEASURES, super-human Ai is PERHAPS INEVITABLE, and such shall therein PROBABLY occur within the scope-of 20-40 years. (See Nick Bostrom's super intelligence)

Naive prediction is naive.  As noted, Kurzweil is mere opinion, not well supported by the facts.
[11]

Nonsense. It is rather ironic; Kurzweil predicted the internet, the very construct you have utilized to scribe your silly commentaries. See [9].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: At this juncture, mankind shall maintain non-omniscience/non-omnipotence (Ageing yet solved, Energy issues persist et cetera).

[C] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(4)** prior] ARE possible?

Thereafter, man becomes non-omniscient, non-omnipotent Gods, having created super-human artificial intelligence, therein **(4)** is probable.

We don't yet know if its possible (see scaling problem), much less "probable."

[12]

Nonsense. See [5].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: [D] What data purports that SIMULATIONS [Seen in **(3)** prior] ARE possible?

SEPARATELY, physicist James Gates’ adinkra postulation, (AND or the simulation hypothesis) shows that our universe, possesses
simulatory features, thereafter our universe may be simulatory.

The jury is still out on the simulation hypothesis, and likely to remain so for some time.  Again, you're engaged in groundless speculation.

[12]

Nonsense. See [2].

(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: If our universe is indeed simulatory, in the same way [C] is probable, our creators are probable, and thereafter probably non-omniscient/non-omnipotent in the like.

This depends on superhuman AGI being achievable, which, while possible, is hardly a foregone conclusion.

[13]

Nonsense. The human intellect (that consists of non-special matter) is proof of general intelligence. Furthermore, See [3.b] and [7].


Besides, as noted, we may destroy ourselves through a man-made disaster long before any of these hypothesized events becomes a reality.  In that case, your probable becomes a question of which is more probable.  Given humanity's anemic response to the challenge of global warming, there's a high likelihood that we won't be around long enough for any of these hypotheticals comes to fruition..

[14]

Nonsense. Keenly observe the usage of 'likely', amidst stipulations of mine. By extension, see original post, whence the likelihood of erasure had long been mentioned.


CONCLUSION:
You have but failed to express a single valid response. Such a profound failure exists on the boundary of IGNORANCE.

By extension, illustris is quite the non-trivial, detailed sequence:

1. (Illustris) Properties of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation
   Mark Vogelsberger, Shy Genel, Volker Springel, Paul Torrey, Debora Sijacki, Dandan Xu, Gregory F. Snyder, Simeon Bird, Dylan Nelson, Lars Hernquist
   NATURE (2014) [ads] [arXiv:1405.1418] (May 6, 2014) [nature]
   
   
2. Introducing the Illustris Project: Simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe
   Mark Vogelsberger, Shy Genel, Volker Springel, Paul Torrey, Debora Sijacki, Dandan Xu, Gregory F. Snyder, Dylan Nelson, Lars Hernquist
   MNRAS (2014) [ads] [arXiv:1405.2921] (May 12, 2014)
   
   
3. Introducing the Illustris Project: the evolution of galaxy populations across cosmic time
   Shy Genel, Mark Vogelsberger, Volker Springel, Debora Sijacki, Dylan Nelson, Greg Snyder, Vicente Rodriguez-Gomez, Paul Torrey, Lars Hernquist
   MNRAS (2014) [ads] [arXiv:1405.3749] (May 15, 2014)
   
   
4. The Illustris simulation: Evolving population of black holes across cosmic time
   

Jormungandr, are you of theistic nature?
[...for theists tend to ignore scientifically observed statistics, and therein, ignore the existence of said trivially accessible evidence, on the horizon of EMOTIONAL BIAS]