Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

NOTE [1]: No opinion, faith, emotion, nor bias was used in this thread.



NOTE [2]: I am of course atheistic, (I have zero beliefs). The sequences while not novel, are combined in novel ways, such that the PROBABILITY of non-omniscient Gods/Creators is reported.

As such, one needs not belief/faith/certainty to observe PROBABILITIES.

WARNING: Some statistics/words occur in UPPER CASE FORM or various colours, because reading all lower case/uniform colour is simply quite tiresome.





God is PROBABLY quite real. (however, not the omniscient, all powerful kind seen in religion)

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).

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.

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.




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]

**(2)** Intelligence that EVOLVES in our own simulations to become God-like (ie they create universes, or ‘general artificial intelligence’-like programs).

**(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)

**(4)** Mankind; for mankind shall perhaps promptly possess God bound capabilities, via **(1)** and **(2)**.


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.



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.

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).


['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)

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)

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.

[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.

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.

….
RESOURCE SUMMARY:
Simulation sample:  (Illustris)

[ii] Simulation Hypothesis: (findable on Wikipedia)

[iii] Fascinating (though perhaps less viable than the simulation hypothesis): (James Gates' Adinkra postulation)

[iv] ‘General’ artificial intelligence (a rather profound approximation) : (See Deepmind's Atari Q player, or Alpha Go)

[v] PHYSICIST JEREMY ENGLAND SHOWS THAT MATTER ATTRIBUTES LIFE-LIKE PROPERTIES AS TIME DIVERGES. (See Dissipative Adaptation)

[vi] A quantum computing synopsis, of mine: (Available upon request, via personal message)
Essentially, see DWAVE.

[vii] Relevant graphs: 

[a] Ray Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns.
Moore’s law [modern variants in the like]

[LadyForCamus]

*crickets*

[Primordial Bisque]

You mean this?

[Minimalist]

TL DR
PWREIS - TFS

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You mean this?

I haven't a clue how general intelligence shall finally occur.
It can however be observed that such shall likely occur, on the boundary of brain based models, on the horizon of Moore's Law, and more modern graphs for technological advancement.

---

TL DR
PWREIS - TFS

I did some editing, it is actually quite short. (It is readable in 3 minutes.)

It appeared quite long prior, as all text was quite small, and the same colour, and headings were not enlarged.

---

*crickets*

I did some editing, it is actually quite short. (It is readable in 3 minutes.)

It appeared quite long prior, as all text was quite small, and the same colour, and headings were not enlarged.

[The Grand Nudger]

What a boringly long winded way to spell out the belief that our universe is akin to a simulation.  You know, you may have that one backwards.  It just might be that simulations are alot like our universe...and golly gee...why might that be?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

What a boringly long winded way to spell out the belief that our universe is akin to a simulation.  You know, you may have that one backwards.  It just might be that simulations are alot like our universe...and golly gee...why might that be?

The universe simulation hypothesis (particularly relating to our universe) is the least relevant scenario mentioned. (As seen in solely ONE god-tier, #3)

Primarily, A God bound entity likely has the ability to create non-trivial intelligence  (The most complex constructs in the known universe human level, and likely beyond)

Thereafter, on Moore's Law etc, we are likely on the horizon of creating such non-trivial intelligence.  

(NOTE: Brain based models already exceed/equal humans on non trivial cognitive tasks, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis)

[ApeNotKillApe]

Michael's less successful cousin, ProgrammingGod.

[robvalue]

I think this shows that the word "God" is next to meaningless, because everyone has their own definition. That's my position, ignosticism. The only useful definition I have is "intelligent creator", and the term is relative. Being a "God" of a VR I create obviously doesn't not make me "God" with respect to this reality.

It's a fair hypothesis that this is some sort of simulation, yeah. It appears unfalsifiable to me, although it's certainly interesting. I'm concerned there is a fallacy of composition included in the hypothesis though, and it requires several assumptions.

It's much more interesting than "God says don't wank or he'll cry and burn your bum".

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Michael's less successful cousin, ProgrammingGod.

I observe unfortunately, that the most influence I have had in my country, is to directly aid in the introduction of neural network based subject amidst one of my country's universities.

I furthermore observe a likely limitation; I have began encoding 'God' using modern machine learning lemma (as Google, Microsoft etc are doing), and I know full well that my medium-bound machine learning laptop cannot reduce the code regimes that I have subsumed.

See 'thought curvature' for the machine learning lemma to which I am referring.

BTW, Are you referring to Michael I. Jordan, machine learning professor?


If so, I would entirely observe your commentary, as accurate.

---

I think this shows that the word "God" is next to meaningless, because everyone has their own definition. That's my position, ignosticism. The only useful definition I have is "intelligent creator", and the term is relative. Being a "God" of a VR I create obviously doesn't not make me "God" with respect to this reality.

It's a fair hypothesis that this is some sort of simulation, yeah. It appears unfalsifiable to me, although it's certainly interesting. I'm concerned there is a fallacy of composition included in the hypothesis though, and it requires several assumptions.

It's much more interesting than "God says don't wank or he'll cry and burn your bum".

Tradition is often wrong. (Only the theistic mind adheres to the concept of omniscient, omnipotent deities)

Thusly, on statistical observation, God/Creator is likely properly, naturally statistically definable as stipulated in the original post.



...
Albeit, I observe that indeed, God the word becomes quite 'irrelevant' (As I stipulate on my portfolio page which is available on request) whence we are all likely God-bound (if not brain damaged) in capability.

God therein is likely no longer special spaghetti..