Could a World Creator's Prescience be limited to statistics?

[Yagon]

I find it incredibly useless to try to comprehend a being which is meant to be omniscient and omnipresent through human senses. Such a being and its thought processes, as well as its amount of knowledge, would be quite incomprehensible - literally speaking - to our human minds. I'm not going at this from a "we are puny in the face of God" perspective, I'm an agnostic at best.

The only sentient entity we know of are...humans. We - roughly - know the limits of human knowledge, lifespan, mental capacity, biology and whatnot. Therefore, we base all of our discussions regarding other possible entities on ourselves, consciously or subconsciously.

Now, remove all that knowledge. That is a god, "world creator", or whatever you want to name it. Impossible to comprehend, maybe possible to imagine.

That's reasonable, so let us imagine.

What if the World Creator hadn't really thought of itself as a "God" in the beginning, and only started really entering the ranks of such when it grew to sufficient power to create worlds (and potentially life within those worlds)? From its own perspective, in might consider itself a bit clumsy, and always stumbling at the outer envelope of its expanding abilities. Words like "God" wander by when it realizes "oh shit" it has created a universe and life has emerged in it.

Could they be forgiven for not seeing everything that would occur in their system until they ran it?

[Purpelia]

I still disagree. If a being creating the universe is different than me or you creating a system. I can throw a pizza of of a rooftoop and have only a vague notion of what is going to happen. Add a supercomputer to the equation and I might be able to roughly predict the trajectory and the landing of the pizza.

A being that creates the universe- necessarily creates the physical matter of the universe and the laws that govern how that matter interacts (or doesn't) with itself. Having this absolute knowledge (vs mine, and humanity's, ultimately limited understanding of the universe) means that that being must know exactly what the outcome of the system will be. Not the probability of several possible outcomes, but knowing a single inevitable outcome.

No it does not. What it means is that said being has the knowledge required to calculate the single inevitable outcome. But that does not necessarily imply the ability to actually perform said calculation. The effort required to calculate the behavior of every single particle in the universe vastly outstrips the effort required to simply set up the system by designing rules and than pushing the on button.

[Unit 23]

If people want to do philosophy properly they can start by defining their terms.

Does "create" imply humanlike agency, like manufacture? 'Cause it's possible the "creator" is a substance which simply precedes the existence of, if that's creation.

I don't want to overthink this but from what I scanned people are are taking an anthrocentric view which may not be appropriate.

[Yagon]

I still disagree. If a being creating the universe is different than me or you creating a system. I can throw a pizza of of a rooftoop and have only a vague notion of what is going to happen. Add a supercomputer to the equation and I might be able to roughly predict the trajectory and the landing of the pizza.

A being that creates the universe- necessarily creates the physical matter of the universe and the laws that govern how that matter interacts (or doesn't) with itself. Having this absolute knowledge (vs mine, and humanity's, ultimately limited understanding of the universe) means that that being must know exactly what the outcome of the system will be. Not the probability of several possible outcomes, but knowing a single inevitable outcome.

No it does not. What it means is that said being has the knowledge required to calculate the single inevitable outcome. But that does not necessarily imply the ability to actually perform said calculation. The effort required to calculate the behavior of every single particle in the universe vastly outstrips the effort required to simply set up the system by designing rules and than pushing the on button.

Suppose the qualia process of observers whose choices effect the outcome were themselves expressed as statistical possibilities, such that intelligent actors within the system may change its outcome in more than one possible way, and a single discrete outcome has not emerged to be identified prior to this?

Would that make it more difficult to predict a single outcome?

[Yagon]

If people want to do philosophy properly they can start by defining their terms.

Does "create" imply humanlike agency, like manufacture? 'Cause it's possible the "creator" is a substance which simply precedes the existence of, if that's creation.

I don't want to overthink this but from what I scanned people are are taking an anthrocentric view which may not be appropriate.

As the OP, let's take for discussion that "create" is something like manufacture, or even to emulate an environment in which particular rules apply, but of a non-static system in which may emerge independent intelligence and behavior within its system. (My apologies for not providing a more constrained definition of terms, I'd hoped to leave room for broader discussion, various possibilities or interpretations people may have).

Perhaps if I better phrase the question, is it possible that an intelligent creator (you can view it as an advanced alien species that has figured out how to build universes, but find things emerging in it they did not anticipate) of a universe in which intelligence emerges capable of non-deterministic decisions that effect the systems outcome.

If that doesn't work for you, can you imagine other contexts in which something deliberately creates a universe but is limited to statistical predictive power within their creation?

[Vistulange]

I find it incredibly useless to try to comprehend a being which is meant to be omniscient and omnipresent through human senses. Such a being and its thought processes, as well as its amount of knowledge, would be quite incomprehensible - literally speaking - to our human minds. I'm not going at this from a "we are puny in the face of God" perspective, I'm an agnostic at best.

The only sentient entity we know of are...humans. We - roughly - know the limits of human knowledge, lifespan, mental capacity, biology and whatnot. Therefore, we base all of our discussions regarding other possible entities on ourselves, consciously or subconsciously.

Now, remove all that knowledge. That is a god, "world creator", or whatever you want to name it. Impossible to comprehend, maybe possible to imagine.

That's reasonable, so let us imagine.

What if the World Creator hadn't really thought of itself as a "God" in the beginning, and only started really entering the ranks of such when it grew to sufficient power to create worlds (and potentially life within those worlds)? From its own perspective, in might consider itself a bit clumsy, and always stumbling at the outer envelope of its expanding abilities. Words like "God" wander by when it realizes "oh shit" it has created a universe and life has emerged in it.

Could they be forgiven for not seeing everything that would occur in their system until they ran it?

A "god" in the traditional sense - the Abrahamic, or the non-Greek/non-pagan sense - is inherently omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Therefore, this "god" would also not have "begun" at any time. It's really abstract and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it right at this hour - it's late - but basically, this "god" would simply...be. To give it concepts such as "age", with the concept of a "beginning", undermines the omnipresence of the god.

This god, in line with its omniscience, would know of literally everything going on in the entirety of existence, and even beyond it. This includes every single possibility, every single iota of life and matter and unmatter - this is where the "impossible to comprehend" bit comes in. It would know literally everything there is to know, all at the same time, whereas we need to refresh our memories and recall things, even if we do know of a particular subject.

Again, this imaginative experiment you've concocted - by no means useless, mind you - shoehorns this entity into the mindset and constraints of a human, in a way. When you say "its own perspective", you are in fact imagining a human perspective, one burdened by concepts such as "clumsiness". This "world creator" you propose is but a human, perhaps a demigod, of the Greek mythologies, not a real "god" figure.

[Yagon]

That's reasonable, so let us imagine.

What if the World Creator hadn't really thought of itself as a "God" in the beginning, and only started really entering the ranks of such when it grew to sufficient power to create worlds (and potentially life within those worlds)? From its own perspective, in might consider itself a bit clumsy, and always stumbling at the outer envelope of its expanding abilities. Words like "God" wander by when it realizes "oh shit" it has created a universe and life has emerged in it.

Could they be forgiven for not seeing everything that would occur in their system until they ran it?

A "god" in the traditional sense - the Abrahamic, or the non-Greek/non-pagan sense - is inherently omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Therefore, this "god" would also not have "begun" at any time. It's really abstract and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it right at this hour - it's late - but basically, this "god" would simply...be. To give it concepts such as "age", with the concept of a "beginning", undermines the omnipresence of the god.

This god, in line with its omniscience, would know of literally everything going on in the entirety of existence, and even beyond it. This includes every single possibility, every single iota of life and matter and unmatter - this is where the "impossible to comprehend" bit comes in. It would know literally everything there is to know, all at the same time, whereas we need to refresh our memories and recall things, even if we do know of a particular subject.

Again, this imaginative experiment you've concocted - by no means useless, mind you - shoehorns this entity into the mindset and constraints of a human, in a way. When you say "its own perspective", you are in fact imagining a human perspective, one burdened by concepts such as "clumsiness". This "world creator" you propose is but a human, perhaps a demigod, of the Greek mythologies, not a real "god" figure.

Yes, I had hoped to allude to that, so let us say that these eventual "Attempted Gods" who, as I mentioned, are really only laying claim to the term in that they created the universe, but are not necessarily omniscient in the absolute sense. (I understand the classical focus and assumptions of God make that kind of counter-intuitive for some, its possible a review of other cultures there may be creator beings who were called "God" who were not human, but naturally being invented by humans they will (sometimes) relate to a human perspective, when not abstracted completely to simply proper nouns for aspects of nature).

So let us allow, for our imagination (if the hour is not too late, and one can always reply tomorrow or next week or never as it suits non-mandatory conversations), that these beings are either advanced humans, emerged from humans (influenced by a common ecosphere), or are aliens or non-human beings with the technical capacity to emulate an experience that would effectively be the "universe" of intelligences within it.

Could they have the technical capacity to render the world, but not the predictive capacity to isolate determinative total system outcome of the world they crafted the rules for? (Let us allow that they are similar to humans in that they may have the ability to influence and create patterns for desired outcomes, but cannot with completeness make determinations for that entire system without some axiom of choice, which for the sake of fancy may be a duty falling to intelligences make observations within the system). Is this for any technical reason impossible?

[Unit 23]

The position of the OP potentially leads to more problems in the way it posits the mind, soul, or intention, is necessarily a world-independent or material-independant phenomenon. But that's an aside.

Arguing about the concept of a creator is a little odd because the concept is swarming in paradoxes.

Reminds me of the whole "can God make a rock so big he couldn't lift the rock" thing, except it's "could God make statistics so well they're unable to fundamentally alter those statistics, or something.

[Yagon]

The position of the OP potentially leads to more problems in the way it posits the mind, soul, or intention, is necessarily a world-independent or material-independant phenomenon. But that's an aside.

Arguing about the concept of a creator is a little odd because the concept is swarming in paradoxes.

Reminds me of the whole "can God make a rock so big he couldn't lift the rock" thing, except it's "could God make statistics so well they're unable to fundamentally alter those statistics, or something.

The aside could be very important.

What if we went the other direction, rather than "Is God so powerful can it", but instead something like "Could a God be just powerful enough to create a universe in which non-deterministic intelligence can emerge, but not intelligent enough to determine their exact outcome until observations within the system result in discrete outcomes" kind of thing.

[Unit 23]

It's like you're describing a curator of nature, but more assumptions are being made.

Mathematics doesn't exist in the world, but it happens to describe it excellently. However, is mathematics universal?

There's no way of knowing, because all evidence of numbers is imaginary. To compare how often mathematics applies as true in the universe, a standard has to be set, but that standard is essentially personal.

For example, if all artistic expression was discovered to be reducible to mathematics, would there be a universal standard of beauty, or would people still argue over whether 1 or 0 is superior?

Questions which only have more questions makes it clear now why at some point people thought science was a good idea.

[Yagon]

It's like you're describing a curator of nature, but more assumptions are being made.

Mathematics doesn't exist in the world, but it happens to describe it excellently. However, is mathematics universal?

There's no way of knowing, because all evidence of numbers is imaginary. To compare how often mathematics applies as true in the universe, a standard has to be set, but that standard is essentially personal.

For example, if all artistic expression was discovered to be reducible to mathematics, would there be a universal standard of beauty, or would people still argue over whether 1 or 0 is superior?

Questions which only have more questions makes it clear now why at some point people thought science was a good idea.

I'm sorry, if you don't like questions that only have more questions, I think my threads will not have anything for you

Suppose mathematics can describe a possibility, more than one possibility even. Suppose it can describe that system (independent of whether that system expressed in any exemplary fashion).

Could a system be soundly conceived wherein a designer could have the ability to design and deploy a context of experience sufficiently powerful to be as a universe to minds within it, but not have sufficient ability to correctly predict the determinative outcome of that universe, outside of rendering a statistical model?

[Bombadil]

What if we went the other direction, rather than "Is God so powerful can it", but instead something like "Could a God be just powerful enough to create a universe in which non-deterministic intelligence can emerge, but not intelligent enough to determine their exact outcome until observations within the system result in discrete outcomes" kind of thing.

To which the answer is 'sure', where humans are the proof.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Suppose a being or array of beings decided to create a universe.

Please note at the outset, I do not claim our universe is deliberately created in any way. Rather, I suppose a universe (not necessarily ours) with being(s) who learn to create universes, and imagine they create one (not ours, necessarily).

As creators of that universe, they might claim some status as its Creator God.

In many belief systems, Creator Gods can grant Prophecy and see the future.

Could a being powerful enough to create a universe still be limited by data and ultimately only construct a mathematical model of all possible outocmes and their comparative likelihoods?

Could such a God see only possible futures, but never beyond choices that haven't been made? Never know which will be the outcome, except the way a bookie does?

Would such a thing still be God?

I guess that if that being is choosing to function inside the parameters established by his/her own universe (i.e. physics or time) then I think they would still be deities. Even if their presence and works are reduced to data of that sort.

[Yagon]

What if we went the other direction, rather than "Is God so powerful can it", but instead something like "Could a God be just powerful enough to create a universe in which non-deterministic intelligence can emerge, but not intelligent enough to determine their exact outcome until observations within the system result in discrete outcomes" kind of thing.

To which the answer is 'sure', where humans are the proof.

That doesn't seem to be universally agreed.

If I'm following your reasoning, humans can create a universe in which non-deterministic intelligence emerges? Is their an existing example?

If there isn't now, how many years would you eyeball to the time when we can? (If we ever can)

[Yagon]

Suppose a being or array of beings decided to create a universe.

Please note at the outset, I do not claim our universe is deliberately created in any way. Rather, I suppose a universe (not necessarily ours) with being(s) who learn to create universes, and imagine they create one (not ours, necessarily).

As creators of that universe, they might claim some status as its Creator God.

In many belief systems, Creator Gods can grant Prophecy and see the future.

Could a being powerful enough to create a universe still be limited by data and ultimately only construct a mathematical model of all possible outocmes and their comparative likelihoods?

Could such a God see only possible futures, but never beyond choices that haven't been made? Never know which will be the outcome, except the way a bookie does?

Would such a thing still be God?

I guess that if that being is choosing to function inside the parameters established by his/her own universe (i.e. physics or time) then I think they would still be deities. Even if their presence and works are reduced to data of that sort.

I guess they would have some cool advantages, but could only tell us possible futures.

I bet their art would be cool.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I guess that if that being is choosing to function inside the parameters established by his/her own universe (i.e. physics or time) then I think they would still be deities. Even if their presence and works are reduced to data of that sort.

I guess they would have some cool advantages, but could only tell us possible futures.

I bet their art would be cool.

I'd go to that exhibit.

[Yagon]

I guess they would have some cool advantages, but could only tell us possible futures.

I bet their art would be cool.

I'd go to that exhibit.

An art exhibit where each piece of art entangles with your mind and memories, and then extrapolates a vision of a possible future for you.

But does showing you that possible future prevent you from going down that path? So they warn you that anything they show you might not happen now...

Or it might.

And Rod Serling runs the Pretzel Stand.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'd go to that exhibit.

An art exhibit where each piece of art entangles with your mind and memories, and then extrapolates a vision of a possible future for you.

But does showing you that possible future prevent you from going down that path? So they warn you that anything they show you might not happen now...

Or it might.

And Rod Serling runs the Pretzel Stand.

There's ganja for that. *nod*

[Bombadil]

To which the answer is 'sure', where humans are the proof.

That doesn't seem to be universally agreed.

If I'm following your reasoning, humans can create a universe in which non-deterministic intelligence emerges? Is their an existing example?

If there isn't now, how many years would you eyeball to the time when we can? (If we ever can)

Can they create a universe..? Depending on the definition.. didn't Max Barry note in creating NS he never foresaw raiding?

[Yagon]

An art exhibit where each piece of art entangles with your mind and memories, and then extrapolates a vision of a possible future for you.

But does showing you that possible future prevent you from going down that path? So they warn you that anything they show you might not happen now...

Or it might.

And Rod Serling runs the Pretzel Stand.

There's ganja for that. *nod*

Then praise the Creator for that, whether they knew what we'd do with it or not.

God in Heaven: Yah, mon. I dun put da good 'erb into da ert! I calculated da likeli'ood of somebody smokin' it as asymptotically approachin' one.

[Yagon]

That doesn't seem to be universally agreed.

If I'm following your reasoning, humans can create a universe in which non-deterministic intelligence emerges? Is their an existing example?

If there isn't now, how many years would you eyeball to the time when we can? (If we ever can)

Can they create a universe..? Depending on the definition.. didn't Max Barry note in creating NS he never foresaw raiding?

I wonder if Max Barry ever did the thing like PKD or Stephen King where they wrote themselves into their own universes...,

[Bombadil]

Can they create a universe..? Depending on the definition.. didn't Max Barry note in creating NS he never foresaw raiding?

I wonder if Max Barry ever did the thing like PKD or Stephen King where they wrote themselves into their own universes...,

Plenty of issues mention Maxtopia.. to the point though your question can be answered on a grade from..

1. The ability to create (or just replicate) with zero sense of anything i.e. no consciousness
2. The ability to create with full omniscience

..and everything in between.

EDIT: where are humans on this scale.. hard to see the future is but I think we've already created a world on a path where our intervention is creating consequences we did not, and cannot, foresee. Obviously AI is the fun talking point right now.. I imagine it's inevitable we hand over more and more decision making until we reach a point where we effectively lose a degree of control.

To be honest, I find it amusing we are testing AI on strategy games, I saw it being tested on Starcraft the other day. There will come a time when aliens will be like 'they trained a superior intelligence on strategy and war-games and were surprised when they got wiped out..'

Beyond my presence on this planet I suspect.

[Yagon]

Plenty of issues mention Maxtopia.. to the point though your question can be answered on a grade from..

1. The ability to create (or just replicate) with zero sense of anything i.e. no consciousness
2. The ability to create with full omniscience

..and everything in between.

EDIT: where are humans on this scale.. hard to see the future is but I think we've already created a world on a path where our intervention is creating consequences we did not, and cannot, foresee. Obviously AI is the fun talking point right now.. I imagine it's inevitable we hand over more and more decision making until we reach a point where we effectively lose a degree of control.

To be honest, I find it amusing we are testing AI on strategy games, I saw it being tested on Starcraft the other day. There will come a time when aliens will be like 'they trained a superior intelligence on strategy and war-games and were surprised when they got wiped out..'

Beyond my presence on this planet I suspect.

I have a dream where a human brain is simulated, a virtual brain, and then it is modified and networked into arrays of things that were once based on human brains but now talk to one another and experience things in a parallelized array of nodes, the resulting meta mind being from human but not human.

And it still loves fart jokes.

[Bombadil]

Plenty of issues mention Maxtopia.. to the point though your question can be answered on a grade from..

1. The ability to create (or just replicate) with zero sense of anything i.e. no consciousness
2. The ability to create with full omniscience

..and everything in between.

EDIT: where are humans on this scale.. hard to see the future is but I think we've already created a world on a path where our intervention is creating consequences we did not, and cannot, foresee. Obviously AI is the fun talking point right now.. I imagine it's inevitable we hand over more and more decision making until we reach a point where we effectively lose a degree of control.

To be honest, I find it amusing we are testing AI on strategy games, I saw it being tested on Starcraft the other day. There will come a time when aliens will be like 'they trained a superior intelligence on strategy and war-games and were surprised when they got wiped out..'

Beyond my presence on this planet I suspect.

I have a dream where a human brain is simulated, a virtual brain, and then it is modified and networked into arrays of things that were once based on human brains but now talk to one another and experience things in a parallelized array of nodes, the resulting meta mind being from human but not human.

And it still loves fart jokes.

Have you ever read Excession, by Iain M. Banks - I don't remember if there's fart jokes but it wouldn't surprise me.