Franko's "Universe as a Computer Program" Debunked

[Checkmite]

Brace yourselves…this is a LONG post.

We’ve all heard Franko, again and again, liken the universe as he understands it to a computer program, with the “Logical Goddess” as the writer. He contends that as programmer, the Logical Goddess determines absolutely everything that will happen in the universe (her program). Ad yet, he still insists that we are all responsible for our own actions, even if the Logical Goddess decided that we will take those actions.

I agree that a “computer program” would be an excellent analogy to describe how God (or Goddess, whatever) created the universe…however, I am under the impression that the computer program analogy is inconsistent with Franko’s ideas of predetermination and consequences. I can list my reasons, of course, but Franko will just bring out his ridiculous “your logic is flawed” cheap shots, which everyone but him seems to know are complete bunk.

Rather than waste my time thusly, I have decided to make my point by actually writing some computer programs based on Franko’s models of the universe. The goal of my programs is to prove that a universe cannot be "predetermined" and yet still allow "consequences for our actions". Franko cannot seriously call the logic as presented in these programs “flawed”, because if you write a computer program with flawed logic, the program will not work – it’s as simple as that. This will force him to either admit he was wrong about some particular point, or simply ignore me; if he chooses the latter, of course, he will never have any room to accuse anyone in this forum of “dishonesty”.

My programs will be written in C++ code. I am not a complete expert at C++, but it doesn’t matter…the programs needed to make my point are relatively simple. You, the readers, on the other hand, need know absolutely nothing about C++…I won’t get into confusing terms, or try to “teach” you C++, I will simply comment on how exactly this or that piece of code relates to the argument. I will make it simple as possible, so anyone can follow along – including YOU right there.

Naturally, all the programs I use here are public domain, and anyone can use them/alter them for their own purposes – I don’t even care about being given credit, because the programs are so simple that anyone an write them. Now then:

In these exercises, I will play the “Logical God”, since I’m not into cross-dressing. I will use C++ to “create” my own simple universes, each with features designed to prove my points. These programs will have been tested on my computer already, so they will work on your compiler if you cut and paste the code exactly as is into your IDE. If you don’t have a compiler, you can get a free one here. If you are unwilling to download a compiler, then you'll have to take my word for it, or ask someone who does have a compiler if the programs work.

The very first Universe I will create will be one in which every action is predetermined by God – me .

/* all my comments will be written between the slash/star marks, but I’ve made them bold also, so they will be easier to read for you guys. in case you are wondering, you don’t have to erase the comments when you cut-and-paste the code, because the compiler ignores them…that’s right, it blips right over them as if they weren’t even there */

/* The Universe v.1.0.1 – by Joshua Korosi */

#include <iostream>

/* this function links the class “iostream” to my program. I won’t confuse you by explaining classes, suffice it to say that by putting “iostream” into my program, I have established a “law of physics” that says “once the universe begins, all observable events in the universe will be printed on your screen” */

int main()

/* this is the “big bang”, the beginning of the universe. it will not be printed to the screen when we run our program, because it is unobservable. how can something inside the universe observe the beginning of the universe? */

{
std::cout << “Jeffrey is born!\n”;

/* this is the first event in our universe. the “std::cout” means that what follows is an observable event, so it will be printed to the screen consistent with the current law of physics */

std::cout << “Tonya is born!\n”;
std::cout << “Jeffrey robs a bank.\n”;
std::cout << “Tonya donates blood.\n”;

/* so far, so good…we’ve got a few events happening in chronological order. */

std::cout << “Jeffrey is sent to the Abyss!\n”;
std::cout << “Tonya advances to a Higher Existence!\n”;

/* two more normal events that may seem to be related to the previous events. */

cin.get();

/* since a billion years in the universe is only a second in heaven (or something like that), if we ran the universe without this little bit of code, it would finish and close before you could even see it! so, we put this in. all “cin.get();” does is “pause” the universe so that you can see what has happened so far. to restart the universe once it is paused this way, press any key */

return 0;
}

/* that’s it! the universe has ended, because all good things must come to an end */

Now, compile and run.

The last two events – Jeffrey going to the Abyss and Tonya advancing - would seem, to an outsider, to be related to the events that happened before them; that is, Jeffrey being bad and Tonya being good. But are they? When we are able to examine the code behind the universe, we find that Jeffrey’s and Tonya’s afterlives weren’t dependent on anything. The only reason Jeff and Tonya ended up where they did is because I, as God, predetermined where they would end up. If you changed std::cout << “Jeffrey robs a bank.\n” to std::cout << “Jeffrey donates blood\n”, it doesn’t change the fact that Jeffrey goes to the Abyss, because everything is predetermined, and I have still predetermined that Jeff is ultimately doomed.

What does any of this mean? All it means is that the last two events – Jeff and Tonya ending up where they do – can not be called “consequences” of their actions. Their actions were predetermined by me, as were their fates. When everything is predetermined, there are no “consequences” for anything; there can only be simply loosely related but independent chronological events – as my functional program clearly demonstrates!

Now, let’s introduce another conscious entity besides myself into the universe. You see, since I predetermined absolutely everything they did, we can’t really call Jeffrey and Tonya “conscious”…so far as we can tell, they’re not any different than dust that I sweep up. The only way to determine whether something is conscious or not is to observe it acting independent of my manipulation – that is, that they have the ability to do something without my making them do it. We’ll call our conscious entity “Jeffrey”.

/* The Universe v. 1.0.2 – by Joshua Korosi */

/* we’ll begin this universe the same as the other one, by making a law of physics that says “all observable events will be printed to your screen” */

#include <iostream>

int main()
{

/* this all looks familiar so far */

int answer;

/* what’s this? what I’ve done is establish another law of physics that allows our conscious entity to commit an action (the action is called “answer”) that has an effect on the universe, and can have real consequences */

std::cout << “Jeffrey is born!\n”;
std::cout << “Jeffrey must decide whether or not he believes in Joshua. Does he?\n”;
std::cout << “Type 1 if Jeffrey believes in Joshua; type anything else if he doesn’t.\n”;

/* in this event, Jeffrey must decide (as the event states) whether he believes in God (me). As God, I have decided that Jeffrey’s afterlife will be decided by how he answers this question */

std:cin >> answer;

/* the universe waits in awe while Jeffrey ponders my existence. now he has the opportunity to take an action – answer the question. */

if (answer = 1)
{
std::cout << “Jeffrey advances to a Higher Existence!\n”;
}
else
std::cout << “Jeffrey is sent to the Abyss!\n”;

/* hey, stop looking so confused! let me explain before you give up. what I’ve done is give Jeffrey an option. he can answer the question any way he wants. however, the only way Jeffrey can get to the Higher Existence is by giving “yes” as the answer to the question. Any other answer will see him sent to the Abyss for his heresy. */

cin.get();
return 0;
}

/* the universe ends, as normal. */

When you compile this program and run it, you will be asked a question – does Jeffrey believe in God? Since Jeffrey is supposed to be a conscious entity separate from me, I can’t decide for him. And since artificial intelligence isn’t around yet, I need YOU to play Jeffrey and answer the question – since you, as a conscious entity separate from myself, are qualified. If you answer that Jeffrey does believe in me (by typing 1 and pressing “enter”), Jeffrey gets to enjoy the bliss of heaven. Anything else typed in will doom Jeffrey to the flames of the Abyss.

Now, I may have declared what will happen if Jeffrey answers one way or the other, but have I really predetermined anything? Of course not…although I’ve determined such-and-such a consequence for such-and-such an action, I have absolutely no way of knowing which one Jeffrey (you) will pick!

I could go on, giving Jeffrey lots of choices to make, each with certain consequences, leading to different choices – and leading in turn to still more consequences. I can create a giant tree of millions of possible actions, reactions, and consequences. But although I’ve defined all the possibilities, I haven’t preordained anything- because I cannot predict how Jeffrey will choose. He may choose something that gets him killed after only one or two decisions…in which case, all the rest of my defined possibilities become pointless.

If I try to make my universe like Franko’s, and decide whether or not Jeffrey believes in me even after I define all the consequences, then I’ve accomplished the same thing as my first universe did – only I will have wasted time creating a list of options and possibilities that will never be used. A “Logical God” would never commit such an illogical act.

Thus, we have two possibilities:

Possibility 1: Our universe is like v. 1.0.1, and everything is predetermined. In that case, there can be no “consequences” for individuals’ “actions”, because there are no individual actions – only a chronological sequence of independent events.

Possibility 2: Our universe is like v. 1.0.2, and although all the consequences are definable, nothing is predetermined because we have no way of knowing which particular option a conscious entity will choose.

Now, Franko has some options. He can do the following:

Option A: Admit that he was wrong, and the universe does not resemble a computer program (and the “Logical Goddess” is not so logical after all); or

Option B: Admit that he was wrong, and that since the universe is predetermined, there cannot logically be “consequences for our actions”, as unequivocally demonstrated by the computer program; or

Option C: Admit the he was wrong, and that since there are consequences for our actions, and although all the consequences can be defined, the universe is not “predetermined” by definition; or

Option D: Declare that my computer programs mean nothing, even though he made the “universe is like a computer program” analogy himself – in which case, he cannot call anyone else “dishonest”; or

Option E: Ignore my post altogether – in which case, again, he has no room to call anyone else “dishonest”.

Which will it be?

Note: For some reason, it won't post...but after the #include function in the two programs, the word "iostream" should appear between a < and >. You'll have to insert these yourself, should you wish to cut-and-paste the code.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Interesting. I have made another "World simulator"; a version of ye olde Life program, but with probabilistic genetic developement in it. In this program (slightly more complex than Josh's), you can see how various "creatures" prosper, become extinct, and are supplanted by other creatures. You can edit the colony, but even after extensive editing, the little world runs its partly predetermined course, only the destinies of individual creatures is changed. The program is rather primitive, but then it was written in 1989. You can find it on my homepage www.hans-egebo.dk , in the "Software" section.

Cheers, Hans

 

[iain]

Joshua,

Nice work. I have a question for you.

In your second program, Jeffrey's fate relies on user input. If your program is a model universe, that is input from outside the universe.

Is it possible to have a genuinly non-deterministic program (i.e. where Jeffrey has free will) with no external input at all? It seems to me that for your example to work, this is necessary at least in principle.

I also think you're being very nasty to poor Jeffrey and I for one am not going to worship you

 

[Checkmite]

I suppose the only way I could get Jeffrey's decision to be non-deterministic yet still not require outside input would be to have the computer randomly select 1 or 2 as "answer" everytime the program is run. This is completely possible, and it accomplishes the desired effect.

Notice that if I created my aforementioned "tree of possibilities", and had all the decisions/actions set to occur at random, you would get a different universe and unique chain of events everytime you ran the program. So when Franko asks, "if the universe were created again with the exact same initial conditions, would everything be different, or would we all still here here," we can answer, "everything might well be different!" because running the exact same program over and over would produce a different result each time.

In that case, the program would prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that randomly selected choices are not due to "magic" or "supernatural" influence, and are entirely possible in a perfect logic-based system like a computer program.

 

[iain]

I suppose the only way I could get Jeffrey's decision to be non-deterministic yet still not require outside input would be to have the computer randomly select 1 or 2 as "answer" everytime the program is run. This is completely possible, and it accomplishes the desired effect.

I'm not convinced.

There's no way that I know of to get a computer to generate a truly random number. All computers either use a deterministic algorithm to generate pseudo-random numbers (and if you know the algorithm, you know which number is coming next) or use an external source for randomness (e.g. key-strokes from the user). The first isn't random at all and in the second case we are back to needing external input.

 

[CWL]

Joshua,

Nice work. I have a question for you.

In your second program, Jeffrey's fate relies on user input. If your program is a model universe, that is input from outside the universe.

Is it possible to have a genuinly non-deterministic program (i.e. where Jeffrey has free will) with no external input at all? It seems to me that for your example to work, this is necessary at least in principle.

I also think you're being very nasty to poor Jeffrey and I for one am not going to worship you

Intrestingly enough, Franko's cosmology appears to rely on the principle of external input (at least at a so called "decision junction"). He claims that the Universe is nothing but a big game of Dungeons & Dragons in which the consciousnesses (the "Gravitons") participate.

Hence I think Joshua's request that we "play the role of Jeffrey" is rather adequate. I would like to add that more choices could be available to Jeffrey and that such choices need not to be at the very end of the Universe. The consequences could also be "here and now" - i.e. the Universe could be constructed without "ultimate consequences" (which a poor misguided secular humanist such as myself has been trying to point out a few times).

 

[thaiboxerken]

You take the blue pill, you go home... You take the red pill and.........

 

[iain]

Intrestingly enough, Franko's cosmology appears to rely on the principle of external input (at least at a so called "decision junction"). He claims that the Universe is nothing but a big game of Dungeons & Dragons in which the consciousnesses (the "Gravitons") participate.

I'm afraid I gave up trying to understand Franko's cosmology some time ago. If this is the case, I of course defer to those who know better.

However, that means that Joshua's program might disprove Franko's assertions but would not in any way be evidence against those (maybe more rational) folk who claim that the universe is deterministic without external influences.

 

[MRC_Hans]

About random generators: It is possible to design a true random generator (usually a device that taps a semicinductor noise generator) and hook it up to a computer.

A Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) is basically deterministic, but it wont make any difference in a case like this, because once the number has been generated, there is no way to determine wether it came from a PRNG or was truly random.

Hans

 

[BobM]

My understanding of Franko's beliefs has the Logical Goddess as the creator of 'this' universe, but not as the creator of us. We're 'gravitons' from elsewhere that she pulled into this universe.

She determines Right and Wrong. Good and Evil. But it is our initial state upon entry into her universe that determines which way we go.

So in a way, we are responsible for our own destiny... in another way we aren't.

Whatever.

 

[Franko]

I must be hitting pretty close to the mark to be getting Uncle Tom all riled up like this.

Geez, two sacrificial threads today -- and one even started by a never-before-seen sockpuppet.

Yeah ... that's "free will" in action ...

 

[Checkmite]

I must be hitting pretty close to the mark to be getting Uncle Tom all riled up like this.

Geez, two sacrificial threads today -- and one even started by a never-before-seen sockpuppet.

Yeah ... that's "free will" in action ...

Poor Franko. Can't even begin to think of a rebuttal?

As you all can plainly see, it is evident that Franko refuses to even consider this evidence against his theories. It is obvious he doesn't care about debating "religion & philosophy". In any case, as I mentioned, he can't call anyone "dishonest" anymore. While he could argue with a typical debate by saying our logic is "wrong" (invoking "4-sided triangles", etc), he can't argue with the perfect logic of a functional computer program.

Nonetheless...

As far as the "outside influence" goes, I think CWL explained pretty well how my programs would be valid models (i.e., external "gravitons" and such). However, does the fact that another user has to input the data really represent "outside influence"? It seems to me that it doesn't. Since the user (you) can only "answer the question" within my Universe program, and can't do anything else, the user in fact becomes nothing but another function - my "random number generator". Since the user can't answer the question until my universe begins and the events preceding his decision take place, what does it mean to say he's an outside influence? He is symbolically just an integer definition.

 

[BobM]

While he could argue with a typical debate by saying our logic is "wrong" (invoking "4-sided triangles", etc), he can't argue with the perfect logic of a functional computer program.

Are you sure he even read it? Franko is a busy man, you know. He has lots of threads to monitor these days.

 

[Soubrette]

Are you sure he even read it? Franko is a busy man, you know. He has lots of threads to monitor these days.

Sou

 

[Franko]

Hey TLOP said She was making it the "Unofficial Franko-Day" in the R&P forum in honor of me being proclaimed "Philosopher" by the wizard Randi himself.

... and to think it wasn't that long ago that Randi considered me a "Postard". I feel so ... redeemed.

 

[Franko]

So Joshy,

Let me get this straight, without knowing jack squat about Logical Deism you are claiming to have somehow figured out what Logical Deism is all about and then written an algorithm that proves Logical Deism is False?

Did you build yourself a really cool secret agent fort out of the sofa cushions while you were at it?

For someone who pretends to be a Deist Joshua you certainly seem to be obsessed with disproving the existence of God. Is that the Tricky-(A-Theist)-Dictionary definition of Deism you are using?

 

[Checkmite]

So Joshy,

Let me get this straight, without knowing jack squat about Logical Deism you are claiming to have somehow figured out what Logical Deism is all about and then written an algorithm that proves Logical Deism is False?

Did you build yourself a really cool secret agent fort out of the sofa cushions while you were at it?

For someone who pretends to be a Deist Joshua you certainly seem to be obsessed with disproving the existence of God. Is that the Tricky-(A-Theist)-Dictionary definition of Deism you are using?

I'm not disproving the existence of God, nor am I trying to. In fact, the computer program analogy is a quite excellent one, insofar as "how God manipulates the universe".

What I am trying to prove - and have done a good job of it, apparently - is that you can't have a universe that completely deterministic, and yet still insist that our actions have "consequences".

I don't know very much about Logical Deism at all, Franko, with the exception that it doesn't match any dictionary or encyclopedic definition of Deism. In fact, I challenge you to find 3 sites on the internet which promote YOUR idea of Deism, rather than mine.

But that is neither here nor there. All that matters here is that YOU said "everything is predetermined, but there are still consequences for our actions", and my computer programs demonstrate that you can have it only one way or the other - but can't have it both ways at once. How this disproves "God" is beyond me - unless you consider yourself "God". What is troubling, dear Franko, is that a measly figment of your imagination such as myself has managed to beat one of your most precious arguments into the ground with a single post and two very simple - even amateurish - computer programs.

So you can sit there and pout about it, or you can dust yourself off and move on. Your move, tiger.

 

[The Fool]

Hey TLOP said She was making it the "Unofficial Franko-Day" in the R&P forum in honor of me being proclaimed "Philosopher" by the wizard Randi himself.

... and to think it wasn't that long ago that Randi considered me a "Postard". I feel so ... redeemed.

Sorry Frank, before you strain a ligament trying to pat yourself on the back. 5,000 posts is the result of Argumentum ad nauseum and not any reflection on the content of your posts. If Duplications were removed you would be hovering somewhere around the 45 to 50 post mark. Get a new comedy writer, your material is stale.

 

[Franko]

Alright Joshua,

What I am trying to prove - and have done a good job of it, apparently - is that you can't have a universe that completely deterministic, and yet still insist that our actions have "consequences".

Obviously you have never read Skinner and obviously you know absolutely NOTHING about determinism. Determinism is ALL ABOUT rewards and punishment. It is the magical system that you insist must exist (despite having no evidence for this belief) which would lead to a reality with no rewards and punishments (no consequences) for actions.

I don't know very much about Logical Deism at all, Franko, with the exception that it doesn't match any dictionary or encyclopedic definition of Deism. In fact, I challenge you to find 3 sites on the internet which promote YOUR idea of Deism, rather than mine.

Joshua what does the definition of “Deism” have to do with the existence of “god”, “Fate”, “free will”, “soul”, etc. You want to make something out of a non-issue it smacks of diversion. I think you understand perfectly well what I mean when I say “Deism” and I have already demonstrated more than once, point by point that the definition I use is consistent with Most people’s usage of the term.

But that is neither here nor there. All that matters here is that YOU said "everything is predetermined, but there are still consequences for our actions", and my computer programs demonstrate that you can have it only one way or the other - but can't have it both ways at once.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you write a computer program, and that program has a bug in it, and you are unaware of that bug, then that program is predetermined to crash. And if that program felt “pain” when it crashed, then it will have suffered consequences – predetermined consequences.

How this disproves "God" is beyond me - unless you consider yourself "God". What is troubling, dear Franko, is that a measly figment of your imagination such as myself has managed to beat one of your most precious arguments into the ground with a single post and two very simple - even amateurish - computer programs.

Dream on my little friend. Although if you have convinced yourself, and it makes you happy, and you aren’t really concerned whether you are right or not … then good for you – congratulations.

So you can sit there and pout about it, or you can dust yourself off and move on. Your move, tiger.

I had you checkmated about 80 moves ago. You still have failed to perceive it, and you still fail to concede.


-----------------------------

Come on Fool-ly! Dedicate a new thread to me. You know you are just dying to do it!!! Use a sock-puppet ...

 

[Checkmite]

Wait, Franko....you're getting cryptic. Are you saying that my computer programs are somehow logically flawed? If they are, how could they function?

This, what you said:

If you write a computer program, and that program has a bug in it, and you are unaware of that bug, then that program is predetermined to crash. And if that program felt “pain” when it crashed, then it will have suffered consequences – predetermined consequences.

Makes no sense, because you posted it with no context. Explain it, please? My programs are not flawed. A "Logical" god or goddess would not create such a flawed program. And a program couldn't feel "pain" when it crashed, even in theory, because it will have stopped functioning instantaneously, allowing no time for any "pain", as an event, to occur.

And as for this:

Joshua what does the definition of “Deism” have to do with the existence of “god”, “Fate”, “free will”, “soul”, etc. You want to make something out of a non-issue it smacks of diversion. I think you understand perfectly well what I mean when I say “Deism” and I have already demonstrated more than once, point by point that the definition I use is consistent with Most people’s usage of the term.

Well then why did you bring it up? Nobody mentioned the word "Deism" in this thread until you did - I was just responding to you when you said this:

...without knowing jack squat about Logical Deism you are claiming to have somehow figured out what Logical Deism is all about and then written an algorithm that proves Logical Deism is False?

Again, my "algorithm" only proves that a universe cannot be deterministic and involve consequences at the same time...because the only reason anything happens in a predetermined universe is the fact that it was predetermined - events are not dependent upon each other. You say I am "wrong", but you don't point out the flaw in my program. Where is it?

And no, what you demonstrate is that what you call "Deism" is what everyone else calls "theism".

In any case, you are the one employing diversion. This thread is about the computer programs I wrote. If they are flawed, you must present evidence. Don't derail the thread.