ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sticking with an irrational and dishonest position won't make it any less so, nor hide from people reading this thread.

Once again, you fail to adress any of the points I raised, opting instead of sticking with your guns and blind dismissal.

This is my last response to you.

You mean, like your last 'last' response?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
I shan't any longer participate in your nonsensical cycle, for you label empirically observed sequences as inexistent.

Making shit up about your interlocutors, is known as straw-manning. It's dishonest, irrational and contravenes the FUA you signed.
So, unless you're looking to be banned from this forum, I suggest you stop.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Keep in mind that if I were unable to address your "points" I would have long publicly acknowledged this.

By what objective measure can we demonstrate this.
I.o.w. who do you think you're fooling?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
However, the sum of your points are nonsense, and so, I grow tired of attempting to resolve your ignorant words.

QED.
Nothing but desperate, blind dismissal, coupled with thinly veiled passive-agressive remarks,

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
But it is funny how you keep talking about nonsense when you were trying so hard to pretend that me saying a simulation is not the same as a universe is somehow saying that the simulation isn't useful

Try to read the following sentence slowly, in a calm fashion, for I shan't mention it to you again:

Scientifically unfounded (particularly non-empirically aligned) properties are purged from the archaic definition.

In applying modern scenario/science to the archaic definition, the ability to engineer crude universe remain, since that property is empirically observed.

That should be clear enough for you.

Read this however you like, because you'll probably fail to understand it even though I've already answered these same points repeatedly:

The ability to create any universe, crude or otherwise, is not something we can do. We can generate crude simulations, but if you understood the difference between a simulation and the actual thing, you'd realize that simulations don't make your point. Unfortunately you haven't a clue what you're talking about, so your idiotic repetitions persist.

That should be clear enough for you, but it won't be, and you'll just repeat another one of your vapid assertions with no attempt to actually understand or address my objections.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:If I had detected an error, I would have made this publicly known, long ago.

From the way this thread is going (if I assume you're not trolling), you couldn't detect an error if your life depended on it.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Thomas and other typically express layman-like talk. So, it is fair to offset that Thomas and others are laymen in those fields, as demonstrated by the nonsense that they express thereafter.

What are we to make of frequent, ignorant misuse of words ("offset" in the post above), in a manner often observed from those attempting to seem more educated than they actually are?

I have several times now, mentioned that I am of average intellect.

Anyway, here is a link to the definition of offset, if you have difficulty in recalling its meaning: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/offset

Well, well done you. You can link to a dictionary entry that demonstrates that you have, indeed, misused the word "offset" as you've misused many others.

I agree you seem of average intelligence. Again, that's my point: you're trying hard to look more intelligent than you are, and failing because you lack the skills required.

OlivierK wrote:
Well, well done you. You can link to a dictionary entry that demonstrates that you have, indeed, misused the word "offset" as you've misused many others.

Could you demonstrate why I mused the word offset?

OlivierK wrote:
I agree you seem of average intelligence. Again, that's my point: you're trying hard to look more intelligent than you are, and failing because you lack the skills required.

Yes, but although my intellect is average, I may pour what little intellect I have into more relevant tasks.

For example, I pour what little intellect I had into attempting to understand https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum- ... -Bennett-9

Another example (related to the above) is that a being who is leaps beyond my boundary has not entered artificial neural computing research.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

OlivierK wrote:
Well, well done you. You can link to a dictionary entry that demonstrates that you have, indeed, misused the word "offset" as you've misused many others.

Could you demonstrate why I mused the word offset?

Nope, only you know why you misused it. I could guess that making errors and then refusing to acknowledge them is related to other demonstrated trolling behaviours, or other demonstrated failures of reasoning, but only you'd know for sure, and even then you may not admit the reasons to yourself.

If you want a demonstration that you misused it, simply replace the word in your sentence with any of its meanings listed in the definition you posted. The word you were after seemed to be "infer" or "deduce" or even "reason", both of which make your sentence parse meaningfully, "offset" on the other hand means to counterbalance, and renders the sentence meaningless. The dictionary link you posted in your defense is a demonstration that you misused the word.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Read this however you like, because you'll probably fail to understand it even though I've already answered these same points repeatedly:

The ability to create any universe, crude or otherwise, is not something we can do. We can generate crude simulations, but if you understood the difference between a simulation and the actual thing, you'd realize that simulations don't make your point. Unfortunately you haven't a clue what you're talking about, so your idiotic repetitions persist.

That should be clear enough for you, but it won't be, and you'll just repeat another one of your vapid assertions with no attempt to actually understand or address my objections.

Your tone above appears to have normalized somewhat, and so I shall temporarily reverse my decision to halt responding to you.

Simply, the crude universes, are the simulation(s) of the cosmos. (You may notice I express i.e. illustris, when I refer to crude universes)

Look at this excerpt from the source in the original post:

God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators.

Original post source: https://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_sci ... an_atheist

OlivierK wrote:If you want a demonstration that you misused it, simply replace the word in your sentence with any of its meanings listed in the definition you posted. The word you were after seemed to be "infer" or "deduce" or even "reason", both of which make your sentence parse meaningfully, "offset" on the other hand means to counterbalance, and renders the sentence meaningless. The dictionary link you posted in your defense is a demonstration that you misused the word.

OlivierK, your medial offset comprises optimum reasoning upon the information manifold therein, hence to say. Therefore, align the vector function. I triangulate you.

OlivierK wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

OlivierK wrote:
Well, well done you. You can link to a dictionary entry that demonstrates that you have, indeed, misused the word "offset" as you've misused many others.

Could you demonstrate why I mused the word offset?

Nope, only you know why you misused it. I could guess that making errors and then refusing to acknowledge them is related to other demonstrated trolling behaviours, or other demonstrated failures of reasoning, but only you'd know for sure, and even then you may not admit the reasons to yourself.

If you want a demonstration that you misused it, simply replace the word in your sentence with any of its meanings listed in the definition you posted. The word you were after seemed to be "infer" or "deduce" or even "reason", both of which make your sentence parse meaningfully, "offset" on the other hand means to counterbalance, and renders the sentence meaningless. The dictionary link you posted in your defense is a demonstration that you misused the word.

Okay, here is the usage in a portion of my original quote, modified with an appropriate synonym.

ORIGINAL:
...so it is fair to offset that...

MODIFIED WITH OFFSET SYNONYM:
...so it is fair to set off that...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/offset

What issue do you detect with the modified quote?

LucidFlight wrote:OlivierK, your medial offset comprises optimum reasoning upon the information manifold therein, hence to say. Therefore, align the vector function. I triangulate you.

Felicitous giblets, what a perfectly cromulent digraph. One wonders whether its pentameter would embiggen with a paediatric massage to anticommute its kernel?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Read this however you like, because you'll probably fail to understand it even though I've already answered these same points repeatedly:

The ability to create any universe, crude or otherwise, is not something we can do. We can generate crude simulations, but if you understood the difference between a simulation and the actual thing, you'd realize that simulations don't make your point. Unfortunately you haven't a clue what you're talking about, so your idiotic repetitions persist.

That should be clear enough for you, but it won't be, and you'll just repeat another one of your vapid assertions with no attempt to actually understand or address my objections.

Your tone above appears to have normalized somewhat, and so I shall temporarily reverse my decision to halt responding to you.

Must've been quite a decision since you didn't stop responding to me at all.

Simply, the crude universes, are the simulation(s) of the cosmos. (You may notice I express i.e. illustris, when I refer to crude universes)

It's still not a crude universe. It's a crude simulation.

Look at this excerpt from the source in the original post:

God is any non-omniscient entity with the ability to compute simulation(s) of universes (from crude universes i.e. illustris, to perhaps instance(s) that may contain sophisticated intelligence) and or to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the intellect of its creators.

Original post source: https://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_sci ... an_atheist

Yeah, I get you think it should be redefined that way. But there's simply no reason for the redefinition, developing crude simulations on computers isn't anything at all like creating an actual universe, which is what a creator deity is supposed to have done. You're trying to give an old title to something completely different, it doesn't make any sense. There's no carryover whatsoever, unlike in the example of astronomy. There's already terms for people who make crude computer simulations of universes that are straightforward and don't have all the baggage of the term "God".

SafeAsMilk wrote:Must've been quite a decision since you didn't stop responding to me at all.

Congratulations! First prize! One of your posts will now be responded to in toddler like fashion.

Second prize was two answers.

(A)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
It's still not a crude universe. It's a crude simulation.

Crude universe -> crude simulations of the cosmos. (As pointed out many many times)

Crude used in sentences: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/crude

Crude is an adjective that indicates that the universe being referred to is not the actual thing.


(B)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yeah, I get you think it should be redefined that way. But there's simply no reason for the redefinition, developing crude simulations on computers isn't anything at all like creating an actual universe, which is what a creator deity is supposed to have done. You're trying to give an old title to something completely different, it doesn't make any sense. .

The entire point of the redefinition, is to purge scientifically unfounded sequences from the archaic concept.

We appropriate models in science with scientifically founded data, and so, that our universe is created by some intelligent being(s), is not empirically founded.

The redefinition then includes a feasible instance, that of universe simulations/crude universes.

This redefinition may persist, scientifically, whether or not I exist.


(C)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's no carryover whatsoever, unlike in the example of astronomy. .

The 'carry-over' is that instead of actual universes, crude universe creation persists.



(D)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's already terms for people who make crude computer simulations of universes that are straightforward and don't have all the baggage of the term "God" .

Therein, God becomes yet another synonym for these terms, just as synonyms of the terms persisted before the redefinition.

I don't see you questioning that synonyms exist, yet you paradoxically question it this time.

A programme towards a hermeneutic method for reinterpretive research in theology

Abstract
We aim to set out in detail a scheme for novel iterations of the God-label that will allow bold stirdes to be made in critical theory, literary analysis and cultural revelation. This will be achieved by transition through a number of temporally ordered sub-processes of linguistic innovation and reinvention. cf. Lewis 1872

Preliminary Phase
Offset to a non-specialist forum and contact denizens. Appropriate a two-way communicative interface with said non-experts and inform them of their status, codename laymen. Multiple attempts may be required to ensure sufficient non-expert density (hereby related as TQ, Toddler Quotient). Researchers may find it beneficent to think of this as random sampling, or a scattergun approach rather than circumventing bans for sockpuppetry.

Method
Statement the first of the principle aim:

The redefinition of the Word Indicator Referent (WAF) heretofore categorised as "God"

(1) Redefine "redefinition".
(2) Redefine "word".
(3) Redefine "indicator".
(4) Redefine "Referent".
(5) [nb. optional] Redefine "crude".
(6) Redefine "categorised".
(7) ???
(8) Profit.

Conclusion
I'd like to thank the band, my agents, my mum and Barbra Streisand.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:(A)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
It's still not a crude universe. It's a crude simulation.

Crude universe -> crude simulations of the cosmos. (As pointed out many many times)

And pointed out to you that they aren't anywhere near the same thing many many times. The distinction is crucial, because it shits all over your argument.

Crude used in sentences: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/crude

Crude is an adjective that indicates that the universe being referred to is not the actual thing.

No it doesn't, and the link you provided does not suggest any such thing. But this shouldn't be any surprise seeing how poor your use of language is in general, as several posters have pointed out.

(B)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yeah, I get you think it should be redefined that way. But there's simply no reason for the redefinition, developing crude simulations on computers isn't anything at all like creating an actual universe, which is what a creator deity is supposed to have done. You're trying to give an old title to something completely different, it doesn't make any sense. .

The entire point of the redefinition, is to purge scientifically unfounded sequences from the archaic concept.

If you actually did that, you'd purge the entire thing. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. From now on, I'm just going to copy-paste my responses because you either don't read or understand them the first time.

We appropriate models in science with scientifically founded data, and so, that our universe is created by some intelligent being(s), is not empirically founded.

That's the entire primary concept of what a God is. Thanks for making my point for me.

The redefinition then includes a feasible instance, that of universe simulations/crude universes.

This redefinition may persist, scientifically, whether or not I exist.

I'm guessing it won't because it's worthless. You've presented exactly zero (0) reasons why anyone at all should call people who develop crude computer simulations of universes 'gods'.

(C)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's no carryover whatsoever, unlike in the example of astronomy. .

The 'carry-over' is that instead of actual universes, crude universe creation persists.

Because the original included no crude simulated universes, there is literally no carry-over at all.

(D)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's already terms for people who make crude computer simulations of universes that are straightforward and don't have all the baggage of the term "God" .

Therein, God becomes yet another synonym for these terms, just as synonyms of the terms persisted before the redefinition.

There is not a single reason to add yours. You've been reduced to whining, "Awwww, but whyyyy nooooot?"

I don't see you questioning that synonyms exist, yet you paradoxically question it this time.

Because in this instance it's completely pointless for the numerous reasons I've laid out repeatedly. The word "God" functions just fine in referring to people's concept of an imagined creator deity. You performing mental gymnastics to try and apply it to computer programmers is just silly, as I'm sure you already know.

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Must've been quite a decision since you didn't stop responding to me at all.

Congratulations! First prize! One of your posts will now be responded to in toddler like fashion.

Second prize was two answers.

Like, two actual answers?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Must've been quite a decision since you didn't stop responding to me at all.

Congratulations! First prize! One of your posts will now be responded to in toddler like fashion.

Second prize was two answers.

Like, two actual answers?

Two simulated answers.

Thommo wrote:A programme towards a hermeneutic method for reinterpretive research in theology

Abstract
We aim to set out in detail a scheme for novel iterations of the God-label that will allow bold stirdes to be made in critical theory, literary analysis and cultural revelation. This will be achieved by transition through a number of temporally ordered sub-processes of linguistic innovation and reinvention. cf. Lewis 1872

Preliminary Phase
Offset to a non-specialist forum and contact denizens. Appropriate a two-way communicative interface with said non-experts and inform them of their status, codename laymen. Multiple attempts may be required to ensure sufficient non-expert density (hereby related as TQ, Toddler Quotient). Researchers may find it beneficent to think of this as random sampling, or a scattergun approach rather than circumventing bans for sockpuppetry.

Method
Statement the first of the principle aim:

The redefinition of the Word Indicator Referent (WAF) heretofore categorised as "God"

(1) Redefine "redefinition".
(2) Redefine "word".
(3) Redefine "indicator".
(4) Redefine "Referent".
(5) [nb. optional] Redefine "crude".
(6) Redefine "categorised".
(7) ???
(8) Profit.

Conclusion
I'd like to thank the band, my agents, my mum and Barbra Streisand.

I couldn't read half of this because all the big words were used properly.

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Must've been quite a decision since you didn't stop responding to me at all.

Congratulations! First prize! One of your posts will now be responded to in toddler like fashion.

Second prize was two answers.

Like, two actual answers?

Two simulated answers.

Can we redefine them as "god" then? Probability indicates those answers lead to a universe of misery. Albeit, self-inflicted.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:(A)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
It's still not a crude universe. It's a crude simulation.

Crude universe -> crude simulations of the cosmos. (As pointed out many many times)

And pointed out to you that they aren't anywhere near the same thing many many times. The distinction is crucial, because it shits all over your argument.

Crude used in sentences: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/crude

Crude is an adjective that indicates that the universe being referred to is not the actual thing.

No it doesn't, and the link you provided does not suggest any such thing. But this shouldn't be any surprise seeing how poor your use of language is in general, as several posters have pointed out.

(B)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yeah, I get you think it should be redefined that way. But there's simply no reason for the redefinition, developing crude simulations on computers isn't anything at all like creating an actual universe, which is what a creator deity is supposed to have done. You're trying to give an old title to something completely different, it doesn't make any sense. .

The entire point of the redefinition, is to purge scientifically unfounded sequences from the archaic concept.

If you actually did that, you'd purge the entire thing. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. From now on, I'm just going to copy-paste my responses because you either don't read or understand them the first time.

We appropriate models in science with scientifically founded data, and so, that our universe is created by some intelligent being(s), is not empirically founded.

That's the entire primary concept of what a God is. Thanks for making my point for me.

The redefinition then includes a feasible instance, that of universe simulations/crude universes.

This redefinition may persist, scientifically, whether or not I exist.

I'm guessing it won't because it's worthless. You've presented exactly zero (0) reasons why anyone at all should call people who develop crude computer simulations of universes 'gods'.

(C)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's no carryover whatsoever, unlike in the example of astronomy. .

The 'carry-over' is that instead of actual universes, crude universe creation persists.

Because the original included no crude simulated universes, there is literally no carry-over at all.

(D)

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's already terms for people who make crude computer simulations of universes that are straightforward and don't have all the baggage of the term "God" .

Therein, God becomes yet another synonym for these terms, just as synonyms of the terms persisted before the redefinition.

There is not a single reason to add yours. You've been reduced to whining, "Awwww, but whyyyy nooooot?"

I don't see you questioning that synonyms exist, yet you paradoxically question it this time.

Because in this instance it's completely pointless for the numerous reasons I've laid out repeatedly. The word "God" functions just fine in referring to people's concept of an imagined creator deity. You performing mental gymnastics to try and apply it to computer programmers is just silly, as I'm sure you already know.

I maintain my response from reply #233.

The difference between your nonsensical points and my expressions, is that my expressions compound empirically observed sequences, that hold true whether or not you like it.

And lastly, no where did I equate crude universes to the actual thing, and when the redefinition occurs, crude universe (simulated universe) creation remains. Universe simulation is not "nothing" as you like to express, and as you have expressed many times throughout this thread.