Religion in CRPGs

[gluon]

Even quantum theory seems to agree with us :shock:
(j/k....maybe)

Even though you are j/k'ing here, I feel the need to point out that quantum mechanics is one of the only--scratch that, the only thing in science that doesn't agree with you. In fact, it is the only thing that makes me think twice before taking absolute determinism for absolute fact.

I find it intriguing (and, philosophically, of infinite significance) that science, mankind's only foolproof tool capable of making sense of the universe and uncovering the pure, unadulterated truth of things, has pronounced that certain aspects of our universe can not (and probably will never be able to be) predicted by itself. Either we can accept that the pure randomness of the path of a particle is just that: pure randomness, or we can accept that causality still applies, and this 'randomness' is governed by some invisible law or entity. We can come up with all manners of working theories to predict what happened before the big bang, even though these theories will probably never be testable and therefore never be real scientific data (though, arguably, making sense of this conundrum is easier than making sense of Heisenberg uncertainty).

At the end of the day, problems like these become matters of philosophy and, therefore, religion.[/b]

 

[Human Shield]

Causality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is all about perspective, from Omniscient God's perspective everything has already happened. What caused it to happen is immaterial to whether or not it DID happen.

I don't believe God has a concept of "happened", he created time.

What if what cause it to happen was the person's choice?

Why is creating something heavy illogical? Is it illogical for me to build sometihng so heavy that I cannot lift it? No, that would be silly. Cars and houses could not then exist.

Don't be a retard. It is illogical if you can lift anything.

Even if he cannot create something, then that is a limitation on his power. Why couldn't he, for instance, change the laws of physics so that a square triangle does exist? After all, he wrote the laws right?

Can't violate definitions. And if you follow the Bible, he can't break promises or his nature either.

Omnipotent doesn't include the illogical, it isn't a limit, contradictory actions are impossible by nature.

(Though really that's just silly because "square" and "triangle" are just human names for things. Had someone made a different decision in Ancient Greece we very well might call triangles squares and vice versa!)

Draw an object with only 3 and only 4 sides at the same time. Don't be a retard about names.

 

[Shagnak]

Even quantum theory seems to agree with us :shock:
(j/k....maybe)

Even though you are j/k'ing here, I feel the need to point out that quantum mechanics is one of the only--scratch that, the only thing in science that doesn't agree with you. In fact, it is the only thing that makes me think twice before taking absolute determinism for absolute fact.

I never said anything about believing that everything is deterministic. I have no such belief.

I was referring to the collapsing of wave functions that occurs under observation in quantum mechanics/computing, and its relation to God-like omniscience.
Specifically, in the scenario being discussed, if God is capable of observing everything then those things that were undetermined will have been determined by God having observed them. As per Schrodinger's Cat.
And if everything is determined, then free will is an illusion.

Under that scenario, quantum theory does agree with me, i.e. that "omniscience of god" and free will do not agree.

Therefore the position I have taken up there is that if there is a God, he is not omniscient.

Don't confuse that with my supposedly saying that there definitely is a god and therefore everything is deterministic. Or anything about whether I think there is a god, or anything about whether I think the universe is deterministic. It was purely about the supposed omniscience of god, and whether it was compatible with the idea of free will.

Anyway, I'm off.
I'll be interested to see what this thread turns into in a few days when I get back. :D

 

[Sarvis]

I'm a lurker here, but this thread has finally tempted me out of the shadows.

Just a couple of observations regarding the discussion between Sarvis and NL about determinism versus free will:

1. Based on our current knowledge of how the human brain works and the assumption that the universe is completely monistic, free will simply cannot be an option.

That the universe is monistic is a pretty damn big assumption. Not that I see how a monistic universe would have any influence on free will.

We also have fairly limited knowledge of how the human mind works, sooo...

You'll just have to explain that all further.

2. But introduce the dualistic idea of a perfect entity on a higher plane (the soul), that can manipulate the probabilities of diverging electron paths (as predicted by Heisenberg uncertainty) in the brain of the individual with which it is connected (as I believe that nothing in the universe is truly random, even the things that science itself claims can't be predicted), and free will becomes a possibility.

The uncertainty principle only says you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. What's this about diverging electron paths?

Or, indeed, why does a spirit need to have anything to do with physics (electrons) as we know it?

Of course, who is to say that souls as individual units are the only possible way that they can exist? They could very well be part of a gestalt that would make up our idea of God. This would imply that God, in essence, not only knows everything but also takes a role in controlling individuals or letting the individuals control themselves.

But then could God be part of individuals which do not yet exist? If not, he still doesn't know what they will do. If he is part of people which do not yet exist, they must come into existence so it is reasonable to infer that, for instance, you do not have choice over becoming a parent. For instance if God is part of the person who is your son, you must have a son.

 

[Sarvis]

Causality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is all about perspective, from Omniscient God's perspective everything has already happened. What caused it to happen is immaterial to whether or not it DID happen.

I don't believe God has a concept of "happened", he created time.

What if what cause it to happen was the person's choice?

Of course it was his choice, but he already made it. From the perspective of two days from now, you have already chosen what to eat for breakfast tomorrow morning. God is outside of time, which is to say he sees it all at once. By nature of that, all decisions were already made.

As for God having a concept of "happened," he'd damn well better or the whole Omniscience thing just isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Don't be a retard. It is illogical if you can lift anything.

Not me, God. God should be able to lift anything, because he is Omnipotent. He should also be able to create anything, because he is Omnipotent. what part of ALL POWERFUL do you not get?

Can't violate definitions. And if you follow the Bible, he can't break promises or his nature either.

Doesn't sound very Omnipotent to me if he has to follow rules written by man in a book.

Omnipotent doesn't include the illogical, it isn't a limit, contradictory actions are impossible by nature.

Omnipotent means all powerful, not limited power.

Draw an object with only 3 and only 4 sides at the same time.

I'm not all powerful, so why should I be able to?

God is, so he should be able to. Logic be damned, because he defines logic.

 

[gluon]

Sorry, but glib science references to back up nebulous religious ideas don't impress me none.

Good job. The world needs more skeptics, as more skeptics generally equals less idiots. I'd consider my time wasted if no one questioned the ideas I had presented in my post.

Can you define or explain a 'perfect entity on a higher plane'. And where does Heisenberg's work predict a soul, being said 'perfect entity', as manipulating electron paths?

On a second reading, I can see that I clearly bungled my semantics here. I meant to say that the purely random probabilities of diverging electron paths are predicted by Heisenberg uncertainty (to be explained below), never that it predicted the existence of souls. It merely made the existence of souls a possibility rather than an impossibility.

The 'higher plane' I was referring to (sounds idiotically like DnD, I know) is simply the place outside the universe where God exists. By referring to this 'place', I was simply conjecturing that it would be most likely for 'souls' (if they exist) to be found there, either alongside or as an extention of God.

NB I have no knowledge whatsoever of these ideas, but believe that any scientific theory ought to be able to be explained to a layperson on some level (at least the purpose behind it), else it's most likely bunkum.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about the Heisenberg uncertainty principal.

However, the mathematics and simple description of it do not immediately suggest its ramifications. Here's the basic jist of what it predicts:

"Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form—but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method."

Have to go, so can't post any more tonight.

But, before I go, I apologize for not putting this info alongside the ideas of my previous post. I know that when someone cites 'scientific' data to back up an argument without providing backup links, I can't help but think of them as confuzzled pseudo-intellectuals.

 

[gluon]

Double-post, dag nabit...

Oh well, it's a step further out of the barely literate bracket. :D

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

(Time travel is impossible, but that's a slightly different discussion. Very slightly.)

Time travel has been observed in laboratories.

 

[Human Shield]

Of course it was his choice, but he already made it. From the perspective of two days from now, you have already chosen what to eat for breakfast tomorrow morning. God is outside of time, which is to say he sees it all at once. By nature of that, all decisions were already made.

So then my free will is constant and existed in knowledge for all of time. I don't see how that goes against free will.

As for God having a concept of "happened," he'd damn well better or the whole Omniscience thing just isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Why would he have the same concepts of past-present-future? They didn't exist until he made them.

Not me, God. God should be able to lift anything, because he is Omnipotent. He should also be able to create anything, because he is Omnipotent. what part of ALL POWERFUL do you not get?

All powerful does not mean you can be contradictory. Anyways that would also break his being 'perfect'.

If he is all powerful can he have no power if he wants? NO HE CAN'T! It is a contradiction. You need to realize what power can and can't do, omnipotent never means being able to do whatever you want, it means unlimited power to do things that power can do: all-powerful NOT all-possible.

God is not all-possible, he can't go imperfect.

I'm not all powerful, so why should I be able to?

God is, so he should be able to. Logic be damned, because he defines logic.

Not really. A square is defined a certain way, you can't make a round square because it stops being a square at that point, and changing words wouldn't change that.

 

[Twinfalls]

Here's what wikipedia has to say about the Heisenberg uncertainty principal.

I am familiar with Heisenberg's principle - year 12 physics. What I was saying was that I am not familiar with the various ideas around the place attempting to link key physics theories and properties to the existence of God. (For example the work of Paul Davies - who happened to receive a two million dollar religious prize for it though).

So it is this which needs explaining - ie not Heisenberg itself, but how Heisenberg provides evidence for the existence of God, since you appear to invoke it as such.

 

[Twinfalls]

About skepticism:

It is now, more than ever before in modern history, extremely important that secular democracies who value rationalism to strongly question the incursions into science by theocratic institutions.

I have witnessed in my country (not the US) the ridiculous notion that 'Intelligent Design' ought to be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. This is Evangelical Churches using sophisticated marketing techniques to attack scientific principles - which are based on the most open, democratic principles of theory and testing, and displace them with unchallengeable, undemocratic, dogma.

Intelligent design is nothing but Book of Genesis Creationism with a fancy label on it.

So whenever someone comes along and quotes a bit of scientific theory and then makes the leap to 'which proves the existence of God', I am going to ask for a bit more detail thank you very much.

 

[OverrideB1]

Not really. A square is defined a certain way, you can't make a round square because it stops being a square at that point, and changing words wouldn't change that.

Now you're getting hung up on definition and the difference between that and description. If concensus of opinion decided that a shape with 4 equal sides was an "oval", then that is what it would be called: i.e. that would be its description. The definition (an equalateral shape with four sides of equal length, arranged so that the sum of the angles of all four sides = 360 degress) is still the same, only the name has changed.

Concensus of opinion in Ancient Greece was that the sky was bronze. The fact that we now call it blue is the modern concensus. The same is true of any word - it has the meaning that is commonly accepted. If, a thousand years ago, some bright spark decided that what we call "a circle" was to be called, for argument's sake, "a rectangle" and enough people adopted that convention - then we'd have rectangular wheels on our cars.

There is a gulf of diffence between what the definition of a thing is, and what we call it.

 

[Revasser]

As for 'skepticism', two things:

Firstly, why did you labelled my response as that of a 'skeptic'? I merely asked for evidence and explanation.

Secondly, it is now, more than ever before in modern history, extremely important that secular democracies who value rationalism to strongly question the incursions into science by theocratic institutions.

I have witnessed in my country (not the US) the ridiculous notion that 'Intelligent Design' ought to be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. This is Evangelical Churches using sophisticated marketing techniques to attack scientific principles - which are based on the most open, democratic principles of theory and testing, and displace them with unchallengeable, undemocratic, dogma.

Intelligent design is nothing but Book of Genesis Creationism with a fancy label on it.

So whenever someone comes along and quotes a bit of scientific theory and then makes the leap to 'which proves the existence of God', I am going to ask for a bit more detail thank you very much.

Have you read the 'Wedge Document', Twinfalls? It's interesting and, at the same time, rather frightening considering the debate that the whole 'Intelligent Design' thing has sparked in the US and elsewhere. You can see the Wedge Document <a href="http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html">here</a>.

While I agree that religion should be kept out of science, I also think that the reverse is just as desirable. People should stop trying to force science into people's various religions. Science and religion are not the same thing, they do not serve the same function, and they should be kept separate. Trying to mix them belittles them both.

 

[Twinfalls]

<gulp!> Thanks for that link, Revasser!

The brazenness of these idealogues never ceases to amaze.

 

[yipsl]

What's interesting about the WOT is that it's cyclical, but to what degree is not apparent. When Ages come and go, do they repeat as Nietsche imagined cyclical repetition, or do they subtly change, without being teleological?

Yes, Baler, the one argument against the Dark One is that no one in their right mind would want to join his cause because of the Blight. What kind of world would even the na'blis or whatever the head "chosen" is called rule over? Yet, it appears that the Blight wasn't an issue in the Age of Legends but was created out of the War of the Shadow, and maybe didn't figure into the forsaken's decision making processes.

Then again, the only Forsaken I had even mild sympathy for was the schmuck who was promised "endless ages of music" and got trapped by Rand into being his trainer but was finally taken out by Lanfear in her new form. You'd think that someone on the bad side would repent because of the catechism statement that "no one can be so long in the shadow that they cannot turn back to the light."

The culture also doesn't question their own catechism much because the Dark One was imprisoned at the moment of creation, but then was "let out" in the Age of Legends by accident. The Dragon Reborn will obviously reimprision the Dark One in such a way that it's not just the Power wrought cuendilar seals that imprison him but a return full circle to being sealed at the moment of creation again in such a way that when the One Power is eventually lost and then is rediscovered, no one will have a clue that the Dark One's out there; probably because few will believe in the Creator at that point.

I wonder, for non-Jewish civilizations, is a belief in a cosmic evil necessary for a belief in a creator? Is cosmic evil necessary to explain the absense of recognizable cosmic good? The WOT cosmology seems to answer this dilemma with a mix of early Western cyclical belief and almost Zoroastrian style dualism.

In fantasy game terms, the WOT just opens up the possibility of a sort of monotheism/dualism influenced by real world examples instead of the usual mix of polytheism with competing deities found in AD&D influenced by classical pantheons like the Greek, Egyptian or Norse.

Regarding the free will bit, I don't think we have free will in the classic sense of truly being able to make choices as if we had no biological, cultural or psychological compulsions, but we have free will in the sense that Judaism describes free will: the ability to be more than we are or less than we are by nature. There are some interesting discussions on this beginning in 16th century mystical works discussing nonhuman life on other worlds and what texts in the Hebrew Bible, the aggadah and the Kabbalah refer to them. Nonhuman life on other worlds is not viewed as having free will, but as being what they were created to be from the beginning.

From a many worlds approach, we could even ask what or who created the creator of this universe? Max Tegmark's done interesting work on Type I to Type IV parallel universes and I'm also reminded of Bostrom's Simulation Argument, all of which could be interesting influences on games that would be neither classical pagan, Western monotheistic or Eastern mystical.

Click on the here link at Tegmark's homepage for parallel universe FAQs:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html

Nick Bostrom's page with papers pro and con the Simulation Argument.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

What I'd like to see is a fantasy role playing game set in a science fantasy universe, where sword and sorcery meet horses in the starship hold, something along the lines of Vance's "The Dying Earth" with some elements of Van Vogt's "The Empire of the Atom" and "Galactic Empires" edited by Aldiss.

Leaving aside New Age simplifications, what modern physics is telling us is that the cosmos might not be a universe but a multiverse and that at some levels, it's as magical a world as mythology always told us it was. The world could also be a simulation, which makes me think that we should be kind to the NPCS in the very primitive simulations our own culture creates for our own divine play.

 

[yipsl]

Intelligent design is nothing but Book of Genesis Creationism with a fancy label on it.

As far as Genesis goes, both the old earth creationists and the young earth creationists in the Christian camp debating the neo-Darwineans miss the fact that there are only two "special" creations in the story:

The initial creation of the world out of formlessness and void, not creatio ex nihilo by a long shot because there's more to nothing than nothing. That's why bohu and tohu are used in the Hebrew text. Saying formlessness and void is not simply a poetic repetition. The author, whether human or divine, had a purpose in that repetition.

I recommend one interesting Biblical studies book on the subject: "Creation and the Persistence of Evil" by Levenson, which discusses the containment of evil in the world as descriped in the earliest creation stories in the Hebrew Bible. Though Levenson does not discuss Kabbalah, that's the view found later in the "breaking of the vessels" myth influenced by neo-Platonism.

The other "special" creation is the soul of Adam. Everything else arose naturally over time once the world was created and it was remarked as early as 2,000 years ago that the six days of creation contained all the ages of the world until the moment Adam received his higher soul.

What it all means has been debated by Jewish philosophers influenced by Aristotle, by Kabbalists influenced by neo-Platonism and by the more grammatical minded exegetes since the fourth century.

A Christian friend of mine claims that evolution is a theory of choosing death because of natural selection, and he reminds me of the Biblical injunction to choose life, but I reminded him that the injunction exists in a world that seemingly is ruled by death, which can be explained by natural processess like natural selection better than by a universe micromanaged by G-d with every being specially created.

Has anyone read Eric Frank Russel's "Sentinels from Space"? I can't give away the story that makes the "aliens" inhabiting human bodies so interesting, and it's definitely a '50's era view of the future (for all you Fallout fans); though there are mutants, it's not set after an apocalypse, it's just how they popularly imagined our world in a few centuries. Anyways, it had one of my favorite endings and when the sentinels tell the military people investigating whether they are aliens and not simply mutants, they reply with enigmatic "we're as human as you are" and "you can kill, just don't torture, causing pain is not allowed."

 

[Kraszu]

Whot about Spaghetti Monster theory? You cant have creationism whithout it, be open minded: http://www.venganza.org/

 

[yipsl]

Whot about Spaghetti Monster theory? You cant have creationism whithout it, be open minded: http://www.venganza.org/

I recommend a more panentheistic view that's been mistakenly described as intelligent design but really isn't. The view is that the world was not created by G-d (creationism), that the world is not G-d (pantheism) but that the world is a subset of G-d (panentheism). That still leaves open the debate over whether science or religion explains things better, my view is that both explanations are incomplete, but science is more self correcting than most religion.

Have you heard of Quantum Evolution by McFadden? That, at least, can be tested:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/

It basically posits that DNA enters a quantum state where it selects the mutation most fitted to it's circumstance out of all possible mutations. Thus, it might seem to be natural selection on one level and have teleological elements on the other.

I also recommend "Vital Dust" and "Life Evolving" by Christian de Duve. His chapter in Vital Dust: "Two Frenchmen" is interesting where he discusses the worldviews of Monod contrasted with Teilhard de Chardin. Here's a discussion of de Duve's theories:

http://humanists.net/humankindadvancing ... icdust.htm

I also find Tipler and Barrow interesting, not just "The Anthropic Principle" but Tipler's much maligned "The Physics of Immortality" Whatever the outcome of human knowledge turns out to be, I expect it will be a merging of the curiosity behind science and the mythmaking behind religion.

For an interesting SF treatment of ideas similar to Teilhard de Chardin and Tipler, see Greg Bear's "Eon" and "Eternity".

Anyone else think that a good retro science fantasy basis for an RPG would work? Would it benefit from being updated with modern physics and philosophical concepts? Though I like fantasy RPGs with swords and sorcery, I think the world's missed out on the possibilities of science fantasy.

 

[Twinfalls]

Whot about Spaghetti Monster theory? You cant have creationism whithout it, be open minded: http://www.venganza.org/

Magnificent!!

 

[ichpokhudezh]

By nature of that, all decisions were already made.

So then my free will is constant and existed in knowledge for all of time. I don't see how that goes against free will.

just to throw in some stuff:

1. knowing the outcome does not nesessarily allow one to know all the intermediate states. Think of it as of a fractal of a sort: you've determined a start posintion, and then fixed the outcome. This created an undetermined number of undetermined states in-between. Any particular given one can be found, finding/knowing all of them at once is useless.

2. 'free will' can be an essential part of the design. As in substances (or, say human material) separation: it happens thanks to the chaotic movement of molecules (at absolute 0 there's no separation). BTW, the same chaotic movement can be used for mending something broken, but we don't want to explore this heretic possibility, do we?

As for God having a concept of "happened," he'd damn well better or the whole Omniscience thing just isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Why would he have the same concepts of past-present-future? They didn't exist until he made them.

3. let me build a model for you: say, we've got a god, much-more-dimensional than we are and much more capable as well, dwelling in an environment with freely traversable 'time'. So it (god) carves a slice of space-time and arranges so the time dimension flows in single direction in this slice. Then the creator would be existing throughout all 'times' at once and aware of every 'moment'.
A simplier model: train passengers traverse a pre-built path, their destination is known, as well all past and future coordinates. At the same time, said passengers have free roam space within their train's boundaries.

Not me, God. God should be able to lift anything, because he is Omnipotent. He should also be able to create anything, because he is Omnipotent. what part of ALL POWERFUL do you not get?

Please be aware that terms are loaded things and require one to consider their applicability/domain of definition. For example, having something 'all-powerful' automatically moves it outside of applicability of any 'power' measurement, and using this measure/comparison yields only nonsense. That's why the 'lifting' example doesn't fly. Here's an exaple of appying terms out of their applicability: 'a number that is greater than the greatest integer, would it be an integer still?'

 

[kingcomrade]

ichpokhudezh:

I love your sig. Andrew Sullivan is awesome like that.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

ichpokhudezh:

I love your sig. Andrew Sullivan is awesome like that.

Steve Sailer kicks Sullivan's ass.

 

[Sarvis]

Just replying to this one for now. Drunk now, need sleep... and got a driving class all day tomorrow. Dunno why the hell I signed up for that... something about insurance...

So then my free will is constant and existed in knowledge for all of time. I don't see how that goes against free will.

God Knows that on April 17, 2010 you will wear a red shirt and green pants to work. Can you decide to wear anything other than a red shirt and green pants?

If yes, God was wrong and did not know something.
If no, you did not have a choice in the matter even if "you chose" those clothes.

Why would he have the same concepts of past-present-future? They didn't exist until he made them.

He would know those concepts <i>because</i> he made them. However that is immaterial really. The point is that he KNOWS/KNEW what will happen on April 17, 2010. What he considers as his perspective is immaterial to the fact that what he knows MUST happen, <i>will</i> from our perspective, or he was wrong.

All powerful does not mean you can be contradictory. Anyways that would also break his being 'perfect'.

The concept of Omnipotence leading to contradiction is pretty much my point.

If he is all powerful can he have no power if he wants? NO HE CAN'T! It is a contradiction.

Then there is a limit on his power? You have a funny definition of ALL POWERFUL.

You need to realize what power can and can't do, omnipotent never means being able to do whatever you want, it means unlimited power to do things that power can do: all-powerful NOT all-possible.

Enough power to create the universe itself, but not to create something heavier than he can lift?

Not really. A square is defined a certain way, you can't make a round square because it stops being a square at that point, and changing words wouldn't change that.

You couldn't. I couldn't. The being who defined the universe should be able to, even if he has to create an entirely new universe to do it within.

 

[Twinfalls]

THE EVIL OF ABORTION: ...if we ever find a gay gene, you can be sure much of the next generation of homosexuals will be aborted...
Andrew Sullivan, "a conservative gay blogger" (c) Slate.com

Right, so it's abortion that is therefore 'evil', and not:

1. The abuse of genetics to isolate the gene
2. The abuse of obstetrics to identify the baby's gene
3. The parental decision to abort
4. The cultural climate that might encourage people to do so if their child is gay. (isn't it quite a large assumption that most gay kids would be aborted?)

What a fucking stupid sig.

Like abortion hasn't always taken place in the absence of medical assistance to make it at least safe.

Fucking zealous 'conservative' fuckwits.

 

[ichpokhudezh]

ichpokhudezh:
I love your sig. Andrew Sullivan is awesome like that.

He is some kind of blog celebrity, isn't he? Anyhow, it is scary indeed, however characteristic and ironic and humorous I might find it.