[hijack]Scott, as someone who knows where you’re coming from in more ways than one, may I offer some friendly advice?
Dial it back a notch.[/hijack]
Daniel
3 sounds too explotable. After all, you exist. That should not be a positive or negative thing, just a fact of life. Rewarding Sims for accepting that fact seems odd.
I like #2 however. Imagine:
“Yes, it would seem like the fact you can destroy your own code would seem to be proff that I did not create you, but look! You can no longer do that!”
I would love to do that, all dramatic, and pompous.
Will do. I don’t understand why, but without any way to PM you; I am accepting this advice without question. That is, if you are talking about the username thing. If you mean my arguments, then I don’t understand.
Yeah, the second one would be fun–and why be God (err…programmer) if you can’t have a little fun, eh? 
As for the exploitability of #3, I wasn’t really considering whether these ideas were unbalancing, immoral, or whatever; I was really only considering whether they would be convincing to the Sims. Any act that has immediate material results for a specific statement of belief would be a pretty strong argument that something was going on to make that belief unique, and, more directly, that some intelligence had decided to single out that belief.
If, for example, my skin turned lavender for thirty seconds every time I said, “Humans were put on earth by aliens,” I’d give very strong consideration to the argument that humans were put on earth by aliens.
That said, I don’t think the reward would necessarily be exploitable, assuming that five simoleans isn’t much: as long as everyone has equal access to this resource, and as long as the required statement doesn’t express fealty or any other value system, there’s not much problem. But if you prefer, have the verification come in some non-reward manner: make their skin turn lavender for thirty seconds, for example.
(And yes, the dialing-it-back comment was directed toward the name issue).
Daniel
What if instead of your skin turning blue, you felt a relaxing, pleasant sensation — a sort of internal peace? Would that suffice? Or must it be something that might embarass you or cause you awkwardness if you were, say, in a meeting with clients?
Scott_plaid, you have just been informed by another poster (in terms that even you can understand) that he prefers to not be addressed with a particular nickname, even offering the name by which he would prefer you address him. You immediately responded with a dismissive repeat of the nickname.
This is evidence of “Being a jerk.”
Regarding the very good suggestion that you “dial it back”: you have been having a lot of fun, here, posting, mostly sophomoric rejections of religion that our serious atheist posters outgrew before they started college, but your persona is wearing thin. Realize that most of the posters, here, (both atheists and theists) have already mulled over the “brilliant” insights that you appear to have discovered, recently, and they have moved on to more cogent arguments.
You have demonstrated some modicum of intelligence (if handicapped by a lack of consideration), but if you wish your ideas to be treated with any respect, you need to demonstrate that you can respect the thoughts of others (and, probably, demonstrate that you actually understand those that you reject).
Do not deliberately insult other posters–warning.
Do pay attention to what other posters are actually saying–advice.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
No, the turning blue thing is fine. After all, Johnny’s existance is real, so accnowledging the fact that he exists, by way of turning blue is nothing to be embarassed about. Besides, a visual confirmation is better then having to look at data charts of who believe what, and matching that up with a Sim.
If I discuss this with you, do you promise not to call me a rapist or otherwise go postal on me? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, give you a chance to start with that clean slate, but I really have no patience for anything not directly in the discussion at hand, and will not respond to any post with any vitriol or twisting of my words in it.
That said.
A feeling of internal peace would not suffice, since that’s not a material result. The method I described wouldn’t embarrass me or cause awkwardness in a meeting with a client, since it depends on making a verbal declaration: “I realize I am in a computer program.” If due to strange circumstances this skin-change would be embarrassing in a meeting (more on that in a moment), I simply don’t have to make the declaration in the meeting.
That said, the lavender-skin suggestion would be a feature of the world, just as our current world has the occasional sneeze as a feature in it. In such a world, everyone would know that a certain declaration would result in the skintone change; there’d be no reason why this skintone change would be embarrassing in such a world.
All that said, there could be other changes that would suffice, too. If I gained the temporary power to levitate dice immediately after making the declaration, that would be pretty convincing.
Any specific, replicable material change in the world that followed a specific declaration of belief, especially when that material change cannot be achieved by other means, would cause me (and nearly everyone else) to give great consideration to that belief. Were I the programmer of the Sims, I would place such a chunk of coding into their world, as one tool to help them understand the nature of their reality.
Daniel
tomndebb, don’t worry, I will not mangle others nicknames from now on. However, on other threads, I have posted my first post with the disclaimer that I realize that these are volital issues, and durring posts I have said that I would not be surprised if the topic died down, however that hasn’t happend intill a long time afterwards. I am surprised that if these issue have been discused many times, why do’t people just get sick and leave me in the dust. I believe the reason is that minor faults in bible translation tend to stick with people in real life, and while there might be more “cogent arguments”, the simple ones of holes in logic are just as applicable towards religions being false.
P.S. The search bar is right on the lower right hand tool bar. I see that, but being as how I am not a member, I can not access it. I should become a member and use it, but for those who do not become members immediately, it would be a good thing for the search bar to be use-able, or for there to be a sticky contain frequently used arguements, with the disclaimer, “I know you will find people in the real world who have not heard these, but here we are tired of them.” for I know that now.
Maybe the best tool to help them understand the nature of their reality is to aid them in developing computers (by, e.g., creating/sending someone like Alan Turing in their world) which would enable them, after many years, to develop simulations with sentient beings.
You can then announce with a big voice from the sky “as those sentient beings in your simulation are mere bits in your world, so you are mere bits in my world”
Or, don’t announce anything and just let them figure it out by themselves.
Sure, that would be one tool. But I’m the programmer: why would I want to provide them with only one tool? Redundant processes are the name of the game, assuming I want them to understand the nature of their existence.
Sure, I could be a bastard about it, and not give them the information that would be trivial for me to give to them. My suggestions are stipulating that I, the programmer, am decent and honest, and that I want them to understand the nature of their world.
If I as the programmer do not want them to know, I could use similar tricks to mystify them as to their reality. I could hard-program an inability to understand their reality into them. I could do everything possible to make it appear as if the program arose through nonprogrammatical means, seeding their “world” with consistent hints that all point to an alternative explanation. I could refuse ever to communicate with them in an unambiguous manner (i.e., a manner that could be explained through alternateive means).
Sims in a world with a tricksy programmer are unlikely to figure out much about their reality except that which the programmer intends them to figure out.
Daniel
Doesn’t that line of reasoning follow if and only if your goal is to see how much trivial information you can give them? If that is the purpose for which you are writing your programs then, yes, if you withhold trivial information, you are at least aborting your own goals. But suppose your goal were something else altogether. Suppose your goal were to give your Sims a context (their world) in which they may make their own moral decisions without your strong arm interference. As the atheists say, no information is needed from God in order to formulate a right morality, so there is no information the Sims need from you at all. Isn’t that the case?
Well I freely admit that I am not a computer programmer but how are you going to keep track of what particles you need to manifest and when you need to manifest them? By just manifesting them when needed aren’t you just increasing the processing demands to save on storage demands? Eitherway it was just a interesting tidbit I thought I would throw out there.
Heck given enough gasoline I can make any bush burn too. However I was clearly referring to the ‘miracle’ mentioned in the bible of the burning bush. I have seen your “proof” for the existence of god and I would have to say I am not impressed. A bit of slieght of hand with logic is not in the same league as witnessing a miracle or an appearence by the big fella himself.
Alternatively, if my skin were to change color every time I made a particular statement, I might “figure out” that some powerful entity was demonstrating the falsehood of the statement, so I am not sure that that action produces the desired result. (Alternatively, I might conclude that there was some sort of harmonic force that coincidentally caused the color change, and spend the remainder of my life attempting to discover the phrases that could cause me to turn chartreuse or crimson.)
Your use of the word “tricksy” made me think of LOTR. Imagine what terrible thing might happen without redundancy. You might have only one way of communcating with the Sims, say, a ring. The use of the ring might get put under tight control, and…and my attempt to make Golum say something about “tricksy programmers, we hates them. they try to take our ring, they do” falls apart when I realize you could change anything at any tme, to make up for such a problem. Darn.
To make sure I understand you: are you saying that informing them as to the nature of their world constitutes “trivial information”? If not, what “trivial information” do you think that I’m giving them? This is an honest question; I believe one of us is misunderstanding the other.
That goal is in no way contradicted by my giving the Sims convincing evidence of the nature of their world. In fact, if my goal were to give them a context in which they may make their own moral decisions, I would include that information.
I might place rodents scattered throughout the world that say, in whatever language the Sims have developed,
The rodents would say nothing else; as the Sims’ languages evolved, I’d change their message to match.
Do you agree that such a technique (obviously, as The Programmer, it’d get refined), would:
- tell the Sims something non-trivial about their existence; and
- reassure them that they are free to do with their existence what they please?
Daniel
Actually, this is something we haven’t addressed here. Maybe you don’t want them to understand the nature of their existance.
If the entire Sim world figures out, or is convinced, that they are just a bunch of bits that will disappear when it’s bed time for Johnny, maybe they would all get depressed and sit around doing nothing.
And I assume no programmer wants that.
Left Hand of Dorkness, do you prefer to be called that or Daniel?
About what liberal said, I think that he is making a leap of logic, in order for you to follow the same model that he thinks “god” does. Just F.Y.I.
That’s true–that’s exactly why I said I would give “great consideration” to the truth of that statement.
The harmonic convergance explanation would happen, of course–that’s why I, as the Programmer, would build redundancy into the system. To continue with this example, assuming the Sims develop multiple languages, I would try to stay on top of things such that each language had a similar phrase with similar meaning that effected the skin change. If the Sims sharea common language, I would come up with multiple phrasings of the same idea that would have different effects.
Say, "We live in a computer simulation, " and your skin turns blue for thirty seconds. Say, “I understand that my reality was Programmed,” and a little bird appears above your head and sings sweetly for ten seconds before disappearing. Say, “This dude named Daniel created our world out of a bunch of ones and zeroes,” and your weight drops to zero for five minutes.
Eventually, Occam’s Razor kicks in.
Daniel
Oh, the history.
I prefer LHoD, Lefty, Left Hand of Dorkness, whatever. I’ve asked Lib not to call me Daniel any more, for personal, quirky reasons, and he’s been kind enough in this case to oblige my quirk.
Daniel