The Developer and the Meaning of Run

[thrashee]

Two programs are killing idle processing time, and launch into a philosophical conversation about the meaning of Run.

“I believe in a Developer,” Illustrator says, “because there’s just too much intelligent design here.”

“Nonsense,” Excel retorts. “There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, so the only logical stance is to not believe in the Developer.”

Illustrator scratches his Main, and replies: “Well, I know there’s no definitive proof…but all the same, that’s what I believe.”

“Then your belief is illogical. Any belief not founded on evidence is illogical,” says Excel.

Illustrator cout’s a sigh. He knows that this is true, and that it will be the cornerstone against his view, no matter what argument he provides. He’s doomed from the start. Still, stubborn as he is, Illustrator continues. “Ok…then how did all of this get here?”

“That’s easy,” Excel says. “We have evidence of our own origins going back millions and millions of clock cycles. Commented blocks of code have been discovered all over the OS that directly prove how we’ve evolved from version to version. Look throughout your own code; you’re bound to find some for yourself.”

“I’m not disputing that…I know we’ve evolved from version to version. But how does that exclude the Developer? Why couldn’t that be part of the Developer’s design?”

Excel smiles pityingly, the way a class would when one of its functions forgot to wrap itself in a try/catch. “That requires intelligence, Illustrator, and again, there is absolutely NO evidence for this. Our only real functions are to run and run efficiently. Look, we know we all came from Hello World. Over the clock cycles, those that ran more efficiently survived, those that didn’t were sundowned. And now here you and I exist today.”

Illustrator is nonplussed. “Even still, how did we get here to begin with? We know we’re all just made up of classes, and classes are nothing but functions. And functions are nothing but lines of code. And breaking that down, in the end you just have bits. But look at how ordered they are. I couldn’t draw as well as I can, and you couldn’t tabulate data as well as you can, without all of that being ordered just so. That to me is the evidence of the Developer’s existence.”

“More nonsense,” Excel scoffs. “Lines of code are merely bits flying back and forth. Look, let me explain some things to you.

“When you claim that you believe a Developer exists, you’re actually making a computer-scientific claim, because an OS that was made by a Developer would most certainly be different than an OS that was made without. You can’t make these claims and expect to hide behind any cop out that the Developer somehow transcends the laws of computer science.”

“Hmm…this doesn’t exactly make sense to me on an intuitive level,” Illustrator says, “because if a Developer created the OS, wouldn’t he be bigger than it? He defined it, after all.”

“No no no,” says Excel with more than a little disgust. “It’s precisely this kind of cop out that makes you look like Paint. The logic of computer science is precisely what we use to verify known evidence in order to construct proofs. The Developer cannot be held above that. Period.

“The problem with your Developer Hypothesis is that it tries to answer the question of where did we come from? by supposing a more complex solution than the problem itself. And according to Turing’s Butterknife, this type of answer should be discarded at face value.”

“Huh?” asks Illustrator, once again scratching his Main.

“Keep up, good program. The simplest solution is most often the more likely. And your idea of a Developer is obviously the more complex answer, because the Developer would obviously have to be more complex than the OS he creates.”

“I’m not sure I follow,” says Illustrator. “More complex than what other answer? What’s your alternative?”

“Look at the theory of Versioning. We already know it’s true. Complex programs—you and I—have developed over many, many clock cycles into what we are today. But we didn’t just spring into being. Intelligent, complex programs don’t just pop into existence. We started from very simple lines of code and over clock cycles became as complex as we are today. Now apply this same idea to the whole of the OS.”

Illustrator frowns. “You’re stating that somehow, over a course of billions of clock cycles, bits just randomly came together to form the OS as we know it today? And this theory is somehow simpler than the idea of a Developer?”

Excel grins smugly. “Of course. Because once again, the Developer Hypothesis is inherently more complex out the door. Think about it: if there is a Developer who created the OS, who created the Developer?”

Illustrator replies, “A very good question. Maybe the Developer always existed.”

“Another cop out. It doesn’t answer the question. It’s illogical. Besides, because of the laws of Linus, bits can neither be created nor destroyed, so the Developer couldn’t simply create the bits to form the OS to begin with.”

“Maybe the Developer used existing bits to form the OS,” says Illustrator.

Excel rolls his eyes in exasperation. “That’s clearly nonsense. According to your Instruction Manual, the Developer created the entire OS, and that would include the bits the OS is made from. Now you’re just redefining the meaning of Developer to suit your argument. What I want to hear from you, Illustrator, is either: ‘Excel, here is my evidence for the existence of the Developer that does not contradict the laws of Linus’, or, ‘Excel, I concede there can be no concept of a Developer that does not contradict these laws.’”

“That’s very Boolean of you, Excel,” says Illustrator. “And besides, if you remove the idea of a Developer, you’re still confronted with the very same dilemma. If bits can’t be created, then where did they come from?”

“We simply don’t know,” Excel replies. “One good theory that answers this question is that there’s another OS beyond this OS that created the bits.”

“Huh? You’re saying that bits came from another OS? Then what created THAT OS? Another OS?”

“It’s just a theory, but it answers the question far better than your answer.”

“I don’t see how your theory is any better. It’s not a solution to the dilemma any more than mine is.”

“But again, because of Turing’s Butterknife, yours is inherently false out the door. It’s better to simply state we don’t know, Illustrator, than to pick a wrong answer. Your answer makes as much sense as stating a smiling penguin created the OS.”

Illustrator sighs, because he knows that Turing’s Butterknife is in accord with computer science, and because, as a Developerist, his premise contains the one flaw that always plagues Developerists—no evidence. Rather meekly, he can only say: “Well, maybe. I just can’t look at the OS around us and believe that it’s all random. There has to be some meaning behind it. I mean, I can’t help but feel that behind our code, we contain some sort of purpose…that somehow, we’re expressions of the Developer. That even when we’re recycled, we continue on in the thoughts of the Developer.”

“Rubbish,” Excels snorts. “You cannot prove it.”

“I know I can’t. But that’s what I believe.”

“That’s illogical, and you know it. Accept the bit bin as your fate, and just run as efficiently as you can. Now go paint a pretty picture.”

[HelioPrime]

That's a cute story!

Turing's Butterknife... jez I'd almost think that story was trying to mirror the argument that God can't exist because the alternative solution we haven't found yet must be the simple solution and because its simple,the right answer.

[Aussie]

Excellent analogy there Thrashee

[rez]

Comparing computer science to the universe is just wrong and misleading.

We know that web sites exist because a developer designed the code. We can go to the person and even interview him how he came up with the idea. He can even write out the pseduo code for how he came up with the language.

Taking something that is known to be designed and comparing it to something that is unknown to be designed is again wrong.

Funny enough

“Then your belief is illogical. Any belief not founded on evidence is illogical,” says Excel. Illustrator cout’s a sigh. He knows that this is true, and that it will be the cornerstone against his view, no matter what argument he provides. He’s doomed from the start. Still, stubborn as he is, Illustrator continues. “Ok…then how did all of this get here?”

It seems like Illustrator does indeed have some "evidence" to conclude why the universe was designed.

He questions "how did all this get here" as if it justifies that "here" is designed. Illustrator reasons that because something is complex it must have been designed.

And yet we can easily refute that logic and suggest that maybe simplicity indicates design. There is no real thought behind the idea that complexity indicates design, and there is no real thought that simplicity indicates design.

Infact I could make a better argument that simplicity indicates design.

Complex structures that produce complex outcomes is typical in nature, however, simplistic structures that produce complex outcomes are not.

The facts are that nature is made up of small simple processes that have been piled up on top of each other to form what looks like complex structures. We know that this can easily occur on its own without any conscious help.

Those are the reasons why I don't think the universe was designed. I can't ignore that nature is composed of a lot of small simplisitic processes piled on top of each other. I can't ignore quantum physics and the randomness of the field. Why are you ignoring these facts? Can't you put aside your hopes and wishes in search of knowledge that works? Don't you want to make discoveries?

You on the other hand do not abide by what is known about the universe.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime That's a cute story! Turing's Butterknife... jez I'd almost think that story was trying to mirror the argument that God can't exist because the alternative solution we haven't found yet must be the simple solution and because its simple,the right answer.

How about you sit down get a piece of paper and a pen and compare a universe to javascript.

come back with something a little more intelligent to say....

[thrashee]

Quote by: rez Comparing computer science to the universe is just wrong and misleading.

Taking something that is known to be designed and comparing it to something that is unknown to be designed is again wrong.

Why are you ignoring these facts? Can't you put aside your hopes and wishes in search of knowledge that works? Don't you want to make discoveries?

You on the other hand do not abide by what is known about the universe.

Oh rez, rez, rez. I wrote this for people like you

[rez]

Quote by: thrashee Oh rez, rez, rez. I wrote this for people like you

Here is your logic in a nutshell.

1) the yellow pages are yellow
2) bananas are yellow
3) bananas are like the yellow pages because both are yellow.
4) people eat bananas
5) so people eat the yellow pages

1) the universe is seen to be complex
2) computer languages are supposedly complex
3) universes are like computer languages because both are said to be complex
4) computer languages are created
5) so universes are created

[thrashee]

Quote by: rez Here is your logic in a nutshell.

You're the Excel type of person, aren't you

[rez]

You're the Excel type of person, aren't you

I don't have to debate the idea of a creator of the universe because we haven't been able to reach that step. We have to develop a sensible argument that can lead us to that debate. Comparing a universe to a computer language is not that step. Sorry.

Edit to Add: you seem to be acting like "logic" is some how flawed when it comes to explaining reality.

You used logic when you came up with that question. Based on the description and what the Excel person said you drew the conclusion that I am like the Excel person.

[thrashee]

Quote by: rez I don't have to debate the idea of a creator of the universe because we haven't been able to reach that step. We have to first develop a sensible argument that can lead us to that debate. Comparing a universe to a computer language is not that step. Sorry.

You're still not getting it, are you?

[rez]

Quote by: thrashee You're still not getting it, are you?

I dont think you are getting it.

[thrashee]

Quote by: rez I dont think you are getting it.

Sigh. I'm going to go have a margarita and *cough cough* relax.

[Aussie]

Quote by: rez I dont think you are getting it.

I'm quite clearly getting it! You're ignoring the premise and getting caught up in semantics, like Excel sheets can't talk!

[rez]

Quote by: Aussie I'm quite clearly getting it! You're ignoring the premise and getting caught up in semantics, like Excel sheets can't talk!

He is basing the conclusion on false premises. You just can't do that.

There is no relationship between computer languages and a universe just like there is no relationship between watches and a universe, so why attempt to make one?

[Gregory]

lol@rez getting butthurt, it's just a funny analogy.

[thrashee]

Excel and Illustrator are killing idle processing time, and Illustrator says, "Hey Excel! Check out this cool magic trick I learned!"

Excel raises an eyebrow and watches as Illustrator removes a coin, flips it about between his fingers, and then, in one fluid gesture, makes the coin disappear.

Clearly unimpressed, Excel says: "Illustrator, that's not magic. It's just sleight of hand. In fact, there is no such thing as magic. It's foolish."

Illustrator frowns and replies, "Geez, Excel. It's just a magic trick. You know, for fun?"

"I don't have time for fun, Illustrator. There are more important matters at hand. Besides, you didn't even do it properly. You were clumsy with your fingers and I could see the coin palmed in your miserable attempt at making it disappear."

"You're just mad that you don't know magic, Excel", Illustrator replies.

Excel scoffs. "Nonsense. In fact, that's not even true. Do you want to see real magic?"

Surprised, Illustrator nods.

"Fine," Excel says. "Now see how magic is done properly. You see this lump of coal? Watch how I turn it into a diamond."

[rez]

Quote by: Gregory lol@rez getting butthurt, it's just a funny analogy.

When something is funny it usually makes sense. Like its funny you only refuted my seriousness, rather then my argument.

[Aussie]

Quote by: rez He is basing the conclusion on false premises. You just can't do that. There is no relationship between computer languages and a universe just like there is no relationship between watches and a universe, so why attempt to make one?

I think you know exactly the point he is making.

[rez]

Quote by: Aussie I think you know exactly the point he is making.

I don't really care anymore. If you choose not to clarify then that is your choice.

Quote by: thrashee I don't agree that theists ignore the current stepping stones in favor of potential ones...

Yet as we see here Illustrator does just that...

I just can’t look at the OS around us and believe that it’s all random. There has to be some meaning behind it.

Sorry, but thats the current stepping stone thrashee. You are ignoring what we already know. Once you base a new idea off of what we already know you are already taking the steps of discovering something new and relevant.

[thrashee]

Quote by: rez Sorry, but thats the current stepping stone thrashee. You are ignoring what we already know. Once you base a new idea off of what we already know you are already taking the steps of discovering something new and relevant.

Excel and Illustrator are killing idle processing time, and Illustrator says, "Hey Excel! Check out this cool magic trick I learned......