On 01/02/2012 09:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "maarten van damme"<maartenvd1994@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:mailman.1985.1325157846.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> I think it would be an object oriented language, I'm a believer in the
>> string theory :)
>
> I heard on the Science Channel that M-theory was becoming favored over
> string therory. (Not that I would actually know.)
>
>> I have actually thought of the whole universe as one big simulation, would
>> really explain how light waves without medium (like a math function).
>>
>
> I came across a book one time that talked about the 'verse basically being
> one big quantum computer. I didn't actually red through it though, and I
> can't remember what it was called... :(
>
>> If I were god I would def use object oriented because it makes for easy
>> describing of different particles and strings. and I'm pretty sure there
>> is
>> no garbage collector included in gods language :p
>>
>
> If I were god, then I'd presumably be omnipotent, and if I were omnipotent,
> then I'd be able to do it all in something like FuckFuck, or that
> shakesperian language, or that lolcat language without any difficulty. And I
> could just fix any limitations in the implementation. So that would seem the
> best option :)
>
>

God cannot be omnipotent. If he was, he could invent a task he cannot solve.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:

> On 01/02/2012 09:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "maarten van damme"<maartenvd1994@gmail.com**>  wrote in message news:mailman.1985.1325157846.**24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.**com...
>>
>>> I think it would be an object oriented language, I'm a believer in the string theory :)
>>>
>>
>> I heard on the Science Channel that M-theory was becoming favored over string therory. (Not that I would actually know.)
>>
>>  I have actually thought of the whole universe as one big simulation,
>>> would
>>> really explain how light waves without medium (like a math function).
>>>
>>>
>> I came across a book one time that talked about the 'verse basically being one big quantum computer. I didn't actually red through it though, and I can't remember what it was called... :(
>>
>>  If I were god I would def use object oriented because it makes for easy
>>> describing of different particles and strings. and I'm pretty sure there
>>> is
>>> no garbage collector included in gods language :p
>>>
>>>
>> If I were god, then I'd presumably be omnipotent, and if I were
>> omnipotent,
>> then I'd be able to do it all in something like FuckFuck, or that
>> shakesperian language, or that lolcat language without any difficulty.
>> And I
>> could just fix any limitations in the implementation. So that would seem
>> the
>> best option :)
>>
>>
>>
> God cannot be omnipotent. If he was, he could invent a task he cannot solve.
>

He has; the human race.

On Monday, January 02, 2012 23:19:19 Timon Gehr wrote:
> What if the code contains both " and `? Using `` strings for code that contains quotes is not a general solution.

True. But it's a solution that works most of the time.

- Jonathan M Davis

>
>  and I'm pretty sure there is  no garbage collector included in gods
> language :p
>

Are you sure? There is good evidence he strongly prefers gc's. Consider almost all insects; consider dung beetles specifically. Consider super novas, gravity and accretion disks. Consider Disney and the Circle of Life. It's pretty clear he views automated recycling as a general architectural approach.

A large benefit of a gc is it disassociates responsibility for cleanup from the creator of the object. Now imagine the opposite: after you died, you were responsible for disassembling yourself for use by others to create themselves (think "Soylent Green, The Next Generation"). And if you didn't do it, or you didn't do it properly, the world would eventually overcrowd and explode, leaving a core dump in space. Nice.

Of course, he'd give himself a switch to turn off the gc when he really needed to.

John

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:29:17 +0100
Timon Gehr <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:

> God cannot be omnipotent. If he was, he could invent a task he cannot solve.

Wrong. He is not static, but dynamic, so He can invent a task he cannot solve, but in the next moment he can solve it. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour


-- 
When your intelligence has passed out of the dense forest of delusion, you shall become indifferent to all that has been heard and all that is to be heard.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810

On 01/03/2012 08:26 AM, Gour wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:29:17 +0100
> Timon Gehr<timon.gehr@gmx.ch>  wrote:
>
>> God cannot be omnipotent. If he was, he could invent a task he cannot
>> solve.
>
> Wrong. He is not static, but dynamic, so He can invent a task he cannot
> solve, but in the next moment he can solve it. ;)
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Gour
>
>

I meant he can invent a task he will never be able to solve. ;)

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:31:33 +0100
Timon Gehr <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:

> I meant he can invent a task he will never be able to solve. ;)

Nah...those are just side-effects, iow. noise. :-D


Sincerely,
Gour


-- 
But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810

"Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote in message news:jduasl$ndh$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 01/03/2012 08:26 AM, Gour wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:29:17 +0100
>> Timon Gehr<timon.gehr@gmx.ch>  wrote:
>>
>>> God cannot be omnipotent. If he was, he could invent a task he cannot solve.
>>
>> Wrong. He is not static, but dynamic, so He can invent a task he cannot solve, but in the next moment he can solve it. ;)
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Gour
>>
>>
>
> I meant he can invent a task he will never be able to solve. ;)

I've never felt that argument to be particularly compelling: I see it as merely indicating that an omnipotent being is able to give up their own omnipotence. Which, being omnipotent, they'd of course have to be capable of doing.

Of course, you could then try "Could he create a task he couldn't solve without giving up his own omnipotence?" But I think amounts to a logical contradiction akin to any other such as "Could an omnipotent being make a rock that isn't a rock?" And that's a whole other philosophical matter (ie, Do logical contradictions count as something an omnipotent being must be able to do?).

2012/1/3 J Arrizza <cppgent0@gmail.com>

> Are you sure? There is good evidence he strongly prefers gc's. Consider
>> almost all insects; consider dung beetles specifically. Consider super novas, gravity and accretion disks. Consider Disney and the Circle of Life. It's pretty clear he views automated recycling as a general architectural approach.
>
>
> A large benefit of a gc is it disassociates responsibility for cleanup from the creator of the object. Now imagine the opposite: after you died, you were responsible for disassembling yourself for use by others to create themselves (think "Soylent Green, The Next Generation"). And if you didn't do it, or you didn't do it properly, the world would eventually overcrowd and explode, leaving a core dump in space. Nice.
>


> Of course, he'd give himself a switch to turn off the gc when he really needed to.
>
there is no destruction/creation going on, energy is constant at all times
in a closed system. That's how I thought about it :)
If it's constant anyway he wouldn't have to bother with a gc, would he?

>I meant he can invent a task he will never be able to solve. ;)
this seems rather strange doesn't it?
If something is able to do everything, he should be able to invent
something he is not able to do. if he invented something he is not able to
do, he can't do everything.
One could therefore assume it is not possible to be able to do everything :D

>Well, if you want to discuss string theory...
>
>http://xkcd.com/171/
>http://xkcd.com/397/
>
>:)
great one, I really like the first one. It's really the essence of string theory in a way :)

On 1/3/2012 12:48 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Could an omnipotent being make a
> rock that isn't a rock?"

I don't know, but I'm sure he could make a product that is both a floor wax and a dessert topping.