Re: virus: Fundamentals

Todd M Kuipers (
Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:34:46 -0700

At 03:36 AM 3/29/96 +0100, Marek Jedlinski wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Todd M Kuipers wrote:
>> - would imply that there is a logic or order at work even if you (the
>> created) cannot discern what that plan is. The plan could be active or
>> passive participation in its creations' exisitence.

>Not necessarily...? Right now I cannot think of a religion that would
>cite logic as a necessary "quality" of its Deity - and Christianity
>seems no exception. <snip>

>we might want to create a multitude
>of such cpu-run universes, and act differently on each; use pure
>logic on one, while drown another in absurd.
Is your use of the absurd a logical use? Not that you are necessarily sane,
but that screwing around with the simulacrums you probably can come up with
logical reasons why you would do such a thing. You're a a) sadist, b) a
experimenter looking at multiple possibilities, c) you're not smart enough
to use your new x-mas present etc. A sadist may not be logical to your eyes
but, the existence of such fits what we know about psychology and thought
process. To the simulated societies the world may seem just as warped and
evil regardeless of how you go about treating them.

>That is to say, I don't feel God is under any obligation to
>be - in our sense of the word - logical, or orderly.

Exactly. A god would only have to be logical to a god I'd even venture to
say that most religions also have a "it's entirely possible we have a
non-understanding the logic of God" clause you have to sign when you join up.

-- Projects-
 --- Todd Kuipers ------- New Media Propagandist --- 
 --- Oil & Gas Software --- ---
 -- A hip web page --
                The E-mail-zines list:     
 if you stop gun running only gunners will have runs