Chance v. Design Part 2 (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, August 20, 2012, 04:46 (4477 days ago) @ xeno6696

Ack.
> 
> No, I somehow pointed you down the wrong rabbit hole.
> 
> You'll never get Modern Warfare 4 to run on an NES. It doesn't matter how clever or tricky you think you are, as a designer you are a slave to your hardware. 
> 
> Even with recent tools, you WILL find things that you simply cannot do. Your vision will always need to be curtailed to what the hardware allows. Comparing yourself to God in this way is utterly fallacious.
> 
> Dhw just replied that he doesn't like the word "supernatural." Maybe you should both consider the definition I raised in this thread. Dhw, might I offer a mathematician's guidance? Let's just define the terms.
> 
> Supernatural-- adj. A phenomenon that is unexplainable according to known laws and observation.
> 
> Natural-- adj. A phenomenon that can be explained according to known known laws and observation.--Ok, we are slightly missing each other here. I don't disagree really, I am simply saying their is an underlying misconception. -Modernwarfare will never run on the NES, but saying that a God or UI is bound by the same rules that we are is akin to saying that the mind of the designer is bound by the same limitations as the platform which he must design his program to run in. IN other words, what you are saying is akin to saying that YOU are only capable of writing a program in C++ for a 32-Bit Celeron with 256mb of Ram simply because that is the platform that you have chosen to design your program for, despite the fact that your development machine was a I7 with 96GB of RAM and YOUR brain processes at far greater speeds. That is saying that you are incapable of writing in Java, Basic, Fortran, or Assembler just because you chose to write your design in C++. -Neither system is without its governing rules, but the rules governing the limitations of the designer are not inherently the same rule governing the design. One of the constant issues we run into in design is that our minds are capable of coming up with concepts that work in our head and on paper that are beyond the capabilities of the current level of technology. I am saying that the grand designer may be in the same situation. His reality, his limitations, are not necessarily the limitations of our reality.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.