Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday August 14 2015, @01:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the Deus-ex-Machina dept.

I had an interesting idea the other day that chapter one of Genesis didn't make much sense physically, but could as computer code. I wrote an R script that does accomplish this to some extent. The end result I got was impressive visually, but my code was not that faithful to the instructions. Here is how I interpreted the first two verses:


###In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
#install.packages("sphereplot")
require(sphereplot)

##Create Heavens
rgl.sphgrid(radius = 5, col.long="", col.lat="",
                        deggap = 15, longtype = "D", add = T, radaxis=F)

http://postimg.org/image/3wvx1cvpd/


##Create Earth
rgl.sphgrid(radius = 1, col.long='', col.lat='',
                        deggap = 15, longtype = "D",add = T, radaxis=F)

http://postimg.org/image/he6w4kx19/

[ED NOTE: These links go to the images output by his code, which is neat, but the image host has some ads that, while not pornographic, may not be safe for work in all settings. Use your judgement. -LaminatorX]


##Now the earth was formless and empty,


##darkness was over the surface of the deep,
bg3d(color=c("darkslategray3","Black"),
          fogtype="exp2", sphere=TRUE, back="fill")

http://postimg.org/image/j3wikf68f/


##and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
view3d(phi=90, theta=180, zoom=.55)

http://postimg.org/image/9aazwxjkd/

Does Soylent have any other ideas on how to interpret these two verses? More verses to come if there is any interest.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday August 14 2015, @04:35PM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Friday August 14 2015, @04:35PM (#222891) Homepage

    Does Soylent have any other ideas on how to interpret these two verses?

    Erm...you mean, other than the obvious? That it's an ancient faery tale?

    Even if we grant that the first person to tell the story sincerely believed it's a true and accurate description of "The Beginning™" -- doubtful, but whatever -- there's still the fact that he was a member of a society that, were it still extant today, it would be viewed as, by a significant margin, the most superstitious, ignorant, primitive, and barbaric on the planet. In particular, they weren't even pretending to grope towards a reliable way of answering such questions. It would be centuries before anybody would even have a model of the Solar System that we could squint at today and recognize, and that was millennia ago. It's been less than a century since Hubble figured out that there's more to the Universe beyond just the Milky Way, and only very recently that we've come up with a decent map of spacetime roughly covering the theoretically-observable Universe. And, of course, roughly equally recently that we've figured out most of the explanation -- and still to this day remain stymied about how to reconcile Quantum and Relativistic interpretations of gravity so we can complete the explanation.

    So, really. What on Earth is there to "make sense of" these or any other Bible verses, or those of any other faery tale? Perhaps we should be trying to "make sense of" the minifloridians in Space Fights, or why the cow jumps over the moon whenever the cat plays the violin?

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @04:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @04:49PM (#222897)

    The same applies to the simulators of his or her world, and the simulators of their world as well, and so on. In other words, the central line of reasoning of Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis entails that if we run large numbers of simulations in the future, there almost certainly exists a vast hierarchy of nested simulations – universes stacked like matryoshka dolls, one enclosed within the another.

    Bostrom notes that the cost of running a simulation is inherited upwards in the hierarchy, a point that counts against this “multilevel hypothesis.” But the fact is that if simulations are common in the future, it will be much more likely that any given simulator is a simulant than not.

    Not only this but if each simulation spawns a few simulations of their own, there will be far more simulations at the bottom of the hierarchy than the top (where one finds Ultimate Reality). If you had to place a bet, you’d be more likely to lose if you put your money on our world being somewhere at the top rather than the bottom, with loads of simulations stacked above us.

    http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/torres20141103 [ieet.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:23AM (#223214)

    I guess you do not like music or paintings either...

    • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Saturday August 15 2015, @02:58PM

      by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Saturday August 15 2015, @02:58PM (#223279) Homepage

      On the contrary. I'm a semi-professional musician and an amateur photographer.

      What I don't do is pretend that fiction is reality.

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.