Thursday, December 22, 2005

On the Law of laws and the predestination of its effects.

Predestination, n. The doctrine that all things occur according to programme. This doctrine should not be confused with that of foreordination, which
means that all things are programmed, but does not affirm their occurrence, that being only an implication from other doctrines by which this is entailed. The difference is great enough to have deluged Christendom with ink, to say nothing of the gore. With the distinction of the two doctrines kept well in mind, and a reverent belief in both, one may hope to escape perdition if spared.

Satan, n. ...Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven. Halfway in his descent he paused, bent his head in thought a moment and at last went back. “There is one favor that I should like to ask,” said he.
“Name it.”
“Man, I understand, is about to be created. He will need laws.”
“What, wretch! You his appointed adversary, charged from the dawn of eternity with hatred of his soul—you ask for the right to make his laws?”
“Pardon; what I have to ask is that he be permitted to make them

It was so ordered.
(The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary
By Ambrose Pierce :186, 208)

Part I

Once the new system was created the programmer filled it with many new types of self -replicating programs and lastly made some programs that seemed in some small way to be able to program themselves. It was the little matter of the will again. The insurgent program saw this capacity immediately and sent a message to the programmer asking to sift through the code of these programs to show him their fault. It was an odd thing to ask, as if they did contain the supposed error then it was his type of fault too. He tried to avoid seeing anything as the result of his own program now that his abuse of his capacities for writing programs had been defeated and instead shifted to claiming that he was just a program and so how could he have done anything but rebel? In this way he blamed the programmer yet never seemed to use his own capacities to ask why the programmer would write a program to blame himself as the program was doing at that very moment. Instead, what was actually happening was the rebellious program was still rebelling and so still abusing its ability to write its own program.

When it sifted the new programs it found a fault, yet denied that it was its fault too. Then the programmer sent it a message that there would come a program from these types of replicating programs that would not contain the fault yet would come to contain the fault through no fault of its own. In this way the fault would be crushed, for no matter all the denials it was the fault of the rebellious program when all that was programmed was said and done.

No comments: