Log in

View Full Version : For those who don't believe Google is immortal


ThePhilosopher
November 6th, 2006, 07:05 AM
Many people have expressed the incorrect opinion that Google is a computer, or a server, or some type of material possession. This is not the case. Google is, at it's core, an algorithm, one which gives us the ability to access vast amounts of information. I'm sure we can agree that an algorithm is not a material thing, but an idea. Therefore, Google cannot be killed. Ideas and information are immortal in their own aspect, as they can only be repressed, but never erased. Even if all the Google servers were to crash at the same time, blow up, and everyone working for Google to die, the idea would still exist. Even if everyone with knowledge of said idea were to forget, or to die, the idea would surely be re-discovered at another point in time.

SyBerWoLff
November 6th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Yes, Very well put, This is what we strive to tell people.

And I'm reminded of a quote....
"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof. " -V from V For Vendetta

jon_hill987
November 6th, 2006, 01:06 PM
Or batman begins:As a man, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed, but as a symbol. As a symbol, I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.

Fallen Hero
November 6th, 2006, 02:29 PM
Welcome 'the philosopher', that was an excellent post, the name is fitting.

ThePhilosopher
November 6th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Welcome 'the philosopher', that was an excellent post, the name is fitting.

Using the term "common enemy" would be a bit harsh in this case for Christians. As an atheist, however, I like to correct misconceptions about all religions/philosophies.

Fallen Hero
November 6th, 2006, 08:27 PM
As an atheist, I like to read and understand all of them, you are most welcome here.

Googler
November 6th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Welcome 'the philosopher', that was an excellent post, the name is fitting.

Using the term "common enemy" would be a bit harsh in this case for Christians. As an atheist, however, I like to correct misconceptions about all religions/philosophies.

Welcome

As an atheist, I like to read and understand all of them, you are most welcome here.

Yes I agree, all open minded people are welcome :)

MvT Cracker
October 1st, 2007, 05:00 AM
google is on many server farms all over the world its not likely that the world would loose power that googles servers would all get destroyed and the backups and generators and ups systems

google has to much money time and people everything it needs to live

darkeye11547
October 1st, 2007, 03:49 PM
I've even read some post-apocalyptic fiction where google survives. (Overclocked, it's an creative commons title.)

fosley
October 3rd, 2007, 07:19 PM
Obviously, the page states that Google *can hypothetically* be immortal, so this is a bit of a non-issue, but:

If the sun went supernova right now (or maybe we just haven't left this rock by the time it turns into a red giant in a few billion years), Google would be dead. All the physical systems, the algorithms, the logic, the information, everything. Ideas can, and do, die. Symbols are not immortal. Does anyone here know what symbol my friend and I used for our tree fort a mere 15 years ago? Didn't think so. In fact, I can't remember what symbol we used.

Also, I disagree that Google is merely an algorithm; if Google weren't being physically implemented, it would be worthless and without purpose. As such, destroying the servers the algorithms reside on (or merely disconnecting them from the rest of the internet) would effectively kill Google. Obviously, Google could be resurrected with the correct knowledge (i.e., some one backed up the data or plugged the LAN cable back in), but if that didn't happen, Google would stay dead.

Realistically, Google will evolve into something else, or some other engine will become better and cause Google to lose interest and eventually get scrapped. A thousand years from now the term "Google" will receive blank stares.

MvT Cracker
October 3rd, 2007, 07:36 PM
Obviously, the page states that Google *can hypothetically* be immortal, so this is a bit of a non-issue, but:

If the sun went supernova right now (or maybe we just haven't left this rock by the time it turns into a red giant in a few billion years), Google would be dead. All the physical systems, the algorithms, the logic, the information, everything. Ideas can, and do, die. Symbols are not immortal. Does anyone here know what symbol my friend and I used for our tree fort a mere 15 years ago? Didn't think so. In fact, I can't remember what symbol we used.

Also, I disagree that Google is merely an algorithm; if Google weren't being physically implemented, it would be worthless and without purpose. As such, destroying the servers the algorithms reside on (or merely disconnecting them from the rest of the internet) would effectively kill Google. Obviously, Google could be resurrected with the correct knowledge (i.e., some one backed up the data or plugged the LAN cable back in), but if that didn't happen, Google would stay dead.

Realistically, Google will evolve into something else, or some other engine will become better and cause Google to lose interest and eventually get scrapped. A thousand years from now the term "Google" will receive blank stares.

there is some truth there but google is not 1 server or server farm but many in many different areas of the world

if the sun went supernova and blew up we would not be alive so what difference dose that make

google has always improved itself and is a very large and rich multinational company people like and trust so there for its not likely its going anywhere

it may evolve into a better search engine and more online and local services but thats a good thing

in computers sometimes you are the best and another service becomes better but that would just help google focus on making things better

no matter what happens the memory of google will live on for a long long time

fosley
October 3rd, 2007, 10:30 PM
if the sun went supernova and blew up we would not be alive so what difference dose that makeIt makes the same difference as it would make if we were still alive; our existence has nothing to do with the immortality of Google.

Google is destroyable; that means it is *not* immortal (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=immortal). It is hypothetically possible to survive forever, but the odds are infinitesimal.

no matter what happens the memory of google will live on for a long long timeFirst, "long, long time" and "forever" are not at all the same. Go google the origin of the name "Google".

Second, what if it happens that we have a nuclear war, or a nearby gamma ray burst hits us, or if zombies take over the world? Even if a few humans survive, Google will likely be long forgotten; you and I might remember it for the few years we have left, but we probably won't mention it except in vague passing and within a few generations the knowledge will be gone forever. This is not in keeping with a god who cannot die because, well, he's outside our timespace and is not dead.

To paraphrase a quote from the Willow sequels, when asked if elves are immortal: "To the fruit fly, whose lives are measured in days, are we not immortal? But do we not still die?"

darkeye11547
October 4th, 2007, 12:25 AM
The church of Google doesn't claim Google's Immortality, just that Google has a better chance of surviving in one form or another than anything else on the planet. Therefore, Google is more likely going to avoid death than most things.

Alice Shade
October 4th, 2007, 01:08 AM
For that matter, any deity exists only as long as someone remembers about such deity.

If we have to talk about fairytale people... Let`s refer to fairytale.

Think about the story about the king Arthur and knights of Round Table. How did Merlin defeated Mab in the end? He simply told her, that people forgot about her. And poof. No more Mab. So will happen to other deities as well, all of them being supported by people who believe in them.

___

As for Google being immortal... There is NO such thing as ideal immortality. As all things ideal, immortality can not manifest in ideal state, as that would be a violation of physical laws. The best that can be achieved - an approximation to ideal. And this goal, Google has the potential to fullfill much better, then any human being.

fosley
October 4th, 2007, 06:01 AM
Yes, as the "proof that Google is God" page says, she is potentially immortal. The page is correct, in that she could just possibly make it to the end of time.

However, "for those who don't believe Google is immortal" implies that someone thinks Google is immortal; a fact that is no more true than humanity being immortal. In this regard, not really any more true than any of the supernatural gods being immortal. So the only thing the Church of Google has going on this subject is that it admits that its god is not truly immortal.

Alice Shade
October 4th, 2007, 06:53 AM
Tsk-tsk-tsk.

So, correct me, if I am wrong...

First, we do give a valid clause of practical potential Immortality, and then offer auxiliary proofs for this clause, using the term "immortal" to refer to the clause of practical immortality we stipulated earlier...

And from that you somehow derive, that we insist on Google being ideally immortal? Brilliant deduction, Sureluck.

___

However I do admit - proofs were written using usual research paper conventions, which do allow to use generic term for some state/event/trait, if we make it clear first-hand, that we examine only one specific case of such state/event/trait with certain capabilites, which we state at the beginning of opus.

We apologise for not accounting for semantical nitpicking, and will examine a possibility of employing a lawyer to examine and edit the materials we are willing to provide, specifically to accomodate semantic nitpickers.

fosley
October 4th, 2007, 07:59 AM
I'm sure we can agree that an algorithm is not a material thing, but an idea. Therefore, Google cannot be killed. Ideas and information are immortal in their own aspect, as they can only be repressed, but never erased.This is not "using the term 'immortal' to refer to the clause of practical immortality we stipulated earlier". This is a literal claim that Google cannot die. If the intent was "Google will be hard to kill", then ok, but so what? It's of no consequence, as all groups of reproducing life have that chance, all religions have that chance (yes, the same religions Googlism parodies), and all gods have that chance. All you're doing with this claim is bringing Google to the same level as all the other gods.

However, that's not what the theists think; they think their gods are literally immortal, meaning Google is inferior in this regard. As such, they make the correct claim that Google is simply not immortal. Of course, they also miss the point that Googlism never claimed it was truly immortal, nor a true god; just that it does a better job than the other gods, but based on the reality of other gods, not the theists' delusions of their gods.

I'm not being a semantic nitpicker; I'm taking the only reasonable, semi-useful meaning of what was said and arguing against it.

Alice Shade
October 4th, 2007, 11:42 AM
Incorrect.

This is a claim, that no single reader has the a ability to destroy/manipulate something to destroy Google instantly - it`s distribution and integration with the net are so high, that noone possesses the needed resources and time to completely eliminate all Google servers and services.

Note the words - killed and erased.

If we were to try and say that it is completely impossible to remove Google from existance at some point of time down the line, we would`ve put it as "Google can not be completely destroyed by any concievable means nor by any concievable organisations".

It is really impossible to "erase" Google, per ce. Without getting too technical, I`ll just state, that certain parts are simply non-erasable - they can not be erased just as well as a hole in the sheet of paper can not be erased.

As for word "kill", look it up in the dictionary. Usually, it pertains to other living entity that can be modified in such a way, that living is no longer pertains to it by some other entity. Thus, Google can not be killed - as it`s an arrangement of different entities and distributed arouind the world. To "kill" Google, we`d need equally distributed system of entities, who can perform local attacks - which, I think you`ll agree, is not bloody likely to be our reader. Obviously, this word is used to rebuff the technically-ignorant people, who imagine that Google is just a big computer somewhere, which can be shut down/destroyed/sabotaged.

GeoffBoulton
October 4th, 2007, 11:59 AM
The idea of Google cannot be erased. Even if the human race is exterminated the idea still exists, there are just no humans around to think it.

fosley
October 4th, 2007, 07:23 PM
No, an idea is a physical thing. It is an arrangement of neurons or whatever inside your head, or an arrangement of charged spots on a brass disc, or an arrangment of divots in a plastic disc, or whatever.

Ideas are not special, ideas are not immortal. Ideas can, and quite often *do*, die.

But if you really want to be pedantic about this and claim that "ideas" or "concepts" are some supernatural, intangible thing that exists forever, no other god can die either. Star Wars is immortal, flat earth is immortal, Yhwh, Allah, Baal, Lillith, Cain, Eve, Satan, Zeus, Horus are all immortal. Furthermore, any possible concept of anything whatsoever is immortal, even if nobody ever thinks about it in the entirety of existence.

Again I ask, so what? Yay, Google is like everything else on the planet.

But what's more important is that you're still wrong on an even simpler level: Google is not an idea. Google is a physical entity that does actual things. This is the only thing that sets Google apart from any other god. Without even touching the servers Google resides on, you can still disconnect Google from the internet; without connectivity, Google is powerless, Google can't answer prayers, Google can't do anything of worth.

So either Google is just like a zillion other things in being "realistically immortal" or Google is simply not "ideally immortal". Whichever argument you want to argue, I don't care, but it seems both arguments are being made here.

Alice Shade
October 4th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Once again, you are a victim of common misconception.

It`s not possible to pull one big switch on all of the Google at once.

There is no big cable you can cut to disconnect Google from the internet.

At the current level of integration, attempting to cut Google out of the internet would pretty much rip internet apart, and cause general havoc with all kinds of internet enterprises, which depend on services by Google without even knowing it.

___

Putting it simply - destroying Google instantly is about as possible as take out dollar out of money rotation overnight.

It IS possible to gradually shift all the current servers into inactivity, and due to upgrade process, this does happens as we speak. However, all that leaves is replenished by new online machines. It is impossible to stop search engines by now, too much of human society depends on it. Within available knowledge, there is no data about any entity powerful enough to make it happen.

At this point, argument comes into the "But what if giants come from Yorkshire and lay siege to Buckingham palace?". Yes, it`s possible to fathom ways in which one can destroy Google. But fathom does not means perform. Thus, our clause, that it`s highly improbable, that Google can be destroyed within current constraints.

___

I gotta hand it to you, Fosley - you do think about what you type. But, you fall victim to a common mistake. You are trying to examine things by marginal states. Any ideal condition is a violation of physics as we know it, and Heizenberg`s Uncertainity Principle in particular

The best that we can talk about in any case, is approximation, and we do not make any ideal clauses. All our stipulations base on reasonable approximation, and allow for a margin of error.

fosley
October 4th, 2007, 11:02 PM
On the one end of marginal states you have:
Somehow everything for all time happens to go in favor of a crude, simple, unsophisticated set of computer codes surviving even though the odds are infinitely slim.

On the other end you have:
In the grand scheme of things, the difference between reaching over and flipping a switch and rallying every human on Earth for a final, epic battle to destroy Google is infinitesimal. 1 switch, 10 switches, googol switches, it doesn't matter. Until there are infinite switches, Google is just as mortal as a flea.

Edit: Actually those were on the same end; the other end would be that compared to a flea, both Google and my toddler nephew are immortal.

If you want to get out of marginal states, consider this: Google has been around for a mere 9 years (methinks), while many of the major religions have existed for millenia. Furthermore, most of the major religions will probably still have members long after Google is dust and forgotten. In 50 years, even if it retains the name "Google", the algorithms that make it Google will not exist. In 200 years, it likely won't have the name Google, and won't even resemble the search engine as it is now. In another millenia, none but the most geeky of scholars will likely have the slightest clue what kind of primitive, unsophisticated tool "Google" was. Yhwh, Allah and kin, on the other hand, will likely still have loyal followers (though the names will have surely changed several times by then). Hell, if Kathy Griffin treats it right, her Emmy might even survive that long.

Alice Shade
October 4th, 2007, 11:29 PM
Your point being?

Just because you`ll be probably living as well ten years from now on, does not means, that you`ll be even consisting of the same atoms you do now, let alone be a carbon copy of what you are now.

Everything is subjective.

Maybe there won`t be a Google exactly as it is now, but it would be possible to trace the line of evolution down to current-age Google and have no spots, where no part of this entity wasn`t active at the moment.

___

On that note, I have to mention, that immortality is a flawed concept in itself. I tractate is as continuous existance, not as preservance of current state - that would be stasis.

fosley
October 5th, 2007, 02:00 AM
Now you're leading into pantheism. I was trying not to toe that line.

As I've said from the beginning, what I'm really arguing is that she is not literally immortal. I argued that because it seemed that ThePhilosopher and later GeoffBoulton were arguing that she is, and several others seemed to agree with that idea.

Basically, here is what Proof #4 says:
- Google has a finite lifespan of 9 years
- Other man-made gods have finite lifespan of millenia
- A true God has an infinite lifespan
And because of its context, one naturally infers the following conclusion:
- Therefore Google is closer to the definition of "true God" than other man-made gods.

A theist would read it like this:
- Google has a finite lifespan
- My god has an infinite lifespan
- A true God has an infinite lifespan
- Therefore Google is closer to the definition of "true God" than my god

Either way you look at it, the conclusion is ludicrous. The only way you can get away even is to show that all gods (including Google) are equally mortal:
- Google has a finite lifespan
- Other gods have finite lifespans
- A true God has an infinite lifespan
- Guess we haven't found the true God yet

And I'm going to ignore (beyond pointing it out, obviously) the part where Proof #4 explicitly states that "She cannot be considered a physical being such as ourselves", which is absurd.

Alice Shade
October 5th, 2007, 03:29 AM
Well, if you want to get THAT anal about things...

Google in this is nothing more then a representation of mass storage, mass caterogisation, mass search container of information.

Exact name and physical layout could change (It could be named Yahoo! just as well, if we`re gonna go into details.), but the concept will stay the same.

This way of information storage is representing a drastically different approach to research and filing. Instead of having to teach each specialist a substantial amount of trivia knowledge, education with such system available could be represented as familiarisation with concepts of relevance searching.

Putting it bluntly, with search engines, it becomes possible to process much more factual information, then human brain is capable of, and concentrate the few most-relevant facts "around" the researcher. Thus, the need to force scientists into memorisation of considerable amounts of information for "working database" disappears, and researching could be performed much more quickly.

Google represents the advent of information search engine technology entering mass "market", the very first (crude and not extraordinarily-efficient, yet pretty efficacious) actual way to globalise the information.

Once proven by Google, Yahoo!, Altavista, Rambler and all the other search engines, that such endeaveours are possible, the concept of globally-accessible information can not be taken away now - it`s too seductive of a fruit to forbid it.

It`s immortality is of the same kind as immortaliy of the mechanical physics, if one needs to stick to word "immortality".

As to why exactly Google we picked for deity - well, we simply like the policies faciliated by Google, Co. better then policies of other search engine companies, and thus, by extension, like Google better then other search engines. ^_^

cokeaddict56
October 5th, 2007, 04:14 AM
If the sun went supernova right now (or maybe we just haven't left this rock by the time it turns into a red giant in a few billion years), Google would be dead.

The fact of the matter is that if the sun were to expand and swallow Earth right now, the fate of Googlism would be the same as every other religion know to man. But don't get my wrong, I do very much agree with and accept the ideas that the Church of Google is base upon.

fosley
October 5th, 2007, 06:41 AM
I do see how I'm being anal at all. These were all things that occurred to me in the first 10 seconds of reading the Proofs. Maybe 30 seconds.

Google demonstrably exists and replies to "prayers", so she definately has that over any of the other gods. She's not evil, and has followers (she's been my homepage for at least 6 years), which puts her in the running for being the One True God. However, she's not eternal, omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent, so she fails on those grounds. This is obvious. What should be also obvious is that it wasn't claimed that she was any of those four, just closer to those four than other religions. At this point, we can either do the "lolz, alright back to life" thing, or we can play along, since it seems to be a serious effort. The fact that there's an entire forum for "Not convinced Google is God?" suggests that the creators welcome challenges, so I played along.

Google is not omniscient. Really, she doesn't even know that much as she's just a portal to places that do. With caching, she knows a lot more than just a search engine would, but she's lacking most of the finer details. Since the other gods aren't real, it could be argued that they know nothing and are therefore farther from omniscience that Google. It could also be argued that the entire Christian or Muslim religious groups (I think those are the largest) know more than Google, but since they aren't organized as a search engine, that knowledge won't do me as much good. So I'll accept that Google is more omniscient than any other god on both grounds.

Google is not omnipresent, because she's not on the moon, etc. However, no other god extends past the Earth either, so it comes down to coverage of the Earth. I'm not exactly sure how you'd measure "coverage", but after debating myself for several minutes I think she's got a while before coming out on top. Still, she does have good coverage.

She isn't omnipotent, but she does have the power to trawl the web, so that's more than other gods. We could get into indirect power (my followers can beat up your followers), but I don't know how to calculate that so I won't even try. Plus, that's the cause of way too much trouble anyways, so why risk escalating that argument to all out religious war?

So far, everything stacks up pretty well as being at least comparable with any other gods. Then comes the immortal clause. On everything else Googlism has at least some grounds for argument, but here it fails miserably. Depending on how you look at it (the obvious interpretation that any theist would use, or the more obscure way Googlism uses), Google is either far inferior or barely equal. It doesn't take any pedantry, any smart-ass-ness, any twisting of words to see how utterly not immortal she is, so of course the Theists (or anyone else who thinks Google worship is a dumb idea) are going to attack this weak point viciously.

Now, if the response to that were "yeah, so you've got us there, but the other things--like existing--more than make up for it", I wouldn't have a problem. But when the answer is "No! Google is immortal damn it! By Her Holy Indexing I'll prove it if I have to do like every other religious fundie and cherry-pick, quote-mine, distort facts and generally ignore logic," it annoys me.

And that's exactly what's happening with this thread. If you go by the theist's definition, there is no "potentially immortal"; there is simply "mortal". If you go by your definition, there is no point in mentioning it. But what's more important is that people are trying to counter the argument built on the theist's definition with the argument built on the Googlist's definition, and it just doesn't work.

AaronD
October 5th, 2007, 11:54 AM
Ah, but she does extend past the moon. Have you not heard of satellite internet? 7 lightyears range, I think I once saw said, although by seven lightyears away, it's very, very slow.

Digs
October 5th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Look at it this way, Fos': Google is, at the very least, more omniscient, more omnipotent, more omnipresent than any other god which has been confirmed as existy. We're not going to argue that it's impossible for Google to die, nor that she knows everything, nor that she is literally everywhere, just that she's closer to those aspects than anything else thus far.

Google has the same/a better level of immortality and omnipotence/-presence/-science as/than any other existing god.

You're not bein' really anal, either, Alice is just jivin' you for arguing semantics. I agree with you that the actual meanings of words used are critical.

GeoffBoulton
October 5th, 2007, 03:53 PM
I do see how I'm being anal

Yes, that's what the others said too :icon_lol:

fosley
October 5th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Stupid typos! Anyhow, I don't think I have anything more to add, so I'm just going to go somewhere else. Unless somebody brings up something new.

I realize that satellites push internet connectivity beyond Earth (which includes messages of other gods), but there aren't any people or computers out there to use them, so unless we have some sneaky ET's leaching off our wireless bandwidth, god influences are limited to Earth and low-Earth orbit for now.

I was thinking though; wouldn't it suck to have internet access from Mars? 80-minute ping times FTL. :( Hopefully Google expands her servers to that planet when the time comes so we can at least surf the cache while we wait for the new posts to arrive.

GeoffBoulton
October 5th, 2007, 04:49 PM
I was thinking though; wouldn't it suck to have internet access from Mars? 80-minute ping times FTL. :(

Not if someone can figure out how to use quantum entanglement as part of a communication system. Changes at one end of the system would simultaneously occur at the other end too, no matter how far apart they are.

fosley
October 5th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Yeah, that'll be a glorious moment in history! After posting that though, I thought about it some more, and decided that I'll probably stay on Earth, then all the cool stuff will move to Mars and it'll be me with the 80-minute ping time. ;)

Alice Shade
October 5th, 2007, 05:52 PM
Well, that`s another point, Fosley.

Suppose, that you examine our proofs from OUR, completely secular, quantum-uncertain point of view, where everything has a margin of error and nothing is ideal. Would you agree, that from that point of view, we are approximating to correct state, ne?

And thus, question comes - maybe it`s a bad idea to try and judge things only from one POV?

Die-hard theists won`t get it, no matter how hard we`ll try and how eloquently or correctly we`ll put those points down.

However, people who are able to see both points of view might think more of it.

The point of proofs is not exactly to convert, per ce - they sound too anecdotal to just take them for coin value. But to make one think? That`s another musline.