digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

The Game of Life - Is There Purpose? watch!

5min.com — The Game of Life: playing around with the rules of a game modeled on real life - birth, life and death. So is there a design to life?

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 28, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

106 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/28/2007, -4/+3742
  • fishx, on 11/28/2007, -7/+32What does he mean there was no creator or design? He created it and designed the rules for the 'mini-universe'.
  • JasonCox, on 11/28/2007, -7/+31There is a point to Life. The point is to get one of those little pink do-hickeys to put in your car and then fill up the two rows of backseats with kids and hope you don't get fired from your job because then you'll have to move out of your "split-level" home.
  • HerrEisenheim, on 11/28/2007, -5/+27Yeah. You, your girlfriend, and me—because you shoot blanks.
  • DesignerDave, on 11/28/2007, -2/+23So... it takes 3 neighbors to produce 1 offspring?
  • tyywebb, on 11/28/2007, -1/+201) Gather as much information as possible
    2) Return to the Source
  • ImASpartan, on 11/28/2007, -0/+18It reminds me of my office.. too many people in the cubes surrounding me and I want to kill myself, not enough around and, and I'm nearly bored to death. Just the right amount and I continue to show up every day, sit here, and refresh Digg every 3 minutes hoping for an interesting video like this.
  • wddwmmandalore, on 11/28/2007, -0/+15If you're interested in the whole documentary you can watch it here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-704475310 ...
  • totorototoro, on 11/28/2007, -2/+17" To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women"
  • CraigJ, on 11/28/2007, -5/+19He who dies with the most toys wins!
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -2/+13busted....LOL
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -1/+12Look around you...
  • ludemunky, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11Does anyone know from what TV show or documentary this clip came from? I would like to watch the whole thing.
  • robotfuel, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11Look how the Creator muses at his creation though. Doesn't instill rules and regulations other than that which he setup up his game of life with. Seems more bemused and curious with Life more than anything - it would be ridiculous if he suddenly became vengeful or wrathful at his creation because it doesn't behave the way he wants it to. His intellect and knowledge is far superior to the simple rules he setup. Hopefully though, the game of Life will evolve to a point where his simple creations will start killing eachother because one set believes in its creator a bit differently than the other and persecutes anyone who believes differently or doesn't believe at all.

    That would be sweet.
  • talkingpidgin, on 11/28/2007, -2/+9it takes a village...
  • gibsonic, on 11/28/2007, -1/+8logical fallacy to the extreme!
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -2/+8...to impregnate your wife.
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/28/2007, -1/+6BTW that 42 was the one from the book not the movie
  • Bowski, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5All I know is that you don't want to lose at the game of life.
  • iLens, on 11/28/2007, -2/+7Purpose = Genetic Reproduction... (same purpose of ALL LIFE) so take your existentialist books to Goodwill
  • treas, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5To get phat lewts.
  • marmanukem, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5Thats a pretty amazing program. I wonder what might happen if you let it run for a few years, what sort of surprises might show up.
  • Durinthal, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4People have already done that. There's a lot of interesting things that come out of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Li ...
  • Phillida22, on 11/28/2007, -6/+10Don't worry, be happy
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -6/+10Well that game didn't create itself...once it does I'll believe there is no God
  • rhinopig, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4(Paraphrased from Dawkins I think, or some other anit-creationist).

    "A professor is giving a lecture on the origin of the universe. At one point a man stands up and shouts, "that's not how it works." The professor ask him to explain and so the man says, "the world is a flat disk held up by 3 elephants standing on the back of a turtle." The professor replies "Ah but what is the turtle standing on?" "You can't fool me, It's turtles all the way down."

    Now of course the humor in this is it begs the question 'down to what?' And that's fundamentally the problem with all descriptions of origin (including the big bang). Either there is one giant super-turtle standing in space, or it's 'turtles all the way down' so to speak, and neither answer is very satisfying."
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4CONAN THE BARBARIAN!
  • Kyrgizion, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4I'm willing to bet that at some point they would "end" themselves, as in developing a random pattern that results in their termination.
    I don't have to explain what that means for us..
  • LiceHelpDotCom, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5The problem is that an intelligence created the rules of the game in the first place. I am not saying that that means there is a "God". However, as a seeker of information, I am trying to see where the initial program of life came from. The code of information in DNA could have arrived by natural means but there is no other scientific display of code coming together to form a life form. An initial code had to be generated by something. Aliens? a higher, long dead intelligence? a god? the God? natural initiations? I don't know...but it is a fun and interesting question.
  • rhinopig, on 11/29/2007, -0/+442

    (that one was from the radio play).
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4An idea is not right or wrong because of who believes it.

    Even if Christianity, Islam, and Judaism always promoted peace, love, and generally made the world a better place by compelling people to be moral, that would not make it true.
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE!
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/28/2007, -2/+5Don't try and frighten us with Sorcerer's ways. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fortress.
  • Sharky35, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4That DUDE IS A GOD!
  • aadnk, on 11/28/2007, -2/+5It demonstrates that complex patterns (such as life) could arise from simple beginnings through iteration and randomness. The implication is that a complex, intelligent creator is no longer needed, even the notion of intelligence is disposed of.
  • jimbobaii, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4Indeed, but what in the world is happiness?
  • proseandpromise, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3Not only did he create the game, but he did so with certain value judgments - markers die if they are "suffocated" which makes sense biologically, since we could suppose that you would have lots of competition for limited resources. But dying from isolation? Where is that a biological inevitability? Doesn't this suggest a moral imperative - if I were a marker figuring out my existence, I would have to conclude that company was important (without it I die!) but then I have to start asking questions about why it is that way. My answer could not rightly be "it just is" because that isn't true. That characteristic in myself would reflect the something true about my creator (in this case, the dude in the video).

    This kind of thing seems to point toward a theistic view of general revelation more than it supports evolution, right? Am I missing something?
  • Heiios, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3And then what do you do on day number 2?
  • elemmeno, on 11/28/2007, -2/+5Wow! Well, there you go. Patterns emerging in a system with rules. I guess that's it - proof of... something... Oh! Must be evolution it proves.
  • DashingLeech, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4I'll assume you Purpose in the sense of "what it functionally accomplishes", as in "The purpose of a tree trunk is to hold up the branches and feed the leaves." There is no literal intended purpose for life. It is just a natural inevitable result of disequilibrium of energy and raw materials.
  • robotfuel, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Bobby Mcferrin is a musical genius. If you'll notice there isn't any instruments on that song. It's all his voice. It's great to hear him sing Bach too.
  • jserio, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2This brings back memories of "The Game of Life" with the cars and stick figure people you would put in the cars as you drive around the board.
  • Bei337, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Wow what a surprise to see this.

    My current C++ class project is to make the Game of Life just like the video shows! Arrays and so many for loops...

    Speaking of which it's due tomorrow and I hardly started...
  • proseandpromise, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2By theistic, I didn't necessarily mean monotheistic. And you are right, you have to ask questions about the nature of God. But the confines of this video regard a creator. This does not necessarily imply a highest being (a creator is not necessarily the greatest being) but it implies something greater than evolution has in mind. It still seems that the video's own premise points toward a creator or creators. So you are right in saying that we don't get far in our thinking about creation, but the game of life, I think, seems to really point toward some time of creating being or beings. The conclusion the video draws does not come clearly from the evidence it presents.
  • thisisfunah, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.
    "Certainly," said man.
    "Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God. And He went away.
    - Bokonon
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 11/29/2007, -1/+31. This is called begging the question. You are using the premise that everything needs a creator to prove that everything needs a creator. This is a common fallacy that is talked about in ever philosophy 101 class in just about every college in the world.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
    2. You have either no understanding of how evolution works or have chosen to ignore key components of the theory. Many creationists even believe in micro-evolution, so maybe you can get one of them to explain some of the fundamentals before we even try for macro-evolution.
    3. Nobody thinks that things are created out of thin air except for creationists. For all the talk by creationists that evolutionists believe ludicrous ideas of animals evolving from other animals and life evolving from non-life, we are not the ones that believe in a magical man in the sky that just pops things into existence whenever he feels like it. Scientists have actually come up with a theory that is supported by fossil evidence and DNA. The answer creationists have for everything they don't understand is equivalent to "A wizard did it".

    When you talk about evolutionists believing in books evolving in the desert, that is called a "straw man argument". Nobody claimed this actually happens.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    If you think you understand the theory of evolution, or even basic logic, I can only assure you that you don't. If you don't have any desire to learn either of these things than I suggest that you keep up the good work.
  • masterdieff, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2What a seemingly difficult question with such a surprisingly simple answer. Anything we term "positive" we do more of. Anything "negative", less of. This is the basic drive of evolution, as these things are "negative" or "positive" in relation to survival and reproduction. Of course, environments change over time. The whole "sacrificing your life for another" thing and other such theist arguments miss a fundamental aspect of evolution: environments and situations change over time, making a perfectly functional biological system turn dysfunctional. Antifreeze tastes like candy to dogs. It's also poisonous. The theist says that surely my argument is invalid because the dog's positive feeling does not support its survival or reproduction, and in fact runs counter to it. But let's face it: if antifreeze were a common part of the environment of dogs millions of years ago during their evolution, don't you think they would have evolved a strong dislike of antifreeze? The same argument can be applied to all things that humans do that seem counter to their survival or reproduction, including drug usage, religious violence, and non-procreational sex.
  • Genthree, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2He does have a valid point though. I found myself wondering how the game started as well. Do you just randomly throw down those little mento things and then start?
  • sittered, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2It took 13 comments before 42 was posted? Tsk, tsk, Digg.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.