And lets just say that that programmer uses a “randomizing” function. Oh, look, now they’ll never pin down their own result.
Most programmers don’t know what they’re doing anyway. They just know how to do it.
But back to your analogy, let’s say that that program was designed to record and analyze the programmer’s activity on the computer (which is all too possible). All the same an AI can become rather fluent in a task or subject just by analyzing scattered information on the internet.
But yes, your analogy holds firm so long as the program is “finite” in its understanding. Of course then we can just cut out the program/programmer bit altogether and say if your understanding is limited, you’re going stop at that limit.
why don’t we have any choice? choice is our main component. everything else is, well, everything else i.e. other things than ‘you’ the choice maker.
there are no finite programmers! what is a finite thing? ~ define!
there is no infinite programmer! infinity is not a thing that does things it just is, and as a result of it, things occur. there cannot be an infinite ‘it’ as it is an infinite tangent of itself and a limit to the unlimited.
exactly, we cannot think of it in centralised terms, infinity is not an it.
see my ‘popcorn’ thread. it doesn’t create, it has expressions such as principles like balance/polarity, or infinite sets like fractals and other processes. simply by being present and as having energy [also infinite] as present, things happen, the energy moves to the shape of the expression, such as polarity of energy in atoms is what an atom is.
Indeed, perhaps a lack of knowledge here on infinity itself here.
Supposing for a moment that time for example is infinite there would be no need for said creator to create himself, he would just be.
There is an argument that proposes the same for existence itself which would negate the need for a creator.
I think there is some truth in the OP which applies to the above supposition as well.
Its too big for us to comprehend. (At least right now)