Dear Bruno,

Kim Jones' post prompts me to ask whether or not a "self-referentially-correct Loebian machine" involves an infinite regress or a non-well founded structure. Given that it is typical to include the idea of a non-prescripted interview, where the questions can have follow ups based on answers given and thus not prespecified, how does a Loebian machine prevent a pathological regress? Is this where one is really coming up with a fancy secular notion of "omniscience" (infinite computational/simulation power)?


   Any idea?

Onward!

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- From: "Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "uv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Everything-List List" <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth


Which is very interesting, isn't it? People do seem want the kind of modelled structure for their existence that theology projects. Even though G means we can never know the truth of it, theology tells us it is nonetheless there.

Has anyone on this list read Neale Donald Walsch's "Conversations with God?" series of books? Bruno may well be interested to read at least Volume 1 if he hasn't yet encountered it. The whole book IS the interview with the self-referentially-correct Loebian machine! I realised this yesterday after re-reading sections of it and comparing them to Bruno's thinking.


Reply via email to