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"
<[email protected]>
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.
