If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God?  For the purposes of this
question I'll define "God" as an entity capable of creating everything that
would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe.
To avoid God are we back to some kind of "primitive physical" idea that
there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit
intelligence from emulating it?  That it is impossible even in theory to
build a kind of "universal quantum constructor"?  Or is the idea one that
physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources
necessary to achieve such a feat?  

How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating
everything?  If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no
intelligent action required), doesn't it eventually describe intelligence
with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an
"artificial" UD?  If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to
become a silly argument over semantics.   I'll be happy to hear where I'm
wrong on all this.  Please be kind, I've been away from these sorts of
discussions for quite a while!

Danny Mayes



On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Tom Caylor wrote:

> I agree with the Russell quote as it stands.  Unendingness is not what
> gives meaning.  The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time
> (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless.  However, the quote 
> makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value.  The real
> problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the
> first place (other than the so-called "irrefutable" first person: 
> "It's all about me").

Why should there be?  Values are relative to people.  Love is our word.  We
invented it to describe what we feel.  Having some Platonic form of LOVE out
there is superfluous.  You're just making up a requirement for "the really
real ding-an-sich" so that you can say God provides it. 

You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the chocolate
fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be
explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only
the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to