Fabulous post, Jason. Enthralling stuff.


On 08/05/2009, at 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

> If we on this list believe that everything (or at least everything
> with a self consistent definition) exists, then we must also believe
> that all possible gods exist.  Be they artificial intelligences that
> occur in the universal dovetailer with access to unbounded computing
> power and memory, an evolved species who reaches an omega point or
> technological singularity, or anything else you might imagine.  What
> can we say about the personalities, behaviors and abilities of these
> gods?
> It is said that when intelligent people disagree, it is often due to a
> difference in available data.  Assuming these gods all possess
> superior intellects, then they should all come to the same conclusion
> when presented with the same data.  Mathematics, containing universal
> truths and accessible regardless of the physical universe or
> environment one finds his or her self in, might serve as a platform
> for all gods to reach identical conclusions regarding everything.
> Perhaps they would also conclude or even prove the existence of all
> else as we on the everything list believe.  If it is possible, I would
> expect those gods would develop a model for consciousness, which would
> likely lead to the idea that other self-aware structures in math
> exist, and perceive.  Though no god would have the power to eliminate
> what inevitably exists in math (thus explaining the problem of evil),
> they would still be able to run simulations of their own over which
> they may exercise full control.  Perhaps the gods explore reality and
> the limits of consciousness by instantiating universes and the
> observers they contain, but for the god to really 'know' what it is
> like to be someone else, that persons memories and experiences must
> somehow be merged into the mind of that god, not simply simulated
> (Like Mary the color scientist).
> Thus whatever gods are simulating this universe (and inevitably some
> explanations for our universe include a higher level simulation) then
> we might be able to conclude some beliefs or properties of that god if
> we assume that whatever truth we may find, the mind of God has already
> come upon.
> This is just one narrow definition of god as a creator, yet there are
> certainly others.  A monotheistic God might have to be equivalent to
> the everything, as it would be the only object for which there are no
> others, and would be the ultimate source of the existence of all else
> including the 'lesser gods' discussed above.  We could also choose to
> define God as the collection of all first person experiences, meaning
> each of us is a small part of God.  Interestingly you can somewhat map
> these different god definitions to the trinity from Christianity.
> Jason
> >

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to