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
> 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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at