On 12 Apr 2010, at 16:31, John Mikes wrote:

To Jason's fantasy-contest (just imagine and put it as 'reality?) upon his

John, Jason did not imagine and then put as real. Instead, he was *assuming* and then *deriving* consequences. You talk like if we could ever know for sure anything objective. But sciences are collection of beliefs/theories/assumption/hypothesis/postulates, and if a belief is true, we cannot never know it as such.

What we can know does not belong to the scientific discourse, be it the existence of god, or of headache.
We can make theories about those non communicable knowledge.
Yet, such theories about knowledge are beliefs, not knowledge. They may be false.

> In an uploaded state you could spend all day eating from an unlimited buffet > of any food you could think of (and more) and get neither full nor fat.

Well the Romans did that. Eating all the day, even days after days, without stopping. Just vomit after the meal!

I have a memory of the same, when I had nothing to eat, was miserable and hungry during WWII and 'dreamed' about delicious food...

Not a good memory though

I think I can understand, having known many people having survive that period. But of course Jason was not talking about a human imagining eating, but about an uploaded human in a virtual environment. (That is possible assuming digital mechanism).

Now, if it has been completely uploaded with a genuine virtual body: Jason is correct when saying that he *may* have an unlimited buffet, but is, strictly speaking wrong that he can enjoy it, without bringing modifications and changes in its 'virtual' body and brain, so as to be able to appreciate it without vomiting in the virtual reality!

But this is irrelevant for Jason point, to be sure.

Nevertheless, this points on the fact that one day we will almost all become virtual, for the purely economical reason that virtual food and life will be less expensive that carbon based stuff. And more easily spreadable in the galaxy. With some hope we can make Earth a Carbon Museum.

This will not prove that mechanism is true. It will just be the time to hope it to be true.

Of course, we are already arithmetical (by UDA). "Arithmetical" = virtual and executed by the elementary arithmetical dovetailing, which exists provably so in elementary arithmetic (assuming comp). And this is refutable, given that the laws of physics become completely derivable from number theory.

If you want, roughly speaking: sciences = sharable and correctable third person beliefs. Religion = non communicable personal knowledge. Now, *in* the theory "mechanism", you can prove many theorems about the relations between beliefs and knowledge, and between science and religion. But proving a proposition concerning reality does not make it true. It makes it only a theorem in a theory, which we can never know to be true. Even if that very theory gives the correct mass of the Higgs boson with one billion correct decimals, this will not make it possible to know the mass of the boson, as such. We can know it only in the serendipitously Theatetical sense, that we believe in a theory/ machine, and it happens that it is correct/self-referentially-correct.


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

Reply via email to