On Feb 19, 8:29 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I > >>>> would > >>>> like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds > >>>> Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state > >>>> in > >>>> every particle interaction is realized in one parallel world/universe or > >>>> another, then there is no need for a god. > >>> Why not? There could an infinite number of the Many Worlds with all > >>> kinds of Gods. > > >> QM based MWI woildn't suggest that the supernatural occurs in any > >> universe. Are you familiar with Tegmark's classification? > > Why would Gods be supernatural? If comp is true, then when we create > > AI beings over which we will have power to stop, start, and reprogram > > their minds as well as their perceived universes, who will we be to > > them other than Gods? Computationalism says that we have no way of > > knowing that has not happened yet and MWI (and Tegmark's Level 3 > > classification) demands that this is inevitable in some universes. > > > In a scenario of infinite universes, how can any possibility be said > > to be supernatural? > > In MWI the infinite universes all still the same physics and so the same > statistics. No > event can be *known* to be supernatural; but a very improbable event is still > very improbable.
Improbable is meaningless with the anthropic principle. The set of MWI universes with Gods would have the same physics and statistics as the rest of the MWI universes, but within these MWIGs the UMs which the Gods have learned to build and program would have the physics of the Gods' choosing since the UMs are actually living in a nested virtual universe. What you suggest in saying that no event can be known to be supernatural is the same as saying that all video games would have to have the same basic rules. It's an arbitrary deus ex machina to plug the hole in the two theories, which, if both were true, clearly make the certain epistemology of primitive physics in any universe by it's inhabitants inaccessible. The only way out of it that I can see is to acknowledge that it is possible for 'sense' to transcend logic and therefore at least indirectly access a level of primitive truth through physics, which is exactly what multisense realism predicts. This corresponds to our ordinary experience of implicit 'seems like' epistemology which makes our perceptions specular participation in a real human world rather than a solipsistic simulation. > > > Our idea of quantum could simply be the virtual > > quantum of the simulation furnished to us by our programmers...who > > appear to us as arithmetic Gods because they wish to. > > And you could be a simulation of a brain in a vat that has just fluctuated > into existence > as a Boltzmann brain. This is different from a universe in a multiverse. Yes, but I'm saying that through comp, we cannot know that we are in a universe at all. We could be programs in someone else's universe, and our arithmetic and logic the meaningless hallucinations of a brain simulation that makes us feel our logic makes sense by stimulating the corresponding regions of our brains with the appropriate virtual chemistry. > It is also > cognitively unstable; i.e. there is no way to act as if it's true. In a comp simulation, there is no truth, only internal consistency, which could be easily simulated by disabling the ability to detect continuity errors. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
