On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> 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?
> Why would bachelors be married?

That's begging the question. There is no logical basis to claim that
the word supernatural precludes omnipotent control over machines from
being an inevitable outcome of MWI. Supernatural is folk terminology.
It has no relevance in determining phenomenological possibility in

> > 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?
> But we are natural so they would be wrong.

They wouldn't and couldn't know they were wrong though. It doesn't
matter who you call 'natural'. Now who is arguing a special case for
natively evolved consciousness?

> "The Goa'uld are false gods!" -- Stargate, passim.

If I am a simulation, and a programmer watches 'me' and can intervene
and change my program and the program of my universe at will, then to
me they are a true God, and I would be well advised to pray to them.

> >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?
> There is a supernatural/natual distinction in MWI based multiverses.

If it is not supernatural for us to build a Turing machine and control
the content of it's 'tape', then it cannot, cannot, can-not be
supernatural for that UM to have its world be controlled by us. As
long as the top level programmer is natural and resides in a top level
MWI universe, there can be no limit to their omnipotence over their
programs in comp. To claim supernatural distinctions within an
emulation is to turn the programs into zombies, is it not? They become
the second class citizens that I am criticized for suggesting.

> > 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.

> Appearance =/= reality.

I agree, but comp does not. In comp, reality is only deep appearance.


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