On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > MWI.
I don;t have to agree that essentiallytechnological control means "god" or "supernaural"> > > > 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. So? Is appearance reality? > It doesn't > matter who you call 'natural'. It matters a great deal what you call anything. "Did say those mushrooms were nutiritios? Silly me, i mean poisonous". > Now who is arguing a special case for > natively evolved consciousness? I don't know. Who? > > "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. "To me"= appearance =/= reality > > >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. So? I never said that could no be apparently omnopotent control of a VM. I said it doesn't fit the defintition of supernatural. > 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? There is a conceptual distinction between the natural and the supernatural in MWI and computaitonl multiverses, and such that the extension of the concept "superntatural" could likely be empty. >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. Oh good grief. In comp, reality is the lab where the simulation is running. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
