On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > 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.
> No all MWI have the same basic rules.  MWI is an interpretation of quantum 
> mechanics,
> which supplies the basic rules.

But who says that we live in a primitive MWI universe and not a UM-WMI
simulation with simulated quantum mechanics? Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right?

> > 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
> "Transcend logic" means what?  Logic is just the consistency of a set of 
> propositions
> under an inference rule.  Perception is some else entirely.

Consistency, sets, propositions, inference, and rules all supervene
upon sense. Sense includes logic, conscious perception, implicit
presumptions, etc. It means that sense must, on some level see through
comp to a primitive universal realism or else Gods can exist.

> > 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.
> In a simulation there's no need for internal consistency either.  Which is 
> why there's no
> way to act as if it's true...so it's epistemologically and practically 
> irrelevant.

I didn't say there was a need for internal consistency. I said that
internal consistency is the closest epistemology possible to truth
within a comp simulation.


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