On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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">

You don't have to agree, but if you are being honest you would have to
admit that it's irrational. If I can stop your universe, make changes
to your mind, your memory, your environment, the laws of your universe
and then start it back up, how does that not make me your God?

>
> > > > 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?

That is what comp says. The simulation is reality as far as the
simulatees are concerned. Appearances may not reflect the truest level
of the simulation, but appearances all reflect some believable
representation of the simulation's function.

>
> > It doesn't
> > matter who you call 'natural'.
>
> It matters a great deal what you call anything.

It would if the word natural had some relevant meaning, but even in
food labeling, that term is notoriously vague. Natural means anything
that exists. Natural plastic comes from natural petrochemicals.

>
> "Did  say those mushrooms were nutiritios? Silly me, i mean
> poisonous".

Poisonous is a term with a more literal meaning. 'Natural' has no
place in MWI, comp, or the anthropic principle. I'm surprised that you
would use it. I thought most people here were on board with comp's
view that silicon machines could be no less natural as conscious
agents than living organisms.

>
> > Now who is arguing a special case for
> > natively evolved consciousness?
>
> I don't know. Who?

You.

>
> > > "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

No. To me = my reality. The causes and conditions upon which my
existence supervenes. If my programmer can make a Bengal tiger appear
or disappear in my living room, then he is God in reality. This is
what comp says.

>
> > > >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.

That's why I say in MWI + Comp + Anthropic principle, there would
inevitably be an infinite number of universes in which simulations
exist with citizens to whom God is real and natural. There would also
be infinite MWI UM sub-universes where God is supernatural, sub-
universes where Gods are aliens, pirates, beercans, Pokemon, etc.

>
> > 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.

I agree, supernatural is an empty concept in comp. That why I said it
from the start. Computational simulations can define anything as being
natural or supernatural. The 'nature' of the simulation is fabricated
arithmetically. You are the one who claimed that Gods are supernatural
in the first place:

"> > > 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? "

See? I say MWI could have all kinds of Gods (in their simulated sub-
universes), and you object on the grounds that it would mean something
'supernatural'. Not supernatural, artificial.

>
> >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.

I agree, but comp would say that you are confusing levels. Comp says
that reality is within the computations.

Craig

-- 
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.

Reply via email to