On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
You are natural. You can fire a horse through the air usign a giant catapuilt, but I don't have to agree it's Pegasus. > > > > > 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. Bruno;s theory or the Computational Theory of Mind. >The simulation is reality as far as the > simulatees are concerned. And if they are wrong, it still isn't the real reality. You seem to be arguing appearance=reality on the premise that opinion=truth. > Appearances may not reflect the truest level > of the simulation, but appearances all reflect some believable > representation of the simulation's function. Believable falsehoods are falsehoods and convincing illusions still aren't reality > > > 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. If you know yourself to be natural, you cannot regard your creations as supernatural. The denizens of a sim might regard their programmer as God, but he knows better. > > "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. What we are arguing about is the supernatural. You do not rescue the supernatural by rendering the natural meaningless. > > > Now who is arguing a special case for > > > natively evolved consciousness? > > > I don't know. Who? > > You. No, you have misunderstood. > > > > "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. No he isn;t, because reality is where the sim is running and there he is just a programmer. >This is > what comp says. What do you mean by "comp". > > > > > >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. "to whom God is real" is just an opinion. If the sim was created by a human prog. with BO and dandruff, their opinion is wrong. If MWI is a complete theory of the universe, their opinions is wrong too. >There would also > be infinite MWI UM sub-universes where God is supernatural, sub- > universes where Gods are aliens, pirates, beercans, Pokemon, etc. There can;t be any supernatural entities in a physics-based multiverse. > > > 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. No, that is not at all an equivlaent claim. There may be no extension of "magnetic monopole", but it is a meaningful concept. > That why I said it > from the start. Computational simulations can define anything as being > natural or supernatural. And they may or may not be right. Opionion does not trump truth. > The 'nature' of the simulation is fabricated > arithmetically. Is it? Show me. Every sim I have ever seen was running on silicon. >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. It would mean somethig supernatural because that is the way "god" is defined. You might have artificial something-or-others, but we should invent a new word for them. > > >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. What version of comp? The actual sceintific CToM, or Bruno's metaphysical weirdness? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.