On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial
simulation or not.
>You can fire a horse through the air usign a giant
> catapuilt, but I don't have to agree it's Pegasus.
No but you have to agree that it is possible to believe that it is a
Pegasus, and that is all that is required.
> > > > > > 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.
Both. What would be the meaning of any form of computationalism
without the notion of computational realism?
> >The simulation is reality as far as the
> > simulatees are concerned.
> And if they are wrong, it still isn't the
> real reality.
It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, the simulation is still
their reality. Pac Man could believe that he is Bugs Bunny but the
possibility of that belief is generated by the simulation logic behind
Pac Man. For Pac Man, the Pac Man game is the real reality. That is
what comp is all about - proving that our experience of the universe
is indistinguishable from a simulation of that same experience.
> You seem to be arguing
> appearance=reality on the premise that
Not at all. I think that you are injecting that because you need me to
be wrong. Comp implies that appearance is not the whole reality, but
the possibility of an appearance arises from the whole reality, which
is in fact a logical program.
> > 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 if they believe in the simulation or not, the belief
itself is only possible because of the particular reality generated by
the program. Comp precludes the possibility of contacting any truer
reality than the simulation.
> > > > 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.
Our Gods may know better too. What I am saying is that Comp + MWI +
Anthropic principle guarantees an infinite number of universes in
which some entity can program machines to worship them *correctly* as
> > > "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.
No. What you are arguing about is the supernatural. What I am arguing
about are gods (entities with absolute superiority or omnipotence over
the subordinate entities who inhabit the simulations they create) and
their inevitability in MWI.
> do not rescue the supernatural by rendering the natural
Why not? Besides, as I keep saying, I am not trying to rescue the
supernatural, I am pointing out that God is not supernatural at all,
it is an accurate description of the relationship between the
programmer and the programmed.
> > > > Now who is arguing a special case for
> > > > natively evolved consciousness?
> > > I don't know. Who?
> > You.
> No, you have misunderstood.
If you could prove that statement, you would have tried.
> > > > > "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.
Why do you think the programmer's reality is any more real? Maybe he
is a program running in another sim. Comp is the very idea that it
would be impossible to tell the difference. The bottom line is that in
the sim reality, anyone who programs the sim is God.
> >This is
> > what comp says.
> What do you mean by "comp".
Computationalism. Digital functionalism. CTM. UDA. All of it. All are
predicated on the idea that experience is generated by arithmetic, and
therefore no arithmetically generated experience can be seen through
with certainty by the machines/programs within the simulation.
> > > > > >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.
You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The
simulation has no access to extra-simulatory information, it is a
complete sub-universe. It's logic is the whole truth which the
inhabitants can only believe in or disbelieve to the extent which the
simulation allows them that capacity. If the programmer wants all of
his avatars to believe with all their hearts that there is a cosmic
muffin controlling their universe, she has only to set the cosmic
muffin belief subroutine = true for all her subjects.
> If MWI is a complete theory of the universe, their opinions
> is wrong too.
Opinions can be right or wrong but the reality is that a programmer
has omnipotent power over the conditions within the program. She may
be a programmer, but she can make her simulation subjects think or
experience whatever she wants them to. She may think of herself as
their goddess, but she can appear to them as anything or nothing. Her
power over them remains true and factually real.
> >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
I'm not talking about the physics-based multiverse level, I'm talking
about the computational (read what I wrote again please) "UM sub-
universes". MWI alone does not make gods inevitable but MWI+ Comp
does. Add the anthropic principle levels any objections about
probability. This seems iron clad and straightforward to me.
> > > > 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
Supernatural can be meaningful if you want it to be, but in comp all
it means is meta-programmatic or meta-simulation. It has no mystical
charge. It is not what is impossible by the logic of the MWI universe,
only what is impossible by the programmed logic of the UM-Sub
Universes. Your argument is based on confusing the levels. If I force
you to stay within the logic of comp, you have no argument. To get out
of the logic of comp, you need something like 'sense', which is my
claim all along. Usually I am the one arguing reality, but now that it
is turned around, you can see how the constraint of comp is
tautological, or you could if you could get passed the idea that I
have to be wrong.
> > 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 opinion of the programmer *is* truth to the programmed. That's
what makes them God.
> > The 'nature' of the simulation is fabricated
> > arithmetically.
> Is it? Show me. Every sim I have ever seen was
> running on silicon.
Huh? You could run it on vacuum tubes if you want. Or a stadium full
of people holding up colored cards. A cartoon is a simulation. A
puppet show is a simulation.
> >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.
That is the way you define "god". That is both an argument from
authority and a straw man. Please note:
> > > > > > QM based MWI woildn't suggest that the supernatural
occurs in any
> > > > > > universe. Are you familiar with Tegmark's
> > > > > Why would Gods be supernatural?
> > > > Why would bachelors be married?
This is your argument, not mine. My whole point is that God becomes
natural, and inevitable under MWI + Comp. That God has to be
supernatural is your opinion. The reality is that God need only be
meta-programmatic from the perspective inside a simulation. I don't
know that I can make it much clearer.
> You might have artificial something-or-others,
> but we should invent a new word for them.
We can invent as many words for it as we want, but none will be any
more or less appropriate than God. Call it Administrator if you want.
The functionality is the same.
> > > >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?
I don't think it matters. Any form of comp + MWI = inevitable all
powerful (relative to some simulation) Administrators.
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
For more options, visit this group at