On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z<peterdjo...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg<whatsons...@gmail.com>  wrote:
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.

If those observers are generally intelligent and capable of Turing-equivalent computation, they might theorize about many things, true or not. Just like we do, and just like we can't know if we're right.
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
*their* Gods.

That's more difficult than you'd think. In COMP, you identify local physics and your body with an infinity of lower-level machines which happen to be simulating *you* correctly (where *you* would be the structures required for your mind to work consistently). A simulation of a digital physics universe may implement some such observers *once* or maybe multiple times if you go for the extra effort, but never in *all* the cases (which are infinite). If such a programmer decides to intervene in his simulation, that wouldn't affect all the other machines implementing said simulation and said observers(for example in arithmetic or in some UD running somewhere), however a small part of the simulations containing observers will now be only implemented by the physics of the upper programmer's universe (and become entangled with them), possibly meaning a reduction in measure, however the probability of ending up in such a simulation is very low and as time passes it becomes less and less likely that said observers would keep on remaining in that simulation - if they die or malfunction (that's just one example), there will be continuations for them which are no longer supported by the upper programmer's physics. There can never be correct worship of some "Matrix Lord"/"Administrator"/... as they are not what is responsible for such observers being conscious, at best such programmers are only responsible for finding some particular program and increasing its measure with respect to the programmer's universe. Of course, if such a programmer wants to "lift" some beings from his simulation to run in his universe, he could do that and those would be valid continuations for the being living in that simulation. Running a physics simulation is akin to looking into a window, not to an act of universe creation, even if it may look like that from the simulator's perspective.

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

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.

Except there is no omnipotence. The default meaning of the word is inconsistent, thus it's an impossible property. You can't change the truth of mathematical sentences. Physical omnipotence? Possible, but as I said before, it's very low probability to find yourself in an universe ruled by an interventionist "god", at least in COMP, due to 1p-indeterminacy. For such a god to have complete control over you, he'd have toto handle all counterfactuals, which is not possible due to Rice's theorem. The only thing such a being can do is feel like he is in control when he modifies a simulation, he can't control all possible continuations observers in his simulation can take. If he wants to more directly affect them, he'd have to be on an even footing them with - in the same universe or in a simulation in which he has more direct participation, and then he'd no longer be omnipotent.
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.

Yes, but for a 'programmed' to have an 1p, it has to be an ensemble of computations, yours being just a few finite ones in an infinite ensemble. Even if one can be confused/tricked for a finite amount of time about this, you can never be confused forever.

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.

Except, you can't have the SIM just do everything you want it and nothing more, it would hardly be generally intelligent then. Even if you inject false beliefs or goals, you'd end up in an exponentially increasing in complexity race of faking evidence, a race you're bound to lose (due to Rice's theorem among others) - you'll end up with a case where you don't even know *everything* about what's contained in your simulation. Initial conditions may be simple, but the complete trace may very well be unpredictable if you're dealing with anything containing UMs.
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.

Injecting false beliefs or making your machines incorrect while giving them means to general computation means they can correct their false beliefs and biases. You'll find yourself in an unwinnable race trying to make generally intelligent observers believe false things. Quite a waste of effort too. Also, "the cosmic muffin belief subroutine" implies that the minds are very high-level, which isn't the case for us, but I suppose it could be the case for some resource-efficient AGIs, however even then, either they're correct machines or they're self-correcting machines, in which case your attempt would be futile (they'll fix themselves) or pointless (they won't be smart or conscious).
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.

Only for a limited amount of time and for a very small part of the measures of some observers. Unless of course, those observers' goals were directly programmed by you and they are incapable of self-correcting and so on - already explained the issue with that. You're trying to make puppets out of machines, but they are not what you think they are.

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.

Not gods, merely programmers looking into some computations, not the cause of the 1p of those machines, and if you want to affect their reality directly and consistently, you'll have to share their reality (either at your level or insert yourself at their level)...
The opinion of the programmer *is* truth to the programmed. That's
what makes them God.

There are countless ways of defining God, but to be sure, that doesn't fit Bruno's definition of God. That's like saying that if you made a protocell and put it on some world and you came back a few billion years later and there are now generally intelligent beings on that world, you're their god - you couldn't have known how the evolution would have turned out or the entire histories that would have happened from that point after you placed that protocell.
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.

Sure, the programmer is natural, although it's hardly a deity. At best it's only worth some respect *if such a belief is correct*, not worship or any other weird stuff. The notion of supernatural seems like non-sense to me - the supernatural has to work by some rules too, thus it also becomes natural - calling something supernatural means your model of reality is incomplete, nothing more.

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.

I like the term "Matrix Lord" for such programmers, although I can't remember where I first heard it.
I don't think it matters. Any form of comp + MWI = inevitable all
powerful (relative to some simulation) Administrators.
Not all powerful. They're as powerful as one can possibly be (if they have access to unbounded computational resources), but they are no more or less powerful than any other generally intelligent being that can possibly exist within a COMP ontology. I already said that the chance of them affecting the observers in the simulation is low, but let's consider the case where they do succeed (with some low measure), are they more powerful than the ones they've simulated? No, they can even be less powerful. The beings in the inner universe could very well end up in a continuation where they become substrate independent themselves, then they can launch a continuation by putting themselves in an inner simulation which contains themselves, then find themselves somewhere in the UD, outside of the original programmer's control. Now in that new world, they could try looking at the programs ran within the UD and try to find their original digital physics world (which they could try to do if they recorded enough data from it) using some heuristics. If their original programmer left enough evidence that identifies the physics he was running on, his "creations" may very well be able to simulate (now from a separate "physics") his world and thus end up having a (very low) chance of playing interventionist "god" like he did. As I said before - all beings in COMP are on equal footing - they are all as powerful as they can be and any such Matrix Lord-like abilities are only temporary and shouldn't be abused.

The moral of this is that from the 1p of any being living in a world where COMP is true, they are already as powerful as is possible and this power shouldn't be abused lest you may end up others abusing it on you - the golden rule.

Unfortunately, even if observers in worlds where COMP is true have the potential to become as "powerful" as is logically possible for a finite being to be, they will never have perfect or complete knowledge - Godel's theorems and the halting problem being generally unsolvable prevent this.


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