On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw <a...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Right, but true = a true reflection of the simulation.
No. True = true of unsimulated reality.
> If I make a
> simulation where I regularly stop the program and make miraculous
> changes, then the most intelligent observers might rightly conclude
> that there is an omnipotent entity
They can only wrongly conclude that since you are not omnipotent.
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