On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Feb 19, 11:57 pm,
> > 1Z<[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg<[email protected]> 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 protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
