On Feb 20, 1:45 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > 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.

That doens't make you supernatural.

> >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

The ability to beieve falsehoods has no interesting implications.

>and that is all that is required.


> > > > > 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.

Nonsense. CTM is a scientific theory.

>What would be the meaning of any form of computationalism
> without the notion of computational realism?

What do you mean by 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.

"their reality"=appearance=/= 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.

But it it is in reality simulated, it is in reality simulated,
and "our reality" is delusional.

> > You seem to be arguing
> > appearance=reality on the premise that
> > opinion=truth.
>
> 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.

That is uncontentious. It is also not what you are
saying elsewhere.

> > > 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.


Can't a red pill be programmed in?


> > 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
> *their* Gods.

ANd I am saying that is fallacious. CTM, MWI and AP are all
sceintific princples with no room for the supernatural. SInce gods
are supernatural by definition, no belief in a god arising in such
circumsntances is *correct*, be it every so persuasive.

> > > > "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

Gods are supernatural by definition.

> (entities with absolute superiority or omnipotence over
> the subordinate entities who inhabit the simulations they create) and
> their inevitability in MWI.

That's superbeings, not gods.



> > You
> > do not rescue the supernatural by rendering the natural
> > meaningless.
>
> Why not?

Because, if the one is meaningless, so is the other.

> 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.

Gods are superntarual by definition. You can  no more
provide evidecne of a natural god than of a married bachelor.


> > > > I don't know. Who?
>
> > > You.
>
> > No, you have misunderstood.
>
> If you could prove that statement, you would have tried.

I know what I mean.


> > > 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?

Why do you think comp is true?

>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

False, false, false , false false!!!! Standard CTM has nothing
to do with Dreaming Machines in Platonia, or any other fanciful
notion Bruno has come up with.

>, and
> therefore no arithmetically generated experience can be seen through
> with certainty by the machines/programs within the simulation.


> > > 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.

Read again. I didn't say no sim could have such-and-such
an opinion, I said it would not be true.

> > 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.


Same problem.

> > >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.
>
> 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.

False. It may make natural superbeings possible, it may
make false but plausible beliefs in gods likely, but
it cannot make supernatural gods inevitable because
all the ingredients in it are natural or artificial.

> Add the anthropic principle levels any objections about
> probability. This seems iron clad and straightforward to me.


It seems like  wet tissue paper to me.



> > No, that is not at all an equivlaent claim. There may
> > be no extension of "magnetic monopole", but it is a meaningful
> > concept.
>
> Supernatural can be meaningful if you want it to be, but in comp all
> it means is meta-programmatic or meta-simulation.

Says who? I don't have to accept that the meaning of "supernatural"
has
to exchange to ensure that there are N>0 supernatural entities. I can
stick to the traditional meaning, and regard it as unpopulated and
extensionless.


> 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.

Apart from ...my argument. As given.


> 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.

It still isn't truth. As soon as you add a "to" or "for" clause,
you are actually talking about opinion, even if you are using the
*word* truth.

> That's
> what makes them God.

Being supernatural makes an entity god. And not just
supernatural "to" or "for" someone.


> > > 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.

The matter doesn't matter. What matters is that there is always
some matter. I have never seen a simulation run on arithmetic.

>A cartoon is a simulation. A
> puppet show is a simulation.





> > > 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.

It is the way god *is* defined, which makes the argument valid
analytical apriori, not from authority.


> Please note:
>
>    > > > > > > 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?
>
> This is your argument, not mine. My whole point is that God becomes
> natural, and inevitable under MWI + Comp.

My point is that that argument requires the meaning of "god" to
change, and, since language us public, you don't get to change it
unilaterally.

> 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.

I don't know how to get accross to you that it is about WHAT THE
WORD GOD MEANS.

> > 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.

Says who?

>Call it Administrator if you want.

I do. Then the argument is over, since you are no longer
claiming gods are inevtiable, but only Administrators.

> The functionality is the same.
>

> > > 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.

I think it matters greatly.

> Any form of comp + MWI = inevitable all
> powerful (relative to some simulation) Administrators.
>
> Craig

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to