On 2/21/2012 5:41 AM, 1Z wrote:

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.

  Hi Craig,

I think that you are missing a point here. COMP is showing us how there is no inherent bias on what we can believe ourselves to be, thus it is throwing open the options. This is a good with with regards to Free Will for without the multiplicity of options or alternatives there is no choice. We just would be one thing and there would be no debate on "free will".


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.

False, Semantics is said to only be possible because we can lie, i.e. if we cannot lie then we cannot tell truths either. See Umberto Echo's Semiotics Theory <http://books.google.com/books?id=RaFrAAAAIAAJ&q=lie#search_anchor> pg. 7.


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.

    It is "scientific" if it is falsifiable. Is it?


What would be the meaning of any form of computationalism
without the notion of computational realism?
What do you mean by computational realism?

The belief that what is "real" is what is computable or expressible with enumerable recursive functions.


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.

    This is really a debate about Realism, no?



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.

It is delusion only if there are alternative "realities" against which we can judge the validity of such statements as "what I am experiencing at this moment is not real".


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?

No, as that would render the entire edifice of alternatives impossible and thus not even conceivable.



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.

Would A.C. Clarck's dictum have an answer to this "all sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic"?


"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.

Super natural in the sense of being above Nature and thus capable of choosing alternatives "natures". So, yeah.


(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
    Are we wandering aimlessly here?

Onward!

Stephen

--
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