(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
