On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > > Your standard of truth appears to exclude any simulated content. No, my definition of truth just doens't change to something else when considering simulated contexts. > > > 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. > > Same linguistic literalism. You say that like its a bad thing. > >, 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. > > That has almost nothing to do with my argument. You are off in > dictionary land. The fact remains that comp, rather than disallowing > gods, makes it impossible to know if a Matrix Lord/Administrator has > control over aspects of your life. That is a fact, when expressed properly. > > > > 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. > > What traditional meaning does 'supernatural' have in Comp? Why assume it has a non tradtional one. >Why do I > have to accept your linguistic preferences but you deny me the same > right? Because we can communicate if we stick to accepted meanings, and communiction breaks down if you have a free hand to use invented meanings. > > > 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. > > Your argument now seems to be a word definition argument. You say that like its a bad thing. > > > > > 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. > > If I score a point in a game is that the truth that I scored a point? > Is anything in a game 'true' in your definition? Yes It is true that a game is being played, not just true-for-the- layers. Likewise, the simulation hypothesis requires simulation to be actually true and not just true-for. > > > That's > > > what makes them God. > > > Being supernatural makes an entity god. And not just > > supernatural "to" or "for" someone. > > You are aware that there are many definitions for the word god. You are aware they broadly support what I amsaying, eg "God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. "--WP > It > seems like you have one particular one in mind which reads - whatever > is the opposite of what Craig says it is. No. > > > 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. > > I absolutely agree. I'm talking about how comp sees it. Bruno;s comp. > This is what > comp is - functionalism. Functionalism isn't usually immaterialitic. >A universe run on formula rather than stuff. > I disagree with comp. I see stuff and formula as one half of a > dialectic with self and experience. > > > > > >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, > > There is no such thing as *is* defined. Yes there is. Look in a dictionary. >Words are not molecules. Do > you not know this? Language is dynamic, context driven, and > intersubjective. Up to a point. Beyond that point, communication breaks down. >All words are made up. True, but irrelevant. > No two people mean exactly the > same thing when they use a word. No two people who are succeeding in communicating mean entirely differrent things eiher. > > which makes the argument valid > > analytical apriori, not from authority. > > Haha, why because you decided that your authority *is* the a priori > analytical truth? No. > > > > > > > > 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. > > It changes a little every time you use it. There's an important difference between "it changes" and "I am going to change it". >That's how words work. That is one side of the picture. Shared meaning is the other. > > > 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. > > I don't argue about what words mean. No: you don;t pay attention to the issue and so end up miscommunicating and talking past people. >I can't imagine what would be the > point, unless you are on a game show or something. > > > > > > > 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? > > Who doesn't say? Me. > > >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. > > It's hard to believe all that was to figure out that we were talking > past each other, but ok. I guess I should be glad for the novelty of > any argument actually ending on here. > > > > > > 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. > > You would make a good attorney. Not a slam, I can see that you prefer > a more detail oriented approach to theoretical matters. > No-one could be less detail orientated! -- 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.
