On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> 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.

That's because you aren't taking the simulation seriously. You are
thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the
observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation. In
comp though, it's all simulation. The only truly universal truths are
arithmetic ones. Arithmetic doesn't care if it makes Gods or
Administrators.

>
> > > > 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.

Not a bad thing, just an inappropriate thing for talking about fantasy
simulations. Pipe fittings maybe, or legal analysis, but you are not
going to find the secrets of consciousness by pointing at a
dictionary.

>
> > >, 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.

How would you express it?

>
> > > > > 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.

Because comp hasn't been around long enough to have traditions.

>
> >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.

Just the opposite. Communication breaks down if you tie my hands to
express new ideas in their native terms. Should discussions about
early automotive horsepower been limited to literal horses?

>
> > > > 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.

Not a bad thing, just not my thing. I don't do word definitions. I
don't believe in them.

>
> > > > > > 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 was not my question. I asked if I score a point in a game, is
that the truth that I scored a point.

>
> > > > 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

Since we are talking about simulations within a universe, the creator
of that simulation is the overseer of the simulated universe and
therefore 'supernatural' relative to the simulated beings in that
universe. This is the crucial point you are overlooking.

>
> > It
> > seems like you have one particular one in mind which reads - whatever
> > is the opposite of what Craig says it is.
>
> No.

See?

>
> > > > 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.

I think that all forms of comp consider the simulation independent
from the specific hardware it runs on (you need matter to run the
simulation but the properties of the matter don't penetrate the
simulation.

>
> > This is what
> > comp is - functionalism.
>
> Functionalism isn't usually immaterialitic.

It doesn't assert that material isn't primitive like Bruno does, but
it still defines consciousness as a function of any brain-like system.
Which makes me curious...outside of Bruno, does comp consider a
virtualized simulation running within software to be any different
than one running directly on hardware? If so, then that supposes
materialism as the basis for consciousness. If not, that supposes
metaphyscial consciousness.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.

Which dictionary *is* the final authority on the matter? A legal
dictionary? A theological dictionary? Language doesn't come from
dictionaries. Definitions range from irrelevant to convenient to
important. They are subjective.

>
> >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.

It's not that simple. We can communicate very successfully in all
kinds of non-verbal ways. There is a difference between not being able
to communicate and prohibiting expressions which fall outside
arbitrary conventions.

>
> >All words are made up.
>
> True, but irrelevant.

Why irrelevant? We can make up a word , phrase or vocalization that is
an inside joke, which might refer to something initially but then be
generalized to many other contexts. This is probably the primary
engine of neologisms in the world.

>
> > 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.

Of course. I don't see that there is any danger of that in this
context though. You aren't arguing that we aren't communicating, you
are arguing that I am not following the rules, therefore my ideas are
disqualified.

>
> > > 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.

Then you are positing a Platonic a priori for 'true language' which is
independent of any particular dictionary authority. I don't believe in
that.

>
> > > >    > > > > > 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".

Not for me.

>
> >That's how words work.
>
> That is one side of the picture. Shared meaning is the other.

That's what I'm saying, meaning is shared in between the lines. It
doesn't rely on adhering to linguistic conventions strictly.

>
> > > > 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.

That happens with some people and not with others. Different ways of
thinking use words differently. I'm never trying to talk past people,
I'm trying to explain what I mean thoroughly. It's not that easy
because everyone assumes I am saying something crazy because I don't
understand the conventional wisdom explanation, so I end up
reiterating over and over that I know exactly what they mean but I
have already taken that into account. They end up listening to
themselves more than me and conclude that my view is a
misunderstanding rather than a step ahead.

>
> >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.

Why though?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >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!

If you say so.

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