On Feb 23, 3:51 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That's because you aren't taking the simulation seriously.
> Or because I am taking truth seriously.
Seriously and literally are two different things.
> > 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
> I don't know what you mean by "subject to". They may well not
> be able to arrive at the actual facts beyond the simulation at all.
Which is why they can't call them actual facts. To them, the
simulation is the only facts. They do not exist outside of the
> But that is an observation that *depends* on truth having a
> transcendent and objective nature. If truth is just what seems
> to you to be true, then they have the truth, as does every lunatic.
You could make a simulation where the simulation changes to fit the
delusions of a lunatic. You could even make them all lunatics and make
their consciousness completely solipsistic.
> . In
> > comp though, it's all simulation. The only truly universal truths are
> > arithmetic ones.
> That only arithmetic truth is truly true is not an arithmetic truth.
> is is, as you put it, "unviersal".
Universal only means that it is maximally common, not that it absolute
or cannot be changed. In some MWI universe I might be able to make a
simulation in which linguistic truth is fundamental instead and
arithmetic truth is not universal. It could be populated by parrots
who can't do math for shit but talk up a storm.
> > > > > 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.
> No. Fantasy can be expressed in literal language. In fact,
> it is better to do so, since the reader does not have to
> deal with the communicative double whammy of of
> weird ideas expressed in a weird way.
Or it could lead to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiMD12xKOig
> > Pipe fittings maybe, or legal analysis, but you are not
> > going to find the secrets of consciousness by pointing at a
> > dictionary.
> I recommend using publically accessble language
> to enhance communication, not to discover new
I would rather enhance the content of the communication than the form.
> > > > 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?
> Not using the word "god"
Ohh, ok. My point in that though is to show how god is really no
different from an administrator of a simulation that you are part of,
and that such a simulation is inevitable under comp.
> > > > 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.
> That doesn't answer the question. You are proceding as if the meaning
> a word *always* changes in different contexts.
It does. It even changes within the same same context context....since
no two contexts are really completely the same. Meaning isn't an
object. It has no fixed structure, it is figurative.
> > > 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?
> That;s a poor example. Horsepower is literallty the power of one
When you get done shoving 200 of them into a Honda, let me know so I
can see what literal horses look like. There is no such thing as the
literal power of a horse. It is an second order logic - a figure which
we use to represent a non-literal constellation of physical measures.
> > > > 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.
> Have you never seen a dictionary?
I believe in dictionaries, but not definitions. I believe in movie
critics but I don't believe that their opinions about movies are
objectively true. I might agree with them, but that doesn't mean that
it is possible for an opinion to be authoritatively definitive.
> > > 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.
> It;s true outside the game as well. Whatever you are trying
> to say. it is a poor analogy. You might try asking if you are
> really the top hat in Monopoly, or Throngar the Invincible in
Those make the same point as well. Is it true that you are the top hat
in Monopoly? If not then Monopoly is not a very strong simulation -
which it isn't. A full immersion virtual D&D campaign? That would be a
stronger simulation and you could not so easily say that you aren't
Throngar. Especially if you played him for a living...and changed your
name legally...and got plastic surgery. At what point do you become
Throngar? Are you 1Z? Figurative is the word to focus on. Subjectivity
is figurative. Meaning, perception, sensation...all figurative.
Literal is the antithesis that is objectivity.
> > > 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.
> But not actually supernatural at all, if he is a geek with BO and
> That is the point you are missing.
But the simulated beings can never access that information about their
creator, so how can it be true for them? We might be slaves of a
hideous cabal of intergalactic speculators in human misery who
manifest locally only as cereal box characters.
> > > > 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 (
> There's all the difference in the world
> between "independent of specific hardware"
> and "independent of any hardware"
Yes. Neither of them indicate materialism within simulation though.
> > > > 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.
> If you assume the need for physical hardware at the
> bottom of the stack, then consc. is not non-physical.
It is relative to the inside of the simulation. Pac-Man's universe is
non-physical (though it has physical themes).
> > > > > 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?
> If you meant "there is no such thing as finally authoritative
> you should have said so. If you meant there are too many
> definitions, not zero definitions, you should have said so.
What I said is that I don't believe in definitions at all. Not literal
definitions, only wise opinions, suggestions, etymologies.
> >A legal
> > dictionary? A theological dictionary? Language doesn't come from
> > dictionaries.
> No. dictionaries reflect the shared meaning that communication
> depends on.
They reflect the meaning, they don't provide the meaning.
> You offer idiosyncratic meaning sinstead of using the
> ones, woth the consequence that ohther people don;t unnderstand you.
You seem to understand me. Are you not people?
> > 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.
> How do we use non verbal communication on Usenet?
You said 'communication breaks down', not 'communication on Usenet
> > 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?
> It has no bearing on the importance of (relatively) shared
> and stable meanings for communication. Neologisms
> can be shared and stable.
How do they become shared and stable?
> > > > 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.
> Not at all;
> >I don't believe in
> > that.
> I don't believe I said it.
What do you think defines a word?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at