> > > >> I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X & Z) logically derived >> string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of >> physics), > > > When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally > implying intentionality on the part of the entity. > > >> omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), > > > Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. > > >> and >> omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), > > > Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. > > >> but not >> necessarily omnibenevolent, >> that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all >> possible universes. What label do I deserve? >> > > Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. > > > If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person > who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and > doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. >
If comp is correct, we already know how to create such a simulation. We just have to run the universal dovetailer for a long enough time. We might soon have the computational resources to do it, with quantum computers. That wouldn't make us gods: - No omnipotence: He have absolutely no control, we are simulating *everything* - No omniscience: We wouldn't even be able to understand the macro levels of such universes. Decoding the output of the machine is a problem many orders of magnitude greater than building the machine - possibly requiring inimaginable computational power - No omnipresence: we would not be part of the computation in any meaningful way -- 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.
