On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>> 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
>>> When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally
>>> intentionality on the part of the entity.
>>>> omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe),
>>> Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing.
>>>> 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,
>>> who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and
>>> care what humans do, then he's a deist.
>> Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities.
> Sure they. They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for
> ordering the world. I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM'
> as being a person or not. If not, I guess you're just a computationalist.
By person I guess that you mean something like a human being. I
certainly do not believe in that although the one god certainly has
consciousness along with a wide variety of natural and supernatural
beings that have consciousness and they may all share the same
I think that being a computationalist is the best label for me that
anyone has come up with. I have a stronger believe in the existence of
a supernatural world that will some day support my afterlife than I do
in an intervening god that judges and punishes, although I do believe
that the one god intervenes to manifest one physical world, rather
than many, something that Bruno admits that CTM can predict along with
an infinity of other possibilities inherent in the universal wave
Therefore if we do live in a single physical world, it can be
understood as being anthropic. CTM suffers from a much bigger
landscape than the string landscape (characterized by 10^500
possibilities). Bruno has suggested a CTM landscape on the order of
1024^1600 possibilities. That seems about right. Richard
> 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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at