On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,

Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are you being purposefully dense?

I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world",

You wrote below, "No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds." We're pretty sure there's one possible world - since we're in it. So either there's just one possible world (this one). Or there is more than one possible world. So which is it? You're the one contradicting yourself here.

I clearly stated there is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the minds of biological organisms. I even put the words POSSIBLE and ACTUAL in caps to make it easy to understand.

Pay attention to your own logic. Stating there is only one actual world is compatible with that being the only possible world, or one world actualized out of many possible - hence my question. I now take that you think there are more possible worlds than the actual one we experience. Is that how you allow for quantum randomness: one possible world is realized from the random ensemble that QM predicts?


Of course that doesn't completely falsify pink rabbits or any other kind of alternate realty but there is no evidence for those things. Now you are criticizing my theory because it doesn't explain things for which there is no evidence whatsoever? Get real!

Where did I criticize your theory (except the relativity part)?  I just asked 
questions.


I'll let you spend your time constructing theories to explain what there is no evidence for if you like. I have better things to do...

But when there are multiple possible worlds but only one actual world, then a theory of everything needs to explain why only the one is actual. Maybe that's beyond your theory, which is OK; not every theory has to be a theory of everything.

Brent



Edgar

On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

    On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
    Brent,

    No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds.

    So there is only one possible world.  That would seem to imply the world is
    determinstic.  How do you account for quantum randomness?  Are you assuming 
hidden
    variables or hyperdeterminism?

    There are many ACTUAL simulations of a single computational reality, and 
all of
    those simulations are not arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly based in 
the
    actual logic of reality at least in their essentials. Because these are 
real world
    views of real biological organisms. They have to be accurate in their 
essentials
    for the organisms to exist and function.

    Yes that's all very well.  We and other beings model the world in our 
minds. And (we
    hope) those models are accurate.  But that does not logically entail that 
there
    cannot be other worlds with different physics and different beings making 
mental
    models of it.  Are you just asserting it as a contingent fact, or do you 
have some
    argument that only this world with its physics is possible?


    I find it difficult to understand how you would think I believe in "many 
possible
    worlds with alternative physics, etc." when I've consistently argued just 
the opposite.

So far as I can tell you've never argued that this is the only possible world. You've just asserted that it is real and everything real is in it. That doesn't
    logically entail that no other "real" worlds are possible.

    Brent


    Edgar



    On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

        On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
        > Terren,
        >
        > No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to 
consider
        not just
        > what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but 
the whole
        context of
        > the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a simulated world is entirely
        convincing in the
        > short term it still MUST exist in the actual reality, and if it is 
not in
        accordance
        > with the actual logic of that actual reality it will quickly or 
eventually
        fail. The
        > real being must exist somewhere else and be receiving nutrients etc. 
in a
        real actual
        > reality with which it is in logical synch with.

        So you're saying that although there are many possible world's 
(alternative
        physics, etc)
        that can exist in simulations, only one of these is real.  Which raises 
the
        question, why
        this one?

        Brent

        >
        > Thus you can't have just any old arbitrary fake simulation running or 
the
        simulated
        > being will quickly die in the real actual reality in which it MUST 
have an
        actual
        > existence. So there will always be a way to tell if the reality you 
live in
        is simulated
        > or not. If you actually exist then at least the basics must be in 
accord with
        actual
        > reality.
        >
        > Of course, as you suggest, there are many non-essential ways a 
simulation can
        be wrong
        > and the subject still function, but no essential ones. No matter how
        simulated an
        > internal reality is it still must exist in a real actual reality and 
this
        will always
        > eventually give a false simulation away when it is tested against 
actual
        reality by the
        > test of whether it is consistent with the continued existence and 
functioning
        of the
        > subject.
        >
        > Edgar

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "Everything List" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to
    everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
    To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
<javascript:>.
    Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
    <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
    <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to