Brent, I think this message might have slipped past you in your inbox, but I'm curious what your answers are.
Jason On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> How would you define "intelligence" for this thing? >> > > Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of post-singularity intelligence > explosion / Platonic mind with access infinite computing resources / > Dyson's sphere powered computer, take your pick. It's capable enough to run > a planet-wide simulation down to whatever necessary detail it desires, and > be able to infer any being's thoughts on the planet by analyzing its brain > activity. Beyond that I'm not sure how to quantify or define its > intelligence. > > >> I think of intelligence as the ability to observe and infer and learn. >> Of course the traditional God was not only the creator of everything He was >> also a person who knew everything and so could not learn anything. >> > > Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can only say it knows > everything about its simulation. > > 1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god for the entities > within its simulation? > > 2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't simulating this > planet? > > 3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the > UDA/arithmetical realism? > > Jason > > >> He simply embodied all information - which might be true of the >> physical universe. On this list there's sentiment that in some sense >> everything exists and the sum of all information is the same as zero >> information, because nothing is distinguished >> >> Brent >> >> >> On 1/15/2015 12:49 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: >> >> Bruno, what of a super modern theology that removes God as someone who >> can be reached by prayer, but an actual intelligence in the universe? I got >> the idea from Dawkins, actually. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ronald Held <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> To: everything-list <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thu, Jan 15, 2015 1:00 pm >> Subject: Re: Digest for [email protected] - 4 updates in >> 1 topic >> >> Yes >> On Jan 15, 2015 12:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [email protected] >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/everything-list/topics> >>> Google >>> Groups >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview> >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview> >>> Topic digest >>> View all topics >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/everything-list/topics> >>> >>> - Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory >>> to dialectics? >>> <#14af0986fd216e5d_14af00b9a691fc78_14aeebc4ae562e69_group_thread_0> >>> - 4 Updates >>> >>> Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to >>> dialectics? >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/51af9e36dfef7411?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> >>> Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 05:40PM +0100 >>> >>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 20:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >>> >>> >>> > Sure, why not, for you it works, but many also have their own >>> > definitions and doctrines… and there is the rub. Everyone is talking >>> > about god, but the word means different things to different people. >>> >>> Really? I know only atheists to refuse the definition given by Samiya. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > If we want to rigorously define the conceptual meaning of god then I >>> > believe it should be possible to use the language of math and logic >>> > to make a more compelling argument for science. >>> >>> With Samiya definition, you can already prove that a machine cannot >>> distinguish God from Arithmetical Truth. >>> (Actually, a machine cannot even distinguish God, or arithmetical >>> truth, with sufficiently big part of arithmetical truth). >>> >>> >>> >>> > seek to find a way to speak of this mystery that uses rigorous >>> > symbolic language of math and logic. Otherwise it is just a bloody >>> > (not so) merry go round…. And round, and round. >>> >>> I disagree. I think it is a good start. Then we can add assumption(s) >>> (like computationalism, or materialism, etc) and see what could look >>> like that God in those theories. We have less problem today, because >>> mathematical logic shows how to talk about non nameable thing, and >>> God, as a substantive used as a fuzzy name, is only a pointer. If we >>> drop the word ---, tomorrow, we might go round and round on "---". >>> >>> Theology *is* by definition the search for a theory of everything. >>> Today physics fails, as it cannot unify the quantum facts and the >>> gravitational facts, and actually does not address many other problem >>> like consciousness, afterlife, souls, etc. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 05:47PM +0100 >>> >>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 20:32, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> > is power" or "God is a bearded dude in the clouds" They are just >>> > instances of a simple formula: "I think X is really important and >>> > deserving of your adulation. So God is X" >>> >>> Not at all. When we say "God is money" we do a metaphor. No one would >>> defend the idea that money is the origin of the universe/consciousness. >>> >>> When we say God is the unknown reason of the universe/consciousness, >>> we provide a definition. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Do you believe in a source of reality beyond the apparent physical >>> >> reality we find ourselves in now? >>> >>> > No. I don't "believe IN" anything. I entertain hypotheses. >>> >>> Good. But you don't always talk like that. Sometimes it looks like you >>> do believe that our origin is physical. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 06:23PM +0100 >>> >>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> >> God exists, rather than being a true atheist who would "believe IN" >>> >> "no theistic god exists" >>> >>> > I don't believe any theistic God exists - and so I'm an a-theist. >>> >>> >>> Usually atheists believe that there is no theistic God. If you are >>> agnostic, then let us continue the research, and let us not decide in >>> advance the degree of theistic-ness of god. BTW, how would you define >>> "theistic". If it means "santa Klaus", I am atheist too, but consider >>> that trivial and uninteresting. No serious theologian believes in >>> Santa Klaus. And yes, many theologian are not serious, but this is due >>> to the contingent fact that people blasphemize all the time (i.e. use >>> God for personal power purpose (the most irreligious thing to do >>> according to *many* theologian and normally all scientist). >>> >>> Theology gives power. Fake theology gives fake power. The problem is >>> that fake power works better, in the short term, and needs much less >>> effort, because it needs only gullibility/lack of education and >>> training in logic, where the non fake theology asks for serious effort >>> and work. >>> >>> I have a question, thinking about you being an a-theist. Is the God of >>> Anselmus theistic? Does Gödel's formalization of Anselmus formalize a >>> theistic God? >>> >>> In fact, if you are "only" an agnostic atheist, then it seems even >>> more weird to me why you have vocabulary problems in the field of >>> theology. >>> >>> I have no problem using "toy theology" for what ideally arithmetically >>> sound finite creatures (machines, numbers) can eventually believe, and >>> intuit, and observe, about themselves and their possibilities. It is >>> then obviously interesting to compare this with what humans believes >>> about themselves. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 06:38PM +0100 >>> >>> On 15 Jan 2015, at 00:45, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> >>> >> Having no beliefs is agnostic. >>> >>> > No, an agnostic not only doesn't know, but thinks it's impossible to >>> > know, per #5 below. >>> >>> Those are "or", and that meaning of agnostic is technical, and put out >>> of its context. That is because atheists want to include the >>> agnostics. I comply and distinguish the strong atheist (non agnostic) >>> from the weak atheism (can be agnostic). But I point that the >>> difference between string and weak atheism is far bigger tha between >>> string atheism and christianism (which for a mathematician is just >>> about the same main belief in Aristotle conception of reality). >>> >>> By allowing agnostic to be a form of atheism leads to trivializing the >>> term, and is very misleading on the meaning of strong atheism. >>> >>> Better to accept that science = agnosticism in all direction, be it >>> matter, god, equality between matter and god, or difference between >>> matter and god. We start from scratch using some general assumptions. >>> >>> The interesting question is not god exists or not. the interesting >>> question is "is the physical universe the reality, or is it an aspect >>> or mode of a deeper/simpler reality". >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> Back to top >>> <#14af0986fd216e5d_14af00b9a691fc78_14aeebc4ae562e69_digest_top> >>> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for >>> this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/everything-list/join> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an >>> email to [email protected]. >>> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
