Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way. I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect. An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI, or subdomains within an infinite cosmos, would handle the energy issue, quite well. It just won't consume an infinite right here, in this universe or domain. In fact, energy may just be software, in a level or reality above us.
Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the details of the simulation]. Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 6:18 am Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe. 2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians know this since Gödel, Kleene, etc. What is not trivial is that it leads to "new equation" for fundamental physics (given by the FPI, translated in the intensional variant of self-reference, making comp testable in some sense). The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better. But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists ontologically. People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me) must be a primary program. Thanks for your coment. Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the details of the simulation]. Bruno Mitch Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <[email protected]> wrote: > John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of > an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation > argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to > do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be > an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators > above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but > don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. > I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will > not see it this way. Which is good with me. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated hurricane is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do than the meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who wrote the Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is true (and the restriction on the number of calculations that can be performed in the observable universe may rule out infinite levels, unless that restriction was just tacked on by our simulators) you wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that every event have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that demands that. John K Clark -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
