From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 19:06:07 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> If you define "God" as an entity which pervades all areas of all Level IV
> Processes,
"Level IV Processes" is not easily Googled. Care to give a hint?
> then a Tegmarkian atheist would readily reply that "God" does not exist,
> regardless of whether there's a hubblebubble somewhere (*not* here)
There is, rather literally, a world of difference between a hubblebubble
and a logically "possible world." In fact, there's a world of difference
between Everett world-histories and semantic possible worlds.
> that contains a locally powerful entity answering to the name of
> Jehovah.
Well, of course; that's why you've got to pay close attention to those
quotation marks. The definition is the whole argument here.
It sounds like you're just pointing out that an atheist could concede that
there might be an extremely benevolent, well-informed, and, as you say,
locally powerful being, without conceding that there's one "here."
But I think even most traditional theists would agree that the existence
of Smart Tough Nice guys (like the "locally powerful entity answering to
the name of Jehovah") doesn't entail and isn't entailed by anything
interesting, so the question then becomes: well, is there a "perfect"
being? What about that "God"?
Certainly if you think "God" (according to this definition) exists in some
hubblebubble or other, you should think "God" exists in all hubblebubbles.
Similarly for all Everett world-histories. And, you know, similarly for
all possible worlds.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 19:16:02 MDT