Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
> >
>
> > Godhood implies perfection, and requires all these absolute abilities;
> > immortality, omnipotence, omniscience, are good examples.
> >
>
> But, does it imply perfection at some exact moment or in process? If we
> don't assume that the end of this universe (if those models are as
> correct as we think) is the absolute end of any and all sentiences that
> came into being in this universe, then it is not so certain that we
> cannot be immortal for instance. That we can be killed now and perhaps
> for several thousand more years does not imply we will inevitably die.
>
It's also possible that you begin making coin tosses, and have that coin
come up heads every time, and that this would continue until the heat death
of the universe or continue, transcending the universe into subspace or
hyperland or fairyworld or whatever. But still, at any point, the future
still unknown beyond some limit, you could still turn up a tail in the
future. Still, you could die. So you are not immortal.
> The "omnis". Suppose those Omega point folks are right for a moment.
> That Sentience will be as omniscient as it is possible to be. Beyond
> that isan impossibility. Is an omni defined by definition to be
> impossible of acheiving a fair standard of anything at all? If it is
> utterly impossible than apply the idea to "God" or "gods" makes all such
> trivially impossible. But that is a rather pointless game. To a human,
> especially a primitive one, the smallest of the Powers would satisfy the
> omni criteria. Omni-present? Well, if this eventual Sentience ever
> manages to transcend space-time then conceivably (depending on how you
> take things like Many Worlds notions) this being can in fact be
> omni-present, Alpha and Omega, and so on.
If omni-x is defined pragmatically, then sure, I guess you can reach it in
principle. But then, you also allow exceding omni-x, which doesn't make
sense - "Ha ha, mere omnipotent being, feel the wrath of my hyper-omnipotent
power!".
Otherwise, omni-x is defined in the pure sense. This could be imagined, at a
stretch, for omniscience; lots of "gods" could be omniscient at once
(although perhaps Heisenberg would have something to say about this). You
can't say this about omnipotence, however, unless you have only one "being"
(taken in the loosest sense). Otherwise there is room for conflict, which
isn't allowable under the influence of omnipotence.
>
> As a matter of fact, a Singularity class sentience or several of them
> combining is about the only way I can imagine that something like most
> think of as "God" could exist.
Hopefully they wont think of themselves in that way.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:38 MDT