Re: effing the ineffable

Date: Fri Jul 13 2001 - 10:19:28 MDT

Though he wasn't sure it was me, Robert quoted me saying:
> I realize that it's possible that that is how this reality is
> implemented. At this point, I don't see any reason to lend more
> credence to that hypothesis than to the one that suggests that
> there's an omnipotent, omniscient being who doesn't interfere
> in our affairs very often.

and replied:
> You need to be much more rigorous in your thinking. If one agrees that
> an "omnipotent, omniscient" 'being' violates known laws of physics,
> then it isn't even worth discussing (while we are at our current level
> of development).

That was my point. I haven't seen much evidence that we're living in a
sim, and I was comparing the probabilities of different varieties of
magical explanation. There's a parallel conversation going on now that may
lead to a revision of my estimate of the sim hypothesis. Not concluded yet.

He continued:
> What one wants to discuss are *what* are the
> capabilities and capacities of a full nanotech-enabled
> superintelligence relative to our level of civilization such that they
> could appear to be quasi-omnipotent or quasi-omniscient such that they
> could interfere with our affairs undetectably at a high frequency.

I can see that this would be interesting, if we thought there might be such
societies juxtaposed. Are you claiming there's evidence? Or saying that
we should entertain it as another hypothesis with priors as good as those
for living-in-a-sim and god-exists-but-ignores-us-mostly?


             C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings:
                         "A sense of age, of profound truths.  Respect for 
Chris Hibbert        something hands made, that's stood through storms and   wars and time.  It persuades us that things we do may
                                                         last and matter."
Yahoo Instant Message: ag_cth

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT