Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

*All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable information.* What about the realizab

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:54:44PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody > bigger that you or I ;) ha

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: > > > You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the > > plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the > > meaning of "possible"

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > >> A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's > >> of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it > >> provides. > > > I don't like simply saying "That isn't so,"

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:30:57PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > > >Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational > > >selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up i

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Russell Standish wrote: > > > > >Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational > >selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my "Why > >Occams Razor" paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite >

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Russell Standish wrote: > >Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational >selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my "Why >Occams Razor" paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite >of it being around on this list since 1999, and in spite of

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:46:32PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How do you know that you are the same person from moment to moment in > > > ordinary life? The physical processes in your brain create psychological > > > continuit

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How do you know that you are the same person from moment to moment in > > ordinary life? The physical processes in your brain create psychological > > continuity; that is, you know you are the same person today as yesterday > > because you ha

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tom Caylor wrote: >>> On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is th

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: > > You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the > plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the > meaning of "possible" for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS) > only part of the plen

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the > >>> Creato

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 4:54 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > God would be outside of the plenitude, a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/6/07, *Mark Peaty* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation > of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the > ability to *be* th

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/6/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation > of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the > ability to *be* the story. But when looking at this as a/n > [infinity^infinity] Many Worlds affair, no

Re: JOINING post

Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the same as the word 'origination-point'. You said: (1) > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. > And you also said: (2) > we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever it > may be) of our

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Thank you Bruno! You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume* comp and see where it leads. It seems that self-reference and recur