Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

From: John M <>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:03:11 -0400

I really TRY to catch up with the discussions - however I can't help feeling
that what's going on is a physicalistic (?) *translation*
of Judeo-Christian theology: whe we die, we (soul?) transfer to the Dear
Good Lord's Heaven/Paradise (= called1000 different planets) - sometimes
expressed as quantum imortality...(of the soul?)
Then again, just like in the Christian myth, in heaven everybody
(including God) speaks the one human language we know (or not). Everything
is in the pattern of our terrestrial physical taste and comp imagination.
Maybe we get to hell: the mathematically illiterate planet?

Can't we do better?

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <>;
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

> At 13:55 27/04/04 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >>Ok, one last stab. You are going to be copied and teleported to 1000
> >>different planets. Only your body and your brain will be copied. On 999
> >>of these planets, everyone speaks Spanish, and on one planet, everyone
> >>speaks French. You don't know either language, and you are only allowed
> >>to learn one of them before your departure. From my perspective,
> >>Spanish is the correct choice. From your perspective, there's no reason
> >>to chose one over the other. Is there?
> >>
> >>-- Kory
> >
> >I would learn Spanish before teleportation, in order to give my
> >descendants the best chance of success; but going on what I said above, I
> >shouldn't care at all, because I'll be dead and someone else (or 1000
> >others) will take my place!
> But you will be dead in the same sense that you will
> be dead in the next instant, at least with what I understand
> when you quote Parfit. In THAT case you shouldn't care at
> all in the presence of any possible threats, no?
> (BTW, concerning Parfit, he still believe (in his book "Reasons
> and Persons") that we are "token". I have already
> argued that with the comp hyp we can only be "type".
> That means we cannot been made singular. The only argument
> Parfit gives for our token self-identity is that we
> would be immortal if we were type. That's not so easy,
> but even if it were I don't think it is a convincing
> argument.)
> I don't think we need a sophisticate theory of
> personal identity for understanding the consequence of
> comp. We need just not to confuse the first person, which
> are not duplicable, from their "body" (third person describable)
> which are duplicable. Your comments and answers to Kory
> seems rather unclear to me. What do you mean by "I'll be dead"
> giving that the comp hyp makes you dead in that sense (annihilated
> and then reconstituted) at each conceivable instant?
> Actually you do the 1/3 distinction when you say
> "someone else (or 1000 others) will take my place".
> it is "someone else" from the 1-view, and "1000 others" from
> the 3 view. Now we must derive physics from the 1-view
> of 3-splitted-differentiating machines in platonia. OK?
> Bruno
Received on Tue Apr 27 2004 - 11:32:04 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST