Coincidentially I was pondering this very question a few weeks ago.
If many worlds interpretation is true, then all religions has to be true (in a simulation)
What I think is that the people on here is clearly way, way, way dumber than I would ever have thought :)
Somehow my factual statement that MWI implies that there will be computer simulations in a tiny tiny tiny fraction of ‘worlds’ in which there will be God-like entities within the simulations, have made the retards on here think that the downvote button is morphine
The downvotes are largely attributable to you being a jerk. Also, your speculations about MWI and simulations are not as transparently correct as you imagine. As wedrifid says, most major religions cannot be fully simulated. Besides the problem with logical contradictions that he pointed out (and you bizarrely misinterpreted), there’s also the issue that many religions attribute capabilities to god that render him/her/it unsimulatable. For instance, an omniscient god would presumably know all arithmetic truths. Unless MWI somehow makes hypercomputation possible, how will this be simulated?
Besides the problem with logical contradictions that he pointed out (and you bizarrely misinterpreted), there’s also the issue that many religions attribute capabilities to god that render him/her/it unsimulatable.
That’s a good point. Many worlds can’t make a simulator logically omniscient no matter how thin you slice up that measure.
For instance, an omniscient god would presumably know all arithmetic truths. Unless MWI somehow makes hypercomputation possible, how will this be simulated?
Are you asserting that this would be a testable attribute of a putative omniscient god that could not be demonstrated by a simulated god? Or merely that it is an attribute that could not be simulated, even if I as an observer would have no way of telling the difference between the real thing and a sufficiently properly rigged demo?
Are you asserting that this would be a testable attribute of a putative omniscient god that could not be demonstrated by a simulated god? Or merely that it is an attribute that could not be simulated, even if I as an observer would have no way of telling the difference between the real thing and a sufficiently properly rigged demo?
Definitely the latter. Probably also the former, but constructing the test (or proof that such a test exists) requires math skills I don’t have and so there is some chance that it isn’t possible after all.
If you are polynomial time (BPP), then for any problem whose answer can be demonstrated to you by an interactive proof protocol with an untrusted logically omniscient prover (IP), that protocol can also be executed by a prover who is limited to PSPACE. (The set of problems that can be thus proved is also PSPACE).
Proof: for any given BPP verification algorithm (you), the prover’s task is selecting a strategy that maximizes your chance of acceptance. Which is equivalent to choosing the optimal move in a game tree with polynomial depth (because of your limited time) and constant branching factor (a branch being one bit of the prover’s message, or one bit of randomness you generate). Depth-first traversal of that tree takes little memory.
If you found two different purported gods and played them against each other (MIP) you could get a higher bound on their power, but only if you somehow knew that they weren’t colluding.
It’s possible that I have made an embarrassing error in my comment, although given your track record in this thread, I don’t consider your response to be particularly strong evidence of this. Still, if you would care to elaborate, I will gladly listen.
It just baffles me that people get hung up on tiny insignificant details. I could go on to argue for my statements here, but I just remember your username. You are the same person who did not care to elaborate on your MWI statements when I asked you, so I don’t see any reason to answer you either.
what you actually said was “Coincidentially I was pondering this very question a few weeks ago. If many worlds interpretation is true, then all religions has to be true (in a simulation)” That isn’t what you claim you said:”that MWI implies that there will be computer simulations in a tiny tiny tiny fraction of ‘worlds’ in which there will be God-like entities within the simulations, have made the retards on here think that the downvote button is morphine.”
The second is not even just one very poorly expressed meaning of the first, which would make your anger misplaced but understandable if you thought your meaning was clear. Nobody took this as your meaning. But the reason isn’t just that you said it badly. It’s a different claim. “God like entities” are not enough for “all religions are true.”
You can’t have a simulation in which christianity is true “God created the world (and nobody created him)” can’t be true in a simulation (even if there is a god-like entity that created the simulation from inside an outer simulation). Also, there’s all the moral stuff that come with religions which is meta-wrong as well as often moral wrong.
What I think is that the people on here is clearly way, way, way dumber than I would ever have thought
Are.
Somehow my factual statement that MWI implies that there will be computer simulations in a tiny tiny tiny fraction of ‘worlds’ in which there will be God-like entities within the simulations
All religions that are possible to simulate. (So none of them as far as I am aware, but there would at least be every possible near-enough simulation of said religions except with the logical self-contradictions resolved in one way or another.)
Are you seriously telling me that you do not have the imagination to think how a simulation could manipulate the laws within the simulated Universe?
Why wouldn’t it be possible to simulate miracles? Hell if MWI is true there was really a guy named Jesus in one universe who walked on water because all the particles in the water he walked on by the “law of nonzero probability” turned to solid matter.
When gratuitously insulting people and generally behaving like an ass you need to take more care not to make screwups yourself.
Are you seriously telling me that you do not have the imagination to think how a simulation could manipulate the laws within the simulated Universe?
Me telling you that seems exceedingly unlikely.
Why wouldn’t it be possible to simulate miracles?
Miracles are trivial. That’s why I didn’t mention them and instead made a note about logical self-contradictions in the divinity specifications. In case you didn’t notice this amounts to what is essentially an agreement with a clarification.
Coincidentially I was pondering this very question a few weeks ago. If many worlds interpretation is true, then all religions has to be true (in a simulation)
Most religions make metaphysical claims which contradict mwi.
READ THE FUCKING PART THAT SAYS; IN A SIMULATION
You are one sad fuck
Tell us what you really think!
What I think is that the people on here is clearly way, way, way dumber than I would ever have thought :)
Somehow my factual statement that MWI implies that there will be computer simulations in a tiny tiny tiny fraction of ‘worlds’ in which there will be God-like entities within the simulations, have made the retards on here think that the downvote button is morphine
The downvotes are largely attributable to you being a jerk. Also, your speculations about MWI and simulations are not as transparently correct as you imagine. As wedrifid says, most major religions cannot be fully simulated. Besides the problem with logical contradictions that he pointed out (and you bizarrely misinterpreted), there’s also the issue that many religions attribute capabilities to god that render him/her/it unsimulatable. For instance, an omniscient god would presumably know all arithmetic truths. Unless MWI somehow makes hypercomputation possible, how will this be simulated?
That’s a good point. Many worlds can’t make a simulator logically omniscient no matter how thin you slice up that measure.
Are you asserting that this would be a testable attribute of a putative omniscient god that could not be demonstrated by a simulated god? Or merely that it is an attribute that could not be simulated, even if I as an observer would have no way of telling the difference between the real thing and a sufficiently properly rigged demo?
Definitely the latter. Probably also the former, but constructing the test (or proof that such a test exists) requires math skills I don’t have and so there is some chance that it isn’t possible after all.
If you are polynomial time (BPP), then for any problem whose answer can be demonstrated to you by an interactive proof protocol with an untrusted logically omniscient prover (IP), that protocol can also be executed by a prover who is limited to PSPACE. (The set of problems that can be thus proved is also PSPACE).
Proof: for any given BPP verification algorithm (you), the prover’s task is selecting a strategy that maximizes your chance of acceptance. Which is equivalent to choosing the optimal move in a game tree with polynomial depth (because of your limited time) and constant branching factor (a branch being one bit of the prover’s message, or one bit of randomness you generate). Depth-first traversal of that tree takes little memory.
If you found two different purported gods and played them against each other (MIP) you could get a higher bound on their power, but only if you somehow knew that they weren’t colluding.
I literally cannot believe the low level of intelligence on here. Baffling
It’s possible that I have made an embarrassing error in my comment, although given your track record in this thread, I don’t consider your response to be particularly strong evidence of this. Still, if you would care to elaborate, I will gladly listen.
It just baffles me that people get hung up on tiny insignificant details. I could go on to argue for my statements here, but I just remember your username. You are the same person who did not care to elaborate on your MWI statements when I asked you, so I don’t see any reason to answer you either.
Leave.
what you actually said was “Coincidentially I was pondering this very question a few weeks ago. If many worlds interpretation is true, then all religions has to be true (in a simulation)” That isn’t what you claim you said:”that MWI implies that there will be computer simulations in a tiny tiny tiny fraction of ‘worlds’ in which there will be God-like entities within the simulations, have made the retards on here think that the downvote button is morphine.”
The second is not even just one very poorly expressed meaning of the first, which would make your anger misplaced but understandable if you thought your meaning was clear. Nobody took this as your meaning. But the reason isn’t just that you said it badly. It’s a different claim. “God like entities” are not enough for “all religions are true.”
You can’t have a simulation in which christianity is true “God created the world (and nobody created him)” can’t be true in a simulation (even if there is a god-like entity that created the simulation from inside an outer simulation). Also, there’s all the moral stuff that come with religions which is meta-wrong as well as often moral wrong.
Are.
All religions that are possible to simulate. (So none of them as far as I am aware, but there would at least be every possible near-enough simulation of said religions except with the logical self-contradictions resolved in one way or another.)
Grammar nazi.
Are you seriously telling me that you do not have the imagination to think how a simulation could manipulate the laws within the simulated Universe? Why wouldn’t it be possible to simulate miracles? Hell if MWI is true there was really a guy named Jesus in one universe who walked on water because all the particles in the water he walked on by the “law of nonzero probability” turned to solid matter.
When gratuitously insulting people and generally behaving like an ass you need to take more care not to make screwups yourself.
Me telling you that seems exceedingly unlikely.
Miracles are trivial. That’s why I didn’t mention them and instead made a note about logical self-contradictions in the divinity specifications. In case you didn’t notice this amounts to what is essentially an agreement with a clarification.