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.
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.