= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 4 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (325)
What if your hero asks to be made omniscient, including the capacity to still be able to think well in the face of all that knowledge?
Throw in omnibenevolence if you like, but I think you get some contradictions if you ask omnipotence. Either that, or you and Omega coalesce.
How could you test your omniscience to be sure it's the real thing?
Asking to modify yourself may be a useful strategy, (or maybe not, as you note) but it's not something that's available to philosophers trying to prove the existence of a god. As far as we know that is :)
It's possible that looking at how you'd test something which claims to be omniscience would give some pointers to finding unknown unknowns and unknown knowns.
Or also show you if there are unknowable unknowns?
An unknowable unknown: I shot a rocket across the cosmic horizon. On the rocket was a qGrenade set to detonate on a timer. Did my Schrödinger's rocket explode when the timer went off in my Everett branch?
I don't see that decoherence would occur in that case.
This once again explains why "reality" is a largely meaningless concept.
Wow. I maybe understand where you are alluding to, but I'm not sure I'm reverse engineering the thoughts right. Explain for me?
Whether or not it's meaningful, it's certainly useful, especially by Phillip K. Dick's definition: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
I'm pretty sure unknowability would have to be proven rather than shown.