<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Le Malin génie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/</link>
	<description>A Mormon Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 19:54:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveP</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164556</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SteveP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164556</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My mother warned me about this. It&#039;s what comes of associating with the wrong crowd. First you just hang out with them, then you start dressing and talking like them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My mother warned me about this. It&#8217;s what comes of associating with the wrong crowd. First you just hang out with them, then you start dressing and talking like them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim F</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164554</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim F]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164554</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SteveP--a quite reasonable response.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SteveP&#8211;a quite reasonable response.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen M (Ethesis)</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164339</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen M (Ethesis)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164339</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just another approach to Bishop Berkley&#039;s thesis ... ;)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just another approach to Bishop Berkley&#8217;s thesis &#8230; ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark D.</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164304</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark D.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:23:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;Do you think there’s a random number generator thrown in for good measure?&lt;/em&gt;

That is another interesting problem - if the universe is not intrinsically random, it is impossible to build a real random number generator.  As John von Neumann said:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in the state of sin&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Do you think there’s a random number generator thrown in for good measure?</em></p>
<p>That is another interesting problem &#8211; if the universe is not intrinsically random, it is impossible to build a real random number generator.  As John von Neumann said:</p>
<blockquote><p>Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in the state of sin</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark D.</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164303</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark D.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164303</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;Nature at its base is discrete, not continuous&lt;/em&gt;

Quanta aside, last I heard a free photon could have any wavelength in a continuous, real valued spectrum.  Such a number in general requires an infinite number of bits to represent.  Makes computer simulation quite of a problem when just one particle takes an an infinite number of bits to represent correctly.

The general problem here is that the universe does not contain enough matter to build a computer big enough to accurately simulate the universe.  The best simulator of the universe is the universe itself.  So one might imagine that a believable real world computer simulation would have to make up things as it went along.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Nature at its base is discrete, not continuous</em></p>
<p>Quanta aside, last I heard a free photon could have any wavelength in a continuous, real valued spectrum.  Such a number in general requires an infinite number of bits to represent.  Makes computer simulation quite of a problem when just one particle takes an an infinite number of bits to represent correctly.</p>
<p>The general problem here is that the universe does not contain enough matter to build a computer big enough to accurately simulate the universe.  The best simulator of the universe is the universe itself.  So one might imagine that a believable real world computer simulation would have to make up things as it went along.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lincoln Cannon</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lincoln Cannon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:53:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New God Argument begins with secular assumptions, including the Simulation Argument, to conclude that we should trust that our world was created by begins that may qualify as gods, particularly from a Mormon perspective.

Here&#039;s an outline of the argument:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9205678/The-New-God-Argument-Lincoln-Cannon-and-Joseph-West-Handout

Here&#039;s a video presentation of the argument:

http://www.vimeo.com/2237236]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New God Argument begins with secular assumptions, including the Simulation Argument, to conclude that we should trust that our world was created by begins that may qualify as gods, particularly from a Mormon perspective.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an outline of the argument:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/9205678/The-New-God-Argument-Lincoln-Cannon-and-Joseph-West-Handout" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/9205678/The-New-God-Argument-Lincoln-Cannon-and-Joseph-West-Handout</a></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a video presentation of the argument:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.vimeo.com/2237236" rel="nofollow">http://www.vimeo.com/2237236</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveP</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164301</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SteveP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Question: is there a Mormon epistemology capable of determining that we are not part of a computer simulation?&quot;

No. Not one that assumes the Cartesian project. But I think that is the epistemic problem. His project was to find a ground for certainty, one that eventually ends in the only cogito as its end. But, I&#039;m sitting here and my feet are burning without cause (they just do at night, I don&#039;t know why). That is because in part because I am an embodied being that is more than just a consciousness connected to neural inputs (brain in a wet humany vat). My neurology is part of my consciousness in a way that is unseparable from what it means to be a &#039;being.&#039; I am a brain and a vat together. I think this is the strength of Mormonism in that God is embodied too. Our linkages to the world are not just links to a thing called mind we are intertwined things where body and mind and indeed universe are all part of a deeper connection. Descartes separated mind stuff and physical stuff but I think that was the mistake. When we buy into that separation and make our project that kind of undoubtable certainty then we fall pray to thinking there is mind &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a body when in reality they are connected into a single thing. I think that is why bodies matter in our theology. Spirt and body are linked in a way that goes beyond just physical data input from spirit to body (like the brain in the vat) we are one thing now. So to find some undoubtable certainty that we are not a simulation? No, not if that is the goal, but I think that is the wrong project.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Question: is there a Mormon epistemology capable of determining that we are not part of a computer simulation?&#8221;</p>
<p>No. Not one that assumes the Cartesian project. But I think that is the epistemic problem. His project was to find a ground for certainty, one that eventually ends in the only cogito as its end. But, I&#8217;m sitting here and my feet are burning without cause (they just do at night, I don&#8217;t know why). That is because in part because I am an embodied being that is more than just a consciousness connected to neural inputs (brain in a wet humany vat). My neurology is part of my consciousness in a way that is unseparable from what it means to be a &#8216;being.&#8217; I am a brain and a vat together. I think this is the strength of Mormonism in that God is embodied too. Our linkages to the world are not just links to a thing called mind we are intertwined things where body and mind and indeed universe are all part of a deeper connection. Descartes separated mind stuff and physical stuff but I think that was the mistake. When we buy into that separation and make our project that kind of undoubtable certainty then we fall pray to thinking there is mind <em>and</em> a body when in reality they are connected into a single thing. I think that is why bodies matter in our theology. Spirt and body are linked in a way that goes beyond just physical data input from spirit to body (like the brain in the vat) we are one thing now. So to find some undoubtable certainty that we are not a simulation? No, not if that is the goal, but I think that is the wrong project.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tkangaroo</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164300</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tkangaroo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:04:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael, that is the answer.  We are in the simulation created by Deep Thought to come up with ultimate question... of life, the universe, and everything.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, that is the answer.  We are in the simulation created by Deep Thought to come up with ultimate question&#8230; of life, the universe, and everything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tatiana</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164297</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tatiana]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RJH Says:
&quot;Explain further, Tatiana.&quot;

I&#039;ll try to write something up and post it as a guest post or something.  My explanation is getting too big for a comment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RJH Says:<br />
&#8220;Explain further, Tatiana.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll try to write something up and post it as a guest post or something.  My explanation is getting too big for a comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cynthia L.</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/06/le-malin-genie/#comment-164295</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cynthia L.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=13171#comment-164295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#5 -- ha!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#5 &#8212; ha!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

