From: Michael LaTorra (mike99@lascruces.com)
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 09:43:06 MDT
Emlyn" emlyn@one.net.au wrote:
>Godhood implies perfection, and requires all these absolute abilities;
>immortality, omnipotence, omniscience, are good examples.
>
>Really, though, we can never be immortal, omnipotent, or omniscient. We can
>live a long time (1000s of years?), we can have much more power over the
>universe (moving stellar bodies around), we can know a lot of things
(what's
>going on at the atomic level in a star on the other side of the galaxy).
But
>we are fundamentally limited, and always will be.
Again, definitions matter, and mine are not wholly congruent with yours. As
you go on to say (below), the Olympian Gods whom I mentioned as beings we
could become like, are not "perfect." But such beings are immensely powerful
and long-lived and possessors of vast knowledge. Potentially, each could
have a universe in which his or her power and life and knowledge would be
absolute. (Sharing the same universe necessarily limits them to
less-than-absolute levels of power.)
I would argue, it is not inconceivable that even such levels of being can be
improved upon within our universe, or in another one just next door. Merely
being long-lived could be turned into true immortality. Vast knowledge could
increase into global, comprehensive knowledge. And immense power in our
universe might translate into absolute power in a universe we spawned by
compressing 20 kilograms of matter and popping out into a new space-time.
(Which, of course, would require technologies we have not developed. Yet.)
It seems to me that there is no need to presume, as you do from the start,
that there are limits to what we can do and what we can be. I say that we
should aim as high as we can imagine and then see how far we can actually
go.
>If I remember the stories about Olympus correctly, the inhabitants
exhibited
>decidedly mortal character flaws, although perhaps in godly proportion.
>Certainly, there was a rather large helping of arrogance, and an uncommonly
>large amount of smiting going on. Kind of like Melrose Place with nuclear
>weapons. No thanks.
Kind of like the world we inhabit now. But with more knowledge, more
partying, and -- if you get beyond Homer and read other tales of the
Olympians -- more acts of compassion toward lesser beings.
You may not like the world we have now, Emlyn, or the one we are building.
But likes and dislikes won't change a thing. Only actions matter. So tell me
what you propose, and what you oppose. Does only life-extension suit you?
Would you oppose true immortality? The same questions apply to the godly
levels of power and knowledge. Would you want or permit others to have such?
Or are you simply unwilling to consider a really unbounded future?
Regards,
Michael LaTorra
mike99@lascruces.com
mlatorra@excite.com
3229 Risner Street
Las Cruces, NM 88011-4823
USA
505.522.5121
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:06 MST