Forums > Social Discussion > The Ultimate Theory of Reality.
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
As promised in the 'Superultimate Question' thread: -
[Old link]
I've put together my proposed answer to the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
It's here: -
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
Please note before adding to this thread that quantum physics, cosmology, Hawking, the 'Big-Bang', Einstein and Schrodingers cat are almost certainly off-topic due to the fact that the 'nothing' refered to in the question is philosophical nothingness (absolute emptiness) rather than the physical 'empty space' nothingness covered by physics.
(For more on this check out the first link above where this point was extensively discussed)
As promised in the 'Superultimate Question' thread: -
[Old link]
I've put together my proposed answer to the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
It's here: -
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
Please note before adding to this thread that quantum physics, cosmology, Hawking, the 'Big-Bang', Einstein and Schrodingers cat are almost certainly off-topic due to the fact that the 'nothing' refered to in the question is philosophical nothingness (absolute emptiness) rather than the physical 'empty space' nothingness covered by physics.
(For more on this check out the first link above where this point was extensively discussed)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Ok let's talk mathematics (You knew Id get in on this didnt you?). You are holding that Math exists like a realm of the forms in Platonism. I AM going to argue that math is not really existent like this because I think you make a mistake in thinking that Pi is somehow different from regular numbers which we abstract from others.
Math IS abstracted from particulars. You can not point to something and say that is the number 1. Rather all math is relational in nature. Advanced math is just more advanced methods of showing relations between these theoretical constructs. We use said system to interpret things in the world. Pi is the relation of a THEORETICAL circle's diameter to its circumfrence. Pi does not exist outside of the system of theory, because only in said system does it make sense to talk about perfect relations since the world does not necessarily conform to that theory.
Rejection #2: Math is not true. Provable, but not true. It is provable only by its own axioms within the system. However, there always exists something that the system can not explain, so it must reach outside of itself to come up with additional axioms to explain things. Logic has the same problem (Anyone hate logic? You'll love this...). Let me introduce you to a man named Godel.
1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
5. If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
7. "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."
With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.
-----------------------
I stole all that from https://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html.
Here's a nother I stole off another site to explain why a "realm of the forms" is not possible:
Even more interesting, the reality of Platonic 'forms' - ideals contemplated by the human intellect - is questioned by some simple corollaries to Gödel's Theorem. His Propostion XI states that the consistency of any formal deductive system (if it is consistent) is neither provable nor disprovable within the system. A quick leap of logic interprets this corollary as such: 'Any sufficiently complex, consistent logical framework cannot be self-dependent' - i.e., it must rely on intuition, or some external confirmation of certain propositions (specifically, one that proves internal consistency).
A paradox Bertrand Russell came up with too. I havn't parsed it out in my head yet, but I'm sure once I do it will be applicable somehow here either supporting or refuting Godel. I think supporting though:
R is the set of all sets which are not members of themselves.
Thus the statement: "Set R is a member of itself" is indeterminate.
Thus by Godels incompleteness theorem your explanation can not be true. And FURTHER by Godel's incompleteness theorem, we can NEVER reach absolute truth because it would require stepping outside existence in order to explain it. Sorry man.
I had another one but Im tired and can't remember right now.
===
This statement is false.
True or false by the axioms of logic?
Ok let's talk mathematics (You knew Id get in on this didnt you?). You are holding that Math exists like a realm of the forms in Platonism. I AM going to argue that math is not really existent like this because I think you make a mistake in thinking that Pi is somehow different from regular numbers which we abstract from others.
Math IS abstracted from particulars. You can not point to something and say that is the number 1. Rather all math is relational in nature. Advanced math is just more advanced methods of showing relations between these theoretical constructs. We use said system to interpret things in the world. Pi is the relation of a THEORETICAL circle's diameter to its circumfrence. Pi does not exist outside of the system of theory, because only in said system does it make sense to talk about perfect relations since the world does not necessarily conform to that theory.
Rejection #2: Math is not true. Provable, but not true. It is provable only by its own axioms within the system. However, there always exists something that the system can not explain, so it must reach outside of itself to come up with additional axioms to explain things. Logic has the same problem (Anyone hate logic? You'll love this...). Let me introduce you to a man named Godel.
1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
5. If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
7. "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."
With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.
-----------------------
I stole all that from https://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html.
Here's a nother I stole off another site to explain why a "realm of the forms" is not possible:
Even more interesting, the reality of Platonic 'forms' - ideals contemplated by the human intellect - is questioned by some simple corollaries to Gödel's Theorem. His Propostion XI states that the consistency of any formal deductive system (if it is consistent) is neither provable nor disprovable within the system. A quick leap of logic interprets this corollary as such: 'Any sufficiently complex, consistent logical framework cannot be self-dependent' - i.e., it must rely on intuition, or some external confirmation of certain propositions (specifically, one that proves internal consistency).
A paradox Bertrand Russell came up with too. I havn't parsed it out in my head yet, but I'm sure once I do it will be applicable somehow here either supporting or refuting Godel. I think supporting though:
R is the set of all sets which are not members of themselves.
Thus the statement: "Set R is a member of itself" is indeterminate.
Thus by Godels incompleteness theorem your explanation can not be true. And FURTHER by Godel's incompleteness theorem, we can NEVER reach absolute truth because it would require stepping outside existence in order to explain it. Sorry man.
I had another one but Im tired and can't remember right now.
===
This statement is false.
True or false by the axioms of logic?
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
interesting read, i especially like the stuff on pi being independant of the world some points im a little dubious about.
points im a little unsure of
1. if there is nothingness doesnt that mean the mathematical realm cant exists as the rules of mathematics are something? surely the concepts that exist in the mathematical realm apply everywhere? if so doesnt that void the nothingness in that the mathematical entites are a property of everywhere in the same way that gravity voids the nothing
2. doesnt the logic of maths and its rules require a creator to have made them so? for example e ^ pi*i = -1
where e is the natural log
pi is 3.14 blahdyblah blah
i=square root of negative 1
to me suggests some sort of careful architecture rather than just existing
3. "The mathematical realm they inhabit is, and always has been, timeless and unchanging- unborn, uncreated and undying. "
the mathematical realm u talk of seems like it could quite easily be replaced with the word god
4. the idea of consciousness being a byproduct of information processing i have no qualms with, however to me that would suggest that there is no mind, ill explain using the chinese room arguement
suppose that there is a man in a room he speaks english but no chinese at all, on the wall there are lots and lots of instructions that relate input characters to out put characters and the instructions to match them up are written in english.
someone outside the room passes in a piece of paper with a story written in chinese and then another piece of paper with questions written in chinese. the man then looks up the rules on the wall and matches the inputs to generate the correct answers to the question, however the man has no understanding of the answers he has given, but to someone outside the room it looks like he understands it.
so lets extend this arguement so that now instead he has extra characters coming in which happen to correspond to vision (not that he would know it could simply be just ones and zeros) and touch taste smell etc etc and he now has more rules for all the new inputs.
where does the mind fit into all this? bearing in mind that he is following set rules the little man has no understanding of
5. how does the mathematical realm transform the nothing into something?
6. "According to quantum physics, there are fundamental scales in our world below which size becomes meaningless i.e. we can't continue to divide a distance to give smaller distances. "
can u provide me with a link i was under the impressions that we currently cant measure anything below a certain scale simple because of the size of the particles we are using to make the measurements.
7. "The answer to the Super Ultimate question of why you are here, why there is something rather than nothing, is that the program behind your consciousness is a mathematical entity that, through logical necessity, must be real, in the same way that Pi must be real.
This applies equally to all possible states of conscious being- if they're possible then they actually are- they have reality. "
if the mathematical realm is unchanging then this would suggest that all programs would have to be run external to the mathematical realm it as the state of the current programs running would change. if i understand you correctly it seems that you are suggesting that it is our minds (which are programs) are basically filtering out of every possible different reality at every instant (so it all coexists hence no time) the current instant to be experienced, which would imply that our minds in effect create time as there is a measure between the current and previous state of the program (mind) so consciousness must exist outside of the mathematical realm
8."that of God being 'The Creator'(of everything).
If that is the case, then the theory disproves the existence of God because it shows that all conscious beings are mathematical entities that have necessary existence i.e. that it is logically impossibe for them not to be.
They thus cannot have been created, by God or anything else.
Consequentely, God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven. "
i would have thought that if god is the creator of everything and everything exists in teh mathematical world as programs which all boil down to on and off states then god would be that on and off state which creates all else
interesting read, i especially like the stuff on pi being independant of the world some points im a little dubious about.
points im a little unsure of
1. if there is nothingness doesnt that mean the mathematical realm cant exists as the rules of mathematics are something? surely the concepts that exist in the mathematical realm apply everywhere? if so doesnt that void the nothingness in that the mathematical entites are a property of everywhere in the same way that gravity voids the nothing
2. doesnt the logic of maths and its rules require a creator to have made them so? for example e ^ pi*i = -1
where e is the natural log
pi is 3.14 blahdyblah blah
i=square root of negative 1
to me suggests some sort of careful architecture rather than just existing
3. "The mathematical realm they inhabit is, and always has been, timeless and unchanging- unborn, uncreated and undying. "
the mathematical realm u talk of seems like it could quite easily be replaced with the word god
4. the idea of consciousness being a byproduct of information processing i have no qualms with, however to me that would suggest that there is no mind, ill explain using the chinese room arguement
suppose that there is a man in a room he speaks english but no chinese at all, on the wall there are lots and lots of instructions that relate input characters to out put characters and the instructions to match them up are written in english.
someone outside the room passes in a piece of paper with a story written in chinese and then another piece of paper with questions written in chinese. the man then looks up the rules on the wall and matches the inputs to generate the correct answers to the question, however the man has no understanding of the answers he has given, but to someone outside the room it looks like he understands it.
so lets extend this arguement so that now instead he has extra characters coming in which happen to correspond to vision (not that he would know it could simply be just ones and zeros) and touch taste smell etc etc and he now has more rules for all the new inputs.
where does the mind fit into all this? bearing in mind that he is following set rules the little man has no understanding of
5. how does the mathematical realm transform the nothing into something?
6. "According to quantum physics, there are fundamental scales in our world below which size becomes meaningless i.e. we can't continue to divide a distance to give smaller distances. "
can u provide me with a link i was under the impressions that we currently cant measure anything below a certain scale simple because of the size of the particles we are using to make the measurements.
7. "The answer to the Super Ultimate question of why you are here, why there is something rather than nothing, is that the program behind your consciousness is a mathematical entity that, through logical necessity, must be real, in the same way that Pi must be real.
This applies equally to all possible states of conscious being- if they're possible then they actually are- they have reality. "
if the mathematical realm is unchanging then this would suggest that all programs would have to be run external to the mathematical realm it as the state of the current programs running would change. if i understand you correctly it seems that you are suggesting that it is our minds (which are programs) are basically filtering out of every possible different reality at every instant (so it all coexists hence no time) the current instant to be experienced, which would imply that our minds in effect create time as there is a measure between the current and previous state of the program (mind) so consciousness must exist outside of the mathematical realm
8."that of God being 'The Creator'(of everything).
If that is the case, then the theory disproves the existence of God because it shows that all conscious beings are mathematical entities that have necessary existence i.e. that it is logically impossibe for them not to be.
They thus cannot have been created, by God or anything else.
Consequentely, God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven. "
i would have thought that if god is the creator of everything and everything exists in teh mathematical world as programs which all boil down to on and off states then god would be that on and off state which creates all else
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
"This statement is false.
True or false by the axioms of logic"
i think its an invalid statement because the statement relies on its own state to determine itself and also refers to itself, so by referring to its state it is continually changing it. so it sets up a logic loop
its invalid in the same way that doing a divide by zero on your calculator is
"This statement is false.
True or false by the axioms of logic"
i think its an invalid statement because the statement relies on its own state to determine itself and also refers to itself, so by referring to its state it is continually changing it. so it sets up a logic loop
its invalid in the same way that doing a divide by zero on your calculator is
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Elegant theory Dave,
But I think you led us on a bit of a chook chase in getting around to the mathematical realm. Which I find difficult to accept, if there is nothing? Nothing means everything is nothing. Nothing is absolute! So how can Pi exist if there is nothing? Though you should know that I thought Pi was a good movie, so that’s me for maths.
The human mind is not a program. The program behind our consciousness is not a mathematical entity. You can put stuff in but you never know what’s going to come out. And, to my knowledge, they haven’t taught a computer how to think, yet.
While the null hypothesis was rejected in the previous thread, this debate seems to come back to a scientific method vs. metaphysics. And I’m way out of my depth in any discussions on materialistic or reductionism or emergence theories but it seems some how incongruous to use mathematic example to disprove existence of God.
So, which came first God or the mathematical realm?
cheers
Elegant theory Dave,
But I think you led us on a bit of a chook chase in getting around to the mathematical realm. Which I find difficult to accept, if there is nothing? Nothing means everything is nothing. Nothing is absolute! So how can Pi exist if there is nothing? Though you should know that I thought Pi was a good movie, so that’s me for maths.
The human mind is not a program. The program behind our consciousness is not a mathematical entity. You can put stuff in but you never know what’s going to come out. And, to my knowledge, they haven’t taught a computer how to think, yet.
While the null hypothesis was rejected in the previous thread, this debate seems to come back to a scientific method vs. metaphysics. And I’m way out of my depth in any discussions on materialistic or reductionism or emergence theories but it seems some how incongruous to use mathematic example to disprove existence of God.
So, which came first God or the mathematical realm?
cheers
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Ben's #2: This does not imply architecture. Relations exist between everything, and mathematical axioms are only more and more complex relational tricks. If anything it seems to imply an infinite connectedness (via relation) of everything in the universe, thus Math / Physics, being a system designed to explain relations, works great as descriptive systems.
The statement shows that by logic's own axioms a statement can be self-contradictory. It is a statement which can not be judged true OR false within the framework of logic. The fact that it is self referencing does not affect the argument to much. Logic's axioms fail in this case and we must reach outside of those axioms to say it is indeterminant.
Ben's #2: This does not imply architecture. Relations exist between everything, and mathematical axioms are only more and more complex relational tricks. If anything it seems to imply an infinite connectedness (via relation) of everything in the universe, thus Math / Physics, being a system designed to explain relations, works great as descriptive systems.
The statement shows that by logic's own axioms a statement can be self-contradictory. It is a statement which can not be judged true OR false within the framework of logic. The fact that it is self referencing does not affect the argument to much. Logic's axioms fail in this case and we must reach outside of those axioms to say it is indeterminant.
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
when you are born you have dna which regulates how you grow etc (inital program) you then grow up and experience and learn in the world much the same was as a artificial neural network learns. all programs can be broken down into instructions and all instructions are encoded as ones and zeros on your computer so its a possibly valid statement that conscious can be encoded as a mathematical entity.
you might not understand whats going to come out of a person this would be because u dont understand the program that makes them up.
computers cant think yet because they are currently unable to learn autonomously which is because they are currently unable to interact in the real world in a way that is meaningful and without human assistence.
Written by: Stone
The human mind is not a program. The program behind our consciousness is not a mathematical entity. You can put stuff in but you never know what’s going to come out. And, to my knowledge, they haven’t taught a computer how to think, yet.
when you are born you have dna which regulates how you grow etc (inital program) you then grow up and experience and learn in the world much the same was as a artificial neural network learns. all programs can be broken down into instructions and all instructions are encoded as ones and zeros on your computer so its a possibly valid statement that conscious can be encoded as a mathematical entity.
you might not understand whats going to come out of a person this would be because u dont understand the program that makes them up.
computers cant think yet because they are currently unable to learn autonomously which is because they are currently unable to interact in the real world in a way that is meaningful and without human assistence.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
indeterminant kind of in the same way dividing by zero is undefined
Written by: i8beefy2
The statement shows that by logic's own axioms a statement can be self-contradictory. It is a statement which can not be judged true OR false within the framework of logic. The fact that it is self referencing does not affect the argument to much. Logic's axioms fail in this case and we must reach outside of those axioms to say it is indeterminant.
indeterminant kind of in the same way dividing by zero is undefined
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
I spose so Ben... undefined numbers are just examples of mathematical axiom's failure under certain cases. It requires a different axiom from outside the system to explain it just as the logic question does. In essence it just supports my post about Godel and the fact that no logical or mathematical system, in fact any system at all, can ever be complete, thus negating the ability to ever have real ultimate truth in our limited terms.
Further, the computer analogy can not hold, as is shown also in my Godel experiment with the computer. An AI is not possible because a computer can not go outside of its own programmed axioms to explain undefined data.
I spose so Ben... undefined numbers are just examples of mathematical axiom's failure under certain cases. It requires a different axiom from outside the system to explain it just as the logic question does. In essence it just supports my post about Godel and the fact that no logical or mathematical system, in fact any system at all, can ever be complete, thus negating the ability to ever have real ultimate truth in our limited terms.
Further, the computer analogy can not hold, as is shown also in my Godel experiment with the computer. An AI is not possible because a computer can not go outside of its own programmed axioms to explain undefined data.
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
can u please explain how computers/robots are fundamentally different to humans
Written by: i8beefy2
Further, the computer analogy can not hold, as is shown also in my Godel experiment with the computer. An AI is not possible because a computer can not go outside of its own programmed axioms to explain undefined data.
can u please explain how computers/robots are fundamentally different to humans
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Posted:
Humans have irrational faculties that can be used to interact with the universe, like faith, intuition, instict. Computers are pure logic and have only rational capacity.
Written by: ben-ja-men
can u please explain how computers/robots are fundamentally different to humans
Humans have irrational faculties that can be used to interact with the universe, like faith, intuition, instict. Computers are pure logic and have only rational capacity.
"To my delight, I discovered that poi are amazing movement exploration tools. They are guides. They are teachers. They are like Yoda, only smaller and on strings." --Nick Woolsey, also known as Meenik
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
i8beefy2, are you saying that you can’t use conjecture to explain unexplained data?
Ben, when you bring up DNA you start talking biological systems and I don’t think it’s possible to force mathematical rules onto natural systems successfully. It’s the old thinking in straight lines (or for the post modernists one and twos) instead of circles and cycles.
Ben, you don’t know the program because you don’t include phenotypic variability in your model (DNA plus environmental). And perhaps in theory DNA is finite, but Mendel stretched the truth a bit
DNA does not replicate perfectly and perhaps that’s its beauty.
Do you think it would be possible to model the weather, and accurately predict the atmospheric conditions on a particular day, in 3000 years time?
Put that robot down
i8beefy2, are you saying that you can’t use conjecture to explain unexplained data?
Ben, when you bring up DNA you start talking biological systems and I don’t think it’s possible to force mathematical rules onto natural systems successfully. It’s the old thinking in straight lines (or for the post modernists one and twos) instead of circles and cycles.
Ben, you don’t know the program because you don’t include phenotypic variability in your model (DNA plus environmental). And perhaps in theory DNA is finite, but Mendel stretched the truth a bit
DNA does not replicate perfectly and perhaps that’s its beauty.Do you think it would be possible to model the weather, and accurately predict the atmospheric conditions on a particular day, in 3000 years time?
Put that robot down
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Obviously I'm going to have to be selective as to what I answer; firstly I'd like to mention that all the replies so far seem to be pretty intelligent and relevant
======================
I've met him already
Can't say that I've 'grasped' his proof, but I know that it's generally accepted and considered valid.
So, assuming it's true, my response is that any problems with logic that come from Godels concepts won't just apply to my theory.
If it's saying that there is a fault with logic, then that applies to anything based on logic (eg maths, physics all human reasoning etc).
Now, if that's fatal for human thought then so be it- my theory is rubbish and so is everything else.
If it's not fatal for human thought then presumably it's not fatal for my theory either?
I could usefully kick off an entire new thread just on those two 'paradoxs'- I spent a lot of time working on them years ago.
I solved them to my own satisfaction and am confident that they're not a problem (for my theory or any other).
Essentially, both are referring to an entitiy which can't (logically can't) be.
I'm not going to go into too much detail other than to say that IMO, they're equivalent to the 'barber paradox'-
'A village has a barber who shaves those, and only those, who do not shave themselves....'
seems totally logical- the problem arises when it comes to the question of whether he/she shaves him/her self- if he/she does shave themself then, according to the above definition, they don't. And vice versa.
An apparent paradox; the solution lies in the simple fact that such a barber, cannot logically exist, any more than a 'four-sided triangle' can.
Obviously I'm going to have to be selective as to what I answer; firstly I'd like to mention that all the replies so far seem to be pretty intelligent and relevant
======================
Written by: i8beefy2
Rejection #2: Math is not true. Provable, but not true. It is provable only by its own axioms within the system.............Let me introduce you to a man named Godel.
I've met him already
Can't say that I've 'grasped' his proof, but I know that it's generally accepted and considered valid.
So, assuming it's true, my response is that any problems with logic that come from Godels concepts won't just apply to my theory.
If it's saying that there is a fault with logic, then that applies to anything based on logic (eg maths, physics all human reasoning etc).
Now, if that's fatal for human thought then so be it- my theory is rubbish and so is everything else.
If it's not fatal for human thought then presumably it's not fatal for my theory either?
Written by: i8beefy2
A paradox Bertrand Russell ......................
R is the set of all sets which are not members of themselves.
............................
This statement is false.
True or false by the axioms of logic?
I could usefully kick off an entire new thread just on those two 'paradoxs'- I spent a lot of time working on them years ago.
I solved them to my own satisfaction and am confident that they're not a problem (for my theory or any other).
Essentially, both are referring to an entitiy which can't (logically can't) be.
I'm not going to go into too much detail other than to say that IMO, they're equivalent to the 'barber paradox'-
'A village has a barber who shaves those, and only those, who do not shave themselves....'
seems totally logical- the problem arises when it comes to the question of whether he/she shaves him/her self- if he/she does shave themself then, according to the above definition, they don't. And vice versa.
An apparent paradox; the solution lies in the simple fact that such a barber, cannot logically exist, any more than a 'four-sided triangle' can.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
irrational features are survival mechanisms, computers could be programed to have such irrational qualities if they had the required sensory input and time living in the world to learn such things
why?
that doesnt mean that theres not a some underlying model we just currently arnt aware of. mutations are also common place in genetic algorithms
with current models no, but i do think that its possible, not necessarily easy but possible
but ive almost finished its eyes
Written by: towery
Humans have irrational faculties that can be used to interact with the universe, like faith, intuition, instict. Computers are pure logic and have only rational capacity.
irrational features are survival mechanisms, computers could be programed to have such irrational qualities if they had the required sensory input and time living in the world to learn such things
Written by: Stone
Ben, when you bring up DNA you start talking biological systems and I don’t think it’s possible to force mathematical rules onto natural systems successfully.
why?
Written by: Stone
DNA does not replicate perfectly and perhaps that’s its beauty.
that doesnt mean that theres not a some underlying model we just currently arnt aware of. mutations are also common place in genetic algorithms
Written by: Stone
Do you think it would be possible to model the weather, and accurately predict the atmospheric conditions on a particular day, in 3000 years time?
with current models no, but i do think that its possible, not necessarily easy but possible
Written by: Stone
Put that robot down
but ive almost finished its eyes
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Good point and, given my strict definition of 'nothingness' as 'devoid of all characteristics' one which has been in my mind for the past few days.
What the theory is saying though is that the objects in the mathematical realm cannot not be. They obviously have no physical being, but they have necessary logical being.
In the original theory I used 'exist' to refer to physically real objects, and 'being' for logically real objects; scrapped it cos it involved redefining terms.
My short answer is that the objects in the mathematical realm are logically real when nothingness is the case.
I accept that some re-definitions of key terms could be desirable here, but I really want to keep this thread accessible, so that's a last resort.
(Incidentally, if everyone else could keep that foremost in their mind (keeping the thread accessible, I'd really appreciate it. So many of these threads become too technical and consequently exclude a lot of people).
No.
Profound beauty IMO occurs, and I don't believe that it needs a creator. I can't prove that at this point, bit am willing to answer any attempts to prove that such things do require a creator.
Absolutely not.
God has so many connotations that don't fit (implied maleness, plan for humanity etc).
Also, as the last part of the page shows, the theory specifically shows that God, as the 'creator' logically cannot be.
The system as a whole understands chinese, the man doesn't.
An analogy with the brain would be that, the brain ('the room and it's contents, including the man) as a whole understands and is conscious; but the individual neurones, indivdual electrons etc, etc ('the man'), don't.
It doesn't. The objects in the realm have necessary being, they don't come into being- they can't not be, hence they don't require creation.
There is no transformation.
There was nothingness, and now, there is nothingness.
So what about the 'somethings'? (us, our experiences)- all of them are compatible with nothingness.
Written by: ben-ja-men
points im a little unsure of
1. if there is nothingness doesnt that mean the mathematical realm cant exists as the rules of mathematics are something?
Good point and, given my strict definition of 'nothingness' as 'devoid of all characteristics' one which has been in my mind for the past few days.
What the theory is saying though is that the objects in the mathematical realm cannot not be. They obviously have no physical being, but they have necessary logical being.
In the original theory I used 'exist' to refer to physically real objects, and 'being' for logically real objects; scrapped it cos it involved redefining terms.
My short answer is that the objects in the mathematical realm are logically real when nothingness is the case.
I accept that some re-definitions of key terms could be desirable here, but I really want to keep this thread accessible, so that's a last resort.
(Incidentally, if everyone else could keep that foremost in their mind (keeping the thread accessible, I'd really appreciate it. So many of these threads become too technical and consequently exclude a lot of people).
Written by: ben-ja-men
2. doesnt the logic of maths and its rules require a creator to have made them so? for example e ^ pi*i = -1
where e is the natural log
pi is 3.14 blahdyblah blah
i=square root of negative 1
to me suggests some sort of careful architecture rather than just existing
No.
Profound beauty IMO occurs, and I don't believe that it needs a creator. I can't prove that at this point, bit am willing to answer any attempts to prove that such things do require a creator.
Written by: ben-ja-men
3. "The mathematical realm they inhabit is, and always has been, timeless and unchanging- unborn, uncreated and undying. "
the mathematical realm u talk of seems like it could quite easily be replaced with the word god
Absolutely not.
God has so many connotations that don't fit (implied maleness, plan for humanity etc).
Also, as the last part of the page shows, the theory specifically shows that God, as the 'creator' logically cannot be.
Written by: ben-ja-men
4. the idea of consciousness being a byproduct of information processing i have no qualms with, however to me that would suggest that there is no mind, ill explain using the chinese room arguement
The system as a whole understands chinese, the man doesn't.
An analogy with the brain would be that, the brain ('the room and it's contents, including the man) as a whole understands and is conscious; but the individual neurones, indivdual electrons etc, etc ('the man'), don't.
Written by: ben-ja-men
5. how does the mathematical realm transform the nothing into something?
It doesn't. The objects in the realm have necessary being, they don't come into being- they can't not be, hence they don't require creation.
There is no transformation.
There was nothingness, and now, there is nothingness.
So what about the 'somethings'? (us, our experiences)- all of them are compatible with nothingness.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Computer, at this point, can't think.
There's no logical reason why, in the future, they won't.
(an analogy- 50 years ago computers couldn't run 'windows')
The mathematical realm can't not be. There never was a time when it wasn't real.
God, if his/her definition includes God being 'the creator' logically cannot be (according to my theory).
Written by: Stone
The human mind is not a program. The program behind our consciousness is not a mathematical entity. You can put stuff in but you never know what’s going to come out. And, to my knowledge, they haven’t taught a computer how to think, yet.
Computer, at this point, can't think.
There's no logical reason why, in the future, they won't.
(an analogy- 50 years ago computers couldn't run 'windows')
Written by: Stone
So, which came first God or the mathematical realm?
cheers
The mathematical realm can't not be. There never was a time when it wasn't real.
God, if his/her definition includes God being 'the creator' logically cannot be (according to my theory).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
so where do they come from? why do they exist instead of there being nothing and no maths
hmmmm ill have to think about it some more, perhaps a better question would be what makes the relationships and concepts what they are instead of something else, why this specific alotment of profound beauty
hehe maybe thats your connotation of god being all male like, mines a cross between sarah michelle gellar and the girl with the dark past from the tv series lost dressed up in a nurses outfit. as for the logic of the creator not existing that would be my query no8
hehe i think from memory thats the harvard response to the chinese room arguement, in the interest of keeping the thread accessible ill leave that one lie, suffice to say theres two strongly opposing schools of though both with good arguements neither of which is definately right both with currently untestable theories. theres a long section as part of my literature review i can send u if your interested in theories for testing for intelligence and the holes in them.
i dont understand how we and our experiences are compatible with nothingness, by your definition of nothingness theres no matter. gravity laws no structure at all, surely our experiences and existence contradict that?
Written by: onewheeldave
My short answer is that the objects in the mathematical realm are logically real when nothingness is the case.
so where do they come from? why do they exist instead of there being nothing and no maths
Written by: onewheeldave
Profound beauty IMO occurs, and I don't believe that it needs a creator. I can't prove that at this point, bit am willing to answer any attempts to prove that such things do require a creator.
hmmmm ill have to think about it some more, perhaps a better question would be what makes the relationships and concepts what they are instead of something else, why this specific alotment of profound beauty
Written by: onewheeldave
God has so many connotations that don't fit (implied maleness, plan for humanity etc).
Also, as the last part of the page shows, the theory specifically shows that God, as the 'creator' logically cannot be.
hehe maybe thats your connotation of god being all male like, mines a cross between sarah michelle gellar and the girl with the dark past from the tv series lost dressed up in a nurses outfit. as for the logic of the creator not existing that would be my query no8
Written by: onewheeldave
The system as a whole understands chinese, the man doesn't.
An analogy with the brain would be that, the brain ('the room and it's contents, including the man) as a whole understands and is conscious; but the individual
neurones, indivdual electrons etc, etc ('the man'), don't.
hehe i think from memory thats the harvard response to the chinese room arguement, in the interest of keeping the thread accessible ill leave that one lie, suffice to say theres two strongly opposing schools of though both with good arguements neither of which is definately right both with currently untestable theories. theres a long section as part of my literature review i can send u if your interested in theories for testing for intelligence and the holes in them.
Written by: onewheeldave
There was nothingness, and now, there is nothingness.
So what about the 'somethings'? (us, our experiences)- all of them are compatible with nothingness.
i dont understand how we and our experiences are compatible with nothingness, by your definition of nothingness theres no matter. gravity laws no structure at all, surely our experiences and existence contradict that?
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I agree towery.
Dave, artificial intelligence is just that, artificial and perhaps that’s why I hate Windows so much. I know, I must sound like the guy who said “they’ll never replace horses with cars” but computers will never be able to think like humans. I just don’t think that you could ever program in that X factor that makes us unique.
It’s all droids to me anyhow, because I think your theory convientely ignores all that is organic and the inherent variability that goes with it, by imposing a set of finite rules on a system that is infinite. I believe there is much more to the human consciousness than mathematics. You could try, but you would never be able to explain rhythm with mathematics alone.
Ben, you’re algorithms are only working with the genome, and they don’t account for mutation.
I agree towery.
Dave, artificial intelligence is just that, artificial and perhaps that’s why I hate Windows so much. I know, I must sound like the guy who said “they’ll never replace horses with cars” but computers will never be able to think like humans. I just don’t think that you could ever program in that X factor that makes us unique.
It’s all droids to me anyhow, because I think your theory convientely ignores all that is organic and the inherent variability that goes with it, by imposing a set of finite rules on a system that is infinite. I believe there is much more to the human consciousness than mathematics. You could try, but you would never be able to explain rhythm with mathematics alone.
Ben, you’re algorithms are only working with the genome, and they don’t account for mutation.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
true u could never program it in thats why you have to give it sensors so it can evolve by experience the world and become a unique entity based on its experiences
the infinite nature of organic systems break down to atoms which break down to sub atomic particles
rhythem is all about patterns which is exactly what maths is about
im referring to genetic algorithms in the computer science optimising problem solving sense, which are based on how genetics work and mutation is a major factor in them working so efficently
Written by: Stone
I just don’t think that you could ever program in that X factor that makes us unique.
true u could never program it in thats why you have to give it sensors so it can evolve by experience the world and become a unique entity based on its experiences
Written by: Stone
It’s all droids to me anyhow, because I think your theory convientely ignores all that is organic and the inherent variability that goes with it, by imposing a set of finite rules on a system that is infinite.
the infinite nature of organic systems break down to atoms which break down to sub atomic particles
Written by: Stone
but you would never be able to explain rhythm with mathematics alone.
rhythem is all about patterns which is exactly what maths is about
Written by: Stone
Ben, you’re algorithms are only working with the genome, and they don’t account for mutation.
im referring to genetic algorithms in the computer science optimising problem solving sense, which are based on how genetics work and mutation is a major factor in them working so efficently
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA
Posted:
Hmm...Ben, I'm not sure that we can dismiss all irrational features of humanity as "survival mechanism" and assume that we can dupicate their unpredictable interactions within a system that is based upon finite predictable rules. Sure, I think it's possible to program adaptation, to codify algorithms to mimic human irrationality that we've been able to reduce (however imperfectly) to patterns and systemize. I'll concede that approximation is more than just possible and is actually probable within the next century. But true irrationality out of an entity that is nothing more than a reflection of our own rationality? Teaching a machine (or giving it the ability to learn) to feel emotions using logic? Sorry, but this doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense to me.
And Dave, I think that Godel (and others) have given us things like this that have been fatal, not to human thought, but to human CERTAINTY for a long time. That lack of certainty is what keeps us unable to talk meaningfully about absolutes. It's great to continually push at the edges, to make sure of where the limits of our rational minds are, but it's also ridiculous to claim that those limits aren't there. I think Ben hit square on the head the self-defeating nature of the question when he asked where do maths come from, why do they exist instead of there being nothing and no maths.
Mmm...circles taste good. Especially doughnuts.
Hmm...Ben, I'm not sure that we can dismiss all irrational features of humanity as "survival mechanism" and assume that we can dupicate their unpredictable interactions within a system that is based upon finite predictable rules. Sure, I think it's possible to program adaptation, to codify algorithms to mimic human irrationality that we've been able to reduce (however imperfectly) to patterns and systemize. I'll concede that approximation is more than just possible and is actually probable within the next century. But true irrationality out of an entity that is nothing more than a reflection of our own rationality? Teaching a machine (or giving it the ability to learn) to feel emotions using logic? Sorry, but this doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense to me.
And Dave, I think that Godel (and others) have given us things like this that have been fatal, not to human thought, but to human CERTAINTY for a long time. That lack of certainty is what keeps us unable to talk meaningfully about absolutes. It's great to continually push at the edges, to make sure of where the limits of our rational minds are, but it's also ridiculous to claim that those limits aren't there. I think Ben hit square on the head the self-defeating nature of the question when he asked where do maths come from, why do they exist instead of there being nothing and no maths.
Mmm...circles taste good. Especially doughnuts.
"To my delight, I discovered that poi are amazing movement exploration tools. They are guides. They are teachers. They are like Yoda, only smaller and on strings." --Nick Woolsey, also known as Meenik
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
ok lets look at what drives humans to do what they do
1. we need food and water
2. we need shelter
3. we have the need for a support network (to care for us when we get old whether it be in the form of family, friends or whatever else)
4. need a purpose as to why we are here
5. immediate survial
so lets look at a hyperthetical situation, as a child while having a bath my head falls under the water for a few seconds, this is bad for my survial as i cant breath, so to avoid this situation my subscious creates a rule that immersing my head under water is bad for my survival. this then creates an irrational fear of going into bodies of water.
a robot given similar survival goals is just as capable of forming similar survival rules, which are often MUCH more complex than the example
as opposed to humans whos irrationality comes from ?
emotions are a survival mechanism, if u do things bad for your survival you feel bad, u do things that are good for them you feel good, yes there are apparent contradictions like jumping out of a plane to go sky diving where perhaps the social accentance survial mechanism is stronger than the others. humans are complex creatures after all.
Written by: towery
Hmm...Ben, I'm not sure that we can dismiss all irrational features of humanity as "survival mechanism" and assume that we can dupicate their unpredictable interactions within a system that is based upon finite predictable rules.
ok lets look at what drives humans to do what they do
1. we need food and water
2. we need shelter
3. we have the need for a support network (to care for us when we get old whether it be in the form of family, friends or whatever else)
4. need a purpose as to why we are here
5. immediate survial
so lets look at a hyperthetical situation, as a child while having a bath my head falls under the water for a few seconds, this is bad for my survial as i cant breath, so to avoid this situation my subscious creates a rule that immersing my head under water is bad for my survival. this then creates an irrational fear of going into bodies of water.
a robot given similar survival goals is just as capable of forming similar survival rules, which are often MUCH more complex than the example
Written by: towery
But true irrationality out of an entity that is nothing more than a reflection of our own rationality?
as opposed to humans whos irrationality comes from ?
Written by: towery
Teaching a machine (or giving it the ability to learn) to feel emotions using logic? Sorry, but this doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense to me.
emotions are a survival mechanism, if u do things bad for your survival you feel bad, u do things that are good for them you feel good, yes there are apparent contradictions like jumping out of a plane to go sky diving where perhaps the social accentance survial mechanism is stronger than the others. humans are complex creatures after all.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Godels theory IS a fatal blow to (COMPLETE and CONSISTENT) systems. I group them like that specifically to show this point. A system CAN be complete (geometry I think is fully axiomized...) however by its own axioms it can not be universally consistent. Logic, for instance, fails given the "This statement is false" thing. You cant tell me that that statement does not exist or is logically impossible, because you have just stepped outside of the system to make that determination.
THIS is exactly why any AI is impossible. Computers are based on logic and math, systems which even if complete can not be universally consistent. Irrationality is not something that can be built into a rational system, EVEN by saying that the computer can program itself based on experience. It still functions in a certain way because of the type of thing it is, and that thing has no uncertainty principle as living organisms do. It is cold, hard logic, and can not go beyond that because it is a system.
Emotions and ability to learn do not solve this problem. They are NOT simply survival mechanisms. If they were, than they would be common across phenomenon, but they are not: they demonstrate randomosity which a logical system (computers) will never have. At least I think so.
Note that Godels theorem says only this: There can not be a system that is complete AND consistent at the same time. Any ultimate theory is impossible because if it is complete, I can find some way in which it is not consistent, and if it is consistent, I can find some way in which it is not complete.
---------------------
Now this whole math being necessary thing... As I said already (maybe in the thread before this? I dont remember) Math is purely relational. How can relations exist without things to be related? Math is the descriptive language of relations, not some abstract self-existent necessity. If there are no relations, then all relation is 0, or nothingness. Further, 0 is not really a relation at all.
Godels theory IS a fatal blow to (COMPLETE and CONSISTENT) systems. I group them like that specifically to show this point. A system CAN be complete (geometry I think is fully axiomized...) however by its own axioms it can not be universally consistent. Logic, for instance, fails given the "This statement is false" thing. You cant tell me that that statement does not exist or is logically impossible, because you have just stepped outside of the system to make that determination.
THIS is exactly why any AI is impossible. Computers are based on logic and math, systems which even if complete can not be universally consistent. Irrationality is not something that can be built into a rational system, EVEN by saying that the computer can program itself based on experience. It still functions in a certain way because of the type of thing it is, and that thing has no uncertainty principle as living organisms do. It is cold, hard logic, and can not go beyond that because it is a system.
Emotions and ability to learn do not solve this problem. They are NOT simply survival mechanisms. If they were, than they would be common across phenomenon, but they are not: they demonstrate randomosity which a logical system (computers) will never have. At least I think so.
Note that Godels theorem says only this: There can not be a system that is complete AND consistent at the same time. Any ultimate theory is impossible because if it is complete, I can find some way in which it is not consistent, and if it is consistent, I can find some way in which it is not complete.
---------------------
Now this whole math being necessary thing... As I said already (maybe in the thread before this? I dont remember) Math is purely relational. How can relations exist without things to be related? Math is the descriptive language of relations, not some abstract self-existent necessity. If there are no relations, then all relation is 0, or nothingness. Further, 0 is not really a relation at all.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
They already do- you've got one in your head, it's a computer that uses organic matter rather than silicon, and it was 'designed' by evolution rather than humans.
Like Ben says, it's unlikely that the first 'artificial' intelligences consciousness will be 'programmed' by men/women. Rather it will be a computer equiped to move, sense and interact with humans; it will live learn and acquire intelligence in the way that human babies do.
As it develops it will aquire self-awareness for the same reasons that humans do- to interact in the social world of humans one needs a complex array of data structures that can examine themselves (self reflection), the world around and the others in it.
Written by: Stone
but computers will never be able to think like humans.
They already do- you've got one in your head, it's a computer that uses organic matter rather than silicon, and it was 'designed' by evolution rather than humans.
Like Ben says, it's unlikely that the first 'artificial' intelligences consciousness will be 'programmed' by men/women. Rather it will be a computer equiped to move, sense and interact with humans; it will live learn and acquire intelligence in the way that human babies do.
As it develops it will aquire self-awareness for the same reasons that humans do- to interact in the social world of humans one needs a complex array of data structures that can examine themselves (self reflection), the world around and the others in it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Mathematical objects can't not be.
They don't come from anywhere- they never came into being, as they literally cannot not be.
They're compatible with 'nothingness' because, unlike gravity, vacuum, matter and energy, they're not 'somethings'.
They are (have being) but lack physical existence.
Take Pi- you can't touch it, point to it; you can't (according to UTor) find a single example of it in the physical world- yet you can calculate its millionth digit.
Pi is, yet it's not a 'something' in any sense that makes it compatible with 'nothingness'.
Written by: towery
I think Ben hit square on the head the self-defeating nature of the question when he asked where do maths come from, why do they exist instead of there being nothing and no maths.
Mathematical objects can't not be.
They don't come from anywhere- they never came into being, as they literally cannot not be.
They're compatible with 'nothingness' because, unlike gravity, vacuum, matter and energy, they're not 'somethings'.
They are (have being) but lack physical existence.
Take Pi- you can't touch it, point to it; you can't (according to UTor) find a single example of it in the physical world- yet you can calculate its millionth digit.
Pi is, yet it's not a 'something' in any sense that makes it compatible with 'nothingness'.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Oh, self-reflection.... woudlnt that entail self-reference within the system?
Oh, self-reflection.... woudlnt that entail self-reference within the system?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Self-reflection in an artificial intelligence would entail self-reference to exactly the same extent that it does in a human (organic based) intelligence.
Self-reflection in an artificial intelligence would entail self-reference to exactly the same extent that it does in a human (organic based) intelligence.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
But it is incompatible. It is a relation. Without something to relate, it has no meaning. Pi is NOT because it is a relation between abstract concepts that don't really exist, ie the perfect circle. Its like saying "a perfect horse exists, but not in reality".
Any argument against a realm of the forms can easily detract from such a metaphysic.
Logic, math and order are not necessary beings, they arise with the rest of the world and are not seperable from it. Without things to relate, math has no grounding.
But it is incompatible. It is a relation. Without something to relate, it has no meaning. Pi is NOT because it is a relation between abstract concepts that don't really exist, ie the perfect circle. Its like saying "a perfect horse exists, but not in reality".
Any argument against a realm of the forms can easily detract from such a metaphysic.
Logic, math and order are not necessary beings, they arise with the rest of the world and are not seperable from it. Without things to relate, math has no grounding.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Remember the Matrix where the computer could not account for free will? The anomolie (I know I butchered that word)? The X-factor if you will? Artificle intelligence will always be limited by the hardware which is logically based. Just like humans will always be limited by our biological basis for understanding. For us to understand the system is impossible because we are a part of it, and can't step outside of the bounds of our biological conception. However because of the randomosity of the biological system, we can be changed into different things in a way that computers can not unless they can rewire their circuits as well, and even then all computer theory is based on logic and math and thus are bound by the axioms and problems of those systems. AI is impossible on the level of the human beings consciousness.
Here, lets get REALLY metaphysical. Can God create something so complex that even he can not understand it? Is GOD logically and mathematically bound? By your definition he is, so God's omnipotence is impossible because it is self contradictory on several different levels. Of course God is locked out of your system so I'll digress...
You are trying to step outside the system (reality) to explain it by something within the system (math). By what I've shown through Godel it should be quite clear by now that a self-referencing system is inconsistent, or incomplete. It is impossible to explain reality without making reference to something outside of the system. God has usually filled this void (Tao, Brahman, whatever you want to call it). However that "thing" can not be anything like what we can talk about because it is beyond any duality as a true infinite, and it is finite in that it is unitary. God explains the system much better than math I'm afraid...
Remember the Matrix where the computer could not account for free will? The anomolie (I know I butchered that word)? The X-factor if you will? Artificle intelligence will always be limited by the hardware which is logically based. Just like humans will always be limited by our biological basis for understanding. For us to understand the system is impossible because we are a part of it, and can't step outside of the bounds of our biological conception. However because of the randomosity of the biological system, we can be changed into different things in a way that computers can not unless they can rewire their circuits as well, and even then all computer theory is based on logic and math and thus are bound by the axioms and problems of those systems. AI is impossible on the level of the human beings consciousness.
Here, lets get REALLY metaphysical. Can God create something so complex that even he can not understand it? Is GOD logically and mathematically bound? By your definition he is, so God's omnipotence is impossible because it is self contradictory on several different levels. Of course God is locked out of your system so I'll digress...
You are trying to step outside the system (reality) to explain it by something within the system (math). By what I've shown through Godel it should be quite clear by now that a self-referencing system is inconsistent, or incomplete. It is impossible to explain reality without making reference to something outside of the system. God has usually filled this void (Tao, Brahman, whatever you want to call it). However that "thing" can not be anything like what we can talk about because it is beyond any duality as a true infinite, and it is finite in that it is unitary. God explains the system much better than math I'm afraid...
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Ben, you are still not looking beyond the genome, and your algorithm doesn’t account for genetic diversity or polymorphism or mitochondrial DNA and a heap of other things.
Sensors are not a substitute for a brain, and rote learning is not the same as thinking. As unromantic as it might seem, robots will never be anything more than droids and drones that can copy but cannot create, replicate but not reproduce. As for personality?
Is there a model for personality? Can you learn talent or creativity? I think that depends on whether you think rhythm is only patterns, which implies that there is no difference between a concert pianist and someone pumping a pianola.
Ben, the fact that you missed reproduction in your list of what drives humans says a lot about modelling. But you hit the nail on the head every time you say hypothetical. The jumping out of a plane to go sky diving is often driven by the need for adrenaline. How will you program all these weakness into the system.
Sometimes our weaknesses are our strengths. A algorithm using the so called theory of natural selection is also flawed, because there are plenty of human geniuses living that would never have survived natural selection. And, these combinations would be thrown out by some algorithm based on probability.
It’s ironic that this genetic algorithm is really just based on probability (see null hypothesis) and that’s another flaw. Models are great in the lab, but few if any have come close to simulating real life, mainly because you are trying to model a system that is unpredictable and chaotic. That’s why mathematics fails, it can’t predict the unpredictable.
Or as i8beefy said “Irrationality is not something that can be built into a rational system”.
The natural system has proved difficult to mimic and the infinite nature of organic systems is not in breaking them down to sub atomic particles (that’s easy). No, the magic is in the creation of things.
Dave, I do not have a computer for a brain. Mate, that is so self-evident it’s almost funny. I’m told all a computer does is add and subtract really really quickly. And my very imperfect organic brain can do much more; it can think, create and experience feelings like love, hate, fear, joy, dream and orgasm. Things a box of wires will never be able to do.
Mathematics may be perfect, but humans, the world, and the universe are not.
Ben, you are still not looking beyond the genome, and your algorithm doesn’t account for genetic diversity or polymorphism or mitochondrial DNA and a heap of other things.
Sensors are not a substitute for a brain, and rote learning is not the same as thinking. As unromantic as it might seem, robots will never be anything more than droids and drones that can copy but cannot create, replicate but not reproduce. As for personality?
Is there a model for personality? Can you learn talent or creativity? I think that depends on whether you think rhythm is only patterns, which implies that there is no difference between a concert pianist and someone pumping a pianola.
Ben, the fact that you missed reproduction in your list of what drives humans says a lot about modelling. But you hit the nail on the head every time you say hypothetical. The jumping out of a plane to go sky diving is often driven by the need for adrenaline. How will you program all these weakness into the system.
Sometimes our weaknesses are our strengths. A algorithm using the so called theory of natural selection is also flawed, because there are plenty of human geniuses living that would never have survived natural selection. And, these combinations would be thrown out by some algorithm based on probability.
It’s ironic that this genetic algorithm is really just based on probability (see null hypothesis
) and that’s another flaw. Models are great in the lab, but few if any have come close to simulating real life, mainly because you are trying to model a system that is unpredictable and chaotic. That’s why mathematics fails, it can’t predict the unpredictable. Or as i8beefy said “Irrationality is not something that can be built into a rational system”.
The natural system has proved difficult to mimic and the infinite nature of organic systems is not in breaking them down to sub atomic particles (that’s easy). No, the magic is in the creation of things.
Dave, I do not have a computer for a brain. Mate, that is so self-evident it’s almost funny. I’m told all a computer does is add and subtract really really quickly. And my very imperfect organic brain can do much more; it can think, create and experience feelings like love, hate, fear, joy, dream and orgasm. Things a box of wires will never be able to do.
Mathematics may be perfect, but humans, the world, and the universe are not.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
1. Could you explain what you mean by 'relational', (in plain, simple, English please, so I can understand it).
2. If pi is not, then how do you account for it having,when calculated, a specific value for it's millionth/ten millionth etc digit?
Like you say, the perfect circle doesn't exist in physical reality, so it can't be derived from that; neither can it be an invention of minds, as we can take the current furthest calculation of pi, and the digit after that will be a specific value that will be the same for any minds that independantly discover it.
Written by: i8beefy2
But it is incompatible. It is a relation. Without something to relate, it has no meaning. Pi is NOT because it is a relation between abstract concepts that don't really exist, ie the perfect circle. Its like saying "a perfect horse exists, but not in reality".
1. Could you explain what you mean by 'relational', (in plain, simple, English please, so I can understand it).
2. If pi is not, then how do you account for it having,when calculated, a specific value for it's millionth/ten millionth etc digit?
Like you say, the perfect circle doesn't exist in physical reality, so it can't be derived from that; neither can it be an invention of minds, as we can take the current furthest calculation of pi, and the digit after that will be a specific value that will be the same for any minds that independantly discover it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
ok heres a common though experiment, lets imagine sometime in the future say 50 years from now technology has come quite away along, and lets say our fictitious character bob is getting older and has been having troubles with his heart. so bob goes and gets an artificial heart put in, its still the same old bob but now his heart troubles have been fixed. bobs also having trouble with his liver not working so well so he gets that replaced to. as the years flow by bobs long term memory isnt so good so he gets a neural upgrade whereby all his long term memorys are digitised and modelled down to the very neurons they are stored on. bob can still tell you all those charming stories about fishing by the river as a child. so bobs still bob. then bob starts to get cataracts in his eyes so he gets those replaced with the latest vision system. and on and on it goes until all bobs original biological tissue has been replaced with bionic parts.
so is bob still bob? obviously he has a very different physical form, the "essense" of bob remains, bob will definately tell you hes still bob. if bob isnt bob when did it he stop being bob?
i condered that to fall under
"3. we have the need for a support network (to care for us when we get old whether it be in the form of family, friends or whatever else)"
i said before the same that humans are programed with them, through experiencing the real world.
its a concept in the movie to make the humans win, it may transfer over to real world it may not, personally i learn more to the may not
i agree that ai is bounded by its hardware in the same way that humans are, i agree that we are currently unable to model the system we are in because currently we are unable to experience the world beyond our physical bodys however i do not believe the it is impossible to experience the world beyond your physical body
computers are also able to reprogram themselves if they have field programmable gate arrays as alot of genetic algorithms use
why? given similar hardware to experience the world with and similar life experiences bearing in mind the only difference is its got a silicon brain instead of a carbon one
Written by: Stone
Dave, I do not have a computer for a brain. Mate, that is so self-evident it’s almost funny. I’m told all a computer does is add and subtract really really quickly. And my very imperfect organic brain can do much more; it can think, create and experience feelings like love, hate, fear, joy, dream and orgasm. Things a box of wires will never be able to do.
ok heres a common though experiment, lets imagine sometime in the future say 50 years from now technology has come quite away along, and lets say our fictitious character bob is getting older and has been having troubles with his heart. so bob goes and gets an artificial heart put in, its still the same old bob but now his heart troubles have been fixed. bobs also having trouble with his liver not working so well so he gets that replaced to. as the years flow by bobs long term memory isnt so good so he gets a neural upgrade whereby all his long term memorys are digitised and modelled down to the very neurons they are stored on. bob can still tell you all those charming stories about fishing by the river as a child. so bobs still bob. then bob starts to get cataracts in his eyes so he gets those replaced with the latest vision system. and on and on it goes until all bobs original biological tissue has been replaced with bionic parts.
so is bob still bob? obviously he has a very different physical form, the "essense" of bob remains, bob will definately tell you hes still bob. if bob isnt bob when did it he stop being bob?
Written by: Stone
Ben, the fact that you missed reproduction in your list of what drives humans says a lot about modelling.
i condered that to fall under
"3. we have the need for a support network (to care for us when we get old whether it be in the form of family, friends or whatever else)"
Written by: Stone
But you hit the nail on the head every time you say hypothetical. The jumping out of a plane to go sky diving is often driven by the need for adrenaline. How will you program all these weakness into the system.
i said before the same that humans are programed with them, through experiencing the real world.
Written by: i8beefy2
Remember the Matrix where the computer could not account for free will? The anomolie (I know I butchered that word)? The X-factor if you will?
its a concept in the movie to make the humans win, it may transfer over to real world it may not, personally i learn more to the may not
Written by: i8beefy2
Artificle intelligence will always be limited by the hardware which is logically based. Just like humans will always be limited by our biological basis for understanding. For us to understand the system is impossible because we are a part of it, and can't step outside of the bounds of our biological conception.
i agree that ai is bounded by its hardware in the same way that humans are, i agree that we are currently unable to model the system we are in because currently we are unable to experience the world beyond our physical bodys however i do not believe the it is impossible to experience the world beyond your physical body
Written by: i8beefy2
However because of the randomosity of the biological system, we can be changed into different things in a way that computers can not unless they can rewire their circuits as well, and even then all computer theory is based on logic and math and thus are bound by the axioms and problems of those systems.
computers are also able to reprogram themselves if they have field programmable gate arrays as alot of genetic algorithms use
Written by: i8beefy2
AI is impossible on the level of the human beings consciousness.
why? given similar hardware to experience the world with and similar life experiences bearing in mind the only difference is its got a silicon brain instead of a carbon one
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [ultimate theory reality] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > The Ultimate Theory of Reality. [236 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com