# Will there ever be a Theory of Everything?



## Nitro (Aug 18, 2010)

This is a continuation of this thread that went seriously off topic. I thought I'd start a new thread here.

For the record I love Science, Math etc etc etc. I think we need it just like we need a set of laws, constitution etc. However, it is my belief that Science (i.e. man) will never be able to understand everything. In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything.

What are your opinions?


----------



## medaroff (Aug 18, 2010)

42

Here


----------



## carrot (Aug 18, 2010)

*Warning * The following link may contain some material considered "adult", offensive, or unsuitable for a family oriented forum.

*[link removed - DM51]*
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1969#comic 
I think this just about sums it up.


----------



## Beamhead (Aug 18, 2010)

Uh Carrot, did you read the whole cartoon?


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm reasonably sure in time we may well be able to explain everything from the Big Bang forwards. I'm almost equally sure we'll never be able to figure out what happened immediately before. For that matter, maybe "before" and "after" are concepts which don't apply to the universe as a whole. It might be something which always is, always will be, and simply oscillates between states. I also tend to think human perception of time as linear only stands in the way of understanding things better.

All that being said, I think in the end it's really the journey rather than the destination which counts. These questions are only interesting because the answer is unknown, and the journey to reach the answers uncertain. As with many things in life, those with uncertain outcomes always tend to be the most fascinating. I think that accounts for the huge interest in sporting events. Most are inherently unpredictable. Statistics help, but statistics won't tell us whether the Yankees will win tonight, or who will win next year's Tour de France, etc. Like I said, it's really the journey which matters. Be glad despite our science and technology that so many things still remain beyond our grasp. The next 1000 years should be an interesting ride if humanity can survive.


----------



## angelofwar (Aug 18, 2010)

This is paraphrased, but THIS sum's it up for me...

1st Corintians 1:

"19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 
28 And the simple things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are."

I think...No, I believe (faith) some things are not meant to be known...and if we get too close to finding out these "secrets" . For example, the difference between the human brain, and the "human" soul...what makes us have compassion for the less forunate (for those of us that do)...or are they strictly emotions? Is compassion genetic? How can some people love there kids to no end, while others can murder there own seed? 

Great thread, and in all seriousness, I think we can figure out ALOT through science (which fascinates me, i.e. the "mutation" that lead to blue eyes, the Aborigine people being the only people on earth that can't be traced to an origin), but somethings will always be a mystery, as He intended.

The human "Spirit" (and it's origin) is the only thing I can think of that stops us from figuring out "everything"

In short, there may be a theory, but I think it will always be that...and since it would envelope so much, it would be more an "opinion" than a theory (as is mine).

Great Thread OP!


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 18, 2010)

If we do manage to get to a point where we can find the Theory, without destroying ourselves first or meeting a random galactic "accident", it will most likely not be a human that will discover it, but the device that will be making the bulk of discoveries and inventions from here on out, the computer (or a hybrid that doesn't meet the definition of human or computer, something we don't have a term/concept for yet.) We just need enough time and progress to reach that level of technological ability.


----------



## Th232 (Aug 18, 2010)

If you have a bit of time, look up Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

If you have a lot more time, buy a copy (yes, buy, don't just borrow) of "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter. It's both educational and a work of art.


----------



## Steve K (Aug 18, 2010)

Nitro said:


> For the record I love Science, Math etc etc etc. I think we need it just like we need a set of laws, constitution etc. However, it is my belief that Science (i.e. man) will never be able to understand everything. In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything.
> 
> What are your opinions?



my opinions? I guess I see science as a set of tools. The scientific method has led us to quite a bit of knowledge that has had a huge impact on how mankind exists. Of course, as an engineer, I'm accustomed to thinking in these terms. When given a job, I consider all of my education and experiences as tools to be used in solving the problem.

Math is a more esoteric study. Almost like philosophy, in a way. Some math has a direct application to current problems. Some math, like the combinational and sequential logic classes used in computer engineering, had to wait for over a hundred years (I think) before it had a real use. And of course, some math exists solely to keep math geeks entertained. 

Faith?? Depends on your definition, I guess. I see it as the catagory of things that we want to believe in, but don't have any rational reason to believe. It's an interesting thing, though. Science has shown that people naturally look for patterns in random events. It's a survival skill, really. The only problem is that the search for patterns sometimes leads to incorrect conclusions. Combine this with peoples' tendency for denial and self-delusion, and all sorts of interesting things happen. 

Given that it is impossible to know everything (something that I take on faith  ), I like to use established knowledge whereever I can, and use past experiences and examples for everything else. 

A good philosophy class might be helpful... The Godel Escher Bach book was popular when I was in college, and I did start reading it. My recollection is that it liked to talk about recursion and some other stuff. I love the Escher stuff, but the rest of it didn't inspire me as being that significant.

anyway... thanks for the opportunity to reflect on some fundamental concepts. 

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## angelofwar (Aug 18, 2010)

Th232 said:


> If you have a bit of time, look up Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
> 
> If you have a lot more time, buy a copy (yes, buy, don't just borrow) of "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter. It's both educational and a work of art.


 
Just the little bit of reading I did was rather interesting...thanks for the reference...the "Liar Paradox" kind of explained it all, in a short-sweet way...

"This is a false statement" or "I am Lying"

Then you ask "Prove it"...

And the mathmaticians and scientists .

And the circle grows...Great stuff and very good for the brain.


----------



## Arcus Diabolus (Aug 18, 2010)

We mat not be able to know everything, but there's no harm in trying. I want to know as much as I can before I die, and have fun along the way, through success and failure, because I'm "here for progress, here for the long run." -Standard Chartered :thumbsup:.


----------



## Auzivision (Aug 18, 2010)

Some people get it more than others


----------



## flatline (Aug 18, 2010)

Nitro said:


> However, it is my belief that Science (i.e. man) will never be able to understand everything. In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything.



Faith in what?

Truth about what?

--flatline


----------



## Nitro (Aug 18, 2010)

Th232 said:


> If you have a bit of time, look up Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


 
Where do you think I was headed with this? 

Back in my college days I read about a great mathematician Kurt Godel, who came up with the Incompleteness Theorem. Proving this theorem IMHO was more important than anything Einstein, Hawkings or any other mathematician ever did, OR ever will do.

It basically states two things:
1. If a system is to be consistent, it cannot be complete.
2. The consistency of a system cannot be proven within the system.

It basically means that mathematics is open ended. There can never be a final, best system of mathematics. Every axiom-system for mathematics will eventually run into certain problems that it cannot solve. There can never be a system that describes everything, and there can never be a "Theory of Everything". BTW, when I say "Theory of Everything", I mean a consistent "Theory of Everything". An inconsistent "Theory of Everything" is useless.

I've been watching documentaries lately about the "Theory of Everything". Scientists (Hawkings being one) seem to think they are on the brink of discovering a "Theory of Everything". It's interesting to me that they think such a system exists. I don't claim to be as smart as Hawkings, but you would think he is aware of the Incompleteness Theorem.

I'm not saying we should stop learning about the Universe, because it's futel. I think it helps us to survive. But for anyone to think we will eventually find a system that describes everything is just fooling themselves. Man will never know the final secret to the Universe.


----------



## Dave Keith (Aug 18, 2010)

To answer the stated question, "Yes." But, it will still be just a theory. 

It strikes me that the watch-word of science is, "We used to think...but now we know..."

The more we know, the more we realize how limited our knowledge really is.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Aug 18, 2010)

Have a look to some work of mine regarding the TOE...

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1692307-The-Higgs-Boson

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1687221-Dialogues-on-the-New-Science---Excerpt

Enjoy

Anthony


----------



## Arcus Diabolus (Aug 18, 2010)

angelofwar said:


> Just the little bit of reading I did was rather interesting...thanks for the reference...the "Liar Paradox" kind of explained it all, in a short-sweet way...
> 
> "This is a false statement" or "I am Lying"
> 
> ...


 

Lesson here: don't lie.:laughing:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 18, 2010)

No matter how much we think we learn and know, there is never any way to be sure everything we think we know is not some elaborate controlled, artificially created environment made by perverse mega aliens for their own amusement. Some may believe these are what they call God. There's not even any way to know for sure what comes next after you die. Much of what others call "belief" (in something/everything) is actually "hope" that has been repeated often enough verbally and in writing that it really seems real. Clubs and groups have formed to reinforce what you hope is true, and people flock to those for security. "The Matrix" and other movies/books hint at what I am suggesting on a scale that we can sort of digest.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 18, 2010)

Keep in mind that right around the year 2020, ten years from now, a $1000 personal computer will have the processing power of a human brain (not the abilities of "the mind", just the raw processing power). That means supercomputers will be the equivalent of many thousands of very organized and perfectly synchronized human brains working on a problem.

The day is near at hand when a supercomputer produces a theory that no one understands how it arrived at. It will seem unorthodox and enigmatic to the scientists that review it, yet every time it is tested, it will prove correct (and then other supercomputers will build on that knowledge, which will snowball into something even more complex and incomprehensible). The great theories of the 21st century and beyond won't be Hawking's theories or Kaku's theories, they'll be IBM Supercomputer Lab #3264's theories..


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 18, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> Keep in mind that right around the year 2020, ten years from now, a $1000 personal computer will have the processing power of a human brain (not the abilities of "the mind", just the raw processing power). That means supercomputers will be the equivalent of many thousands of very organized and perfectly synchronized human brains working on a problem.


And in the year 2021, Skynet will become self-aware and launch a preemptive strike to get rid of the human threat. The stragglers will be left fighting increasingly more advanced terminators. The humans will eventually prevail thanks to the efforts of one John Conner, but will need decades to rebuild civilization.

Of course, that scenario will likely not happen, but we must be very careful regarding super-intelligent machines. We probably need to hardwire in some failsafes so they can do no harm to human beings. Another issue we'll eventually have to deal with is at what point does a machine become a life form, with all the rights and privileges that entails?


----------



## wyager (Aug 18, 2010)

Yes. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't be able to. Implying that there is no universal solution to the physical property of the universe is ridiculous.

Some people say some things are not meant to be known.... that would imply anything has intrinsic meaning. Sorry, nope! We're just self propagating chemical reactions, working hard to propagate faster. Understanding the universe would help greatly in that endeavor.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 18, 2010)

wyager said:


> Yes. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't be able to. Implying that there is no universal solution to the physical property of the universe is ridiculous.
> 
> Some people say some things are not meant to be known.... that would imply anything has intrinsic meaning. Sorry, nope! We're just self propagating chemical reactions, working hard to propagate faster. Understanding the universe would help greatly in that endeavor.


 
Sorry Wyager, you're wrong on this one. There can never exist a consistent system, created within the Universe, to fully describe the Universe. This is not theory. This is fact, and it's been proven.

But don't take my word for it. Do your own research on Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


----------



## wyager (Aug 18, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Sorry Wyager, you're wrong on this one. There can never exist a consistent system, created within the Universe, to fully describe the Universe. This is not theory. This is fact, and it's been proven.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. Do your own research on Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


The incompleteness theorem puts a limit on our logic, not our understanding. Godel's theorem doesn't say anything about mathematics being inconsistent throughout a system.... only the fact that systems contain paradoxical functions.


----------



## Beamhead (Aug 18, 2010)

There is only and will ever be one that knows the theory of everything, the one who thought it into existence.:duck:


----------



## Nitro (Aug 18, 2010)

wyager said:


> The incompleteness theorem puts a limit on our logic, not our understanding. Godel's theorem doesn't say anything about mathematics being inconsistent throughout a system.... only the fact that systems contain paradoxical functions.


 
1. If a system is to be consistent, it cannot be complete.
2. The consistency of a system cannot be proven within the system.

How can an inconsistent system be used to describe anything?


----------



## wyager (Aug 18, 2010)

Nitro said:


> 1. If a system is to be consistent, it cannot be complete.
> 2. The consistency of a system cannot be proven within the system.
> 
> How can an inconsistent system be used to describe anything?


Lol, are you implying nothing can be described?
Also, we don't need the system to be complete. We don't need to prove EVERYTHING.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 18, 2010)

wyager said:


> Lol, are you implying nothing can be described?


No, only the system we are IN... i.e. the Universe.



> Also, we don't need the system to be complete. We don't need to prove EVERYTHING.


BINGO!!!

Hence, the reason why there will never be a "Theory of Everything".


----------



## Nitro (Aug 18, 2010)

There will always be some problem that can't be solved. Hence, man will never know the final secret to the Universe.


----------



## red02 (Aug 18, 2010)




----------



## wyager (Aug 18, 2010)

Nitro said:


> BINGO!!!
> 
> Hence, the reason why there will never be a "Theory of Everything".


I certainly don't mean proving every true equation and fact in the universe-by theory of everything I meant a grand unifying theory, eg one that linked gravity and (electricity+magnetism+strong+weak) as well as quantum and relative physics (and any other apparently conflicting theories). This should basically explain the universe to the extent we need it explained.


----------



## nitesky (Aug 18, 2010)

No reference to Heisenberg?


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 18, 2010)

nitesky said:


> No reference to Heisenberg?



We were uncertain if we should bring him up.

He is currently being discussed and not discussed at the same time.


----------



## wyager (Aug 18, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> We were uncertain if we should bring him up.
> 
> He is currently being discussed and not discussed at the same time.


Unfortunately, the more we know about the intensity of the discussion the less we know about where it takes place, and vice versa.


----------



## entoptics (Aug 18, 2010)

wyager said:


> I certainly don't mean proving every true equation and fact in the universe-by theory of everything I meant a grand unifying theory, eg one that linked gravity and (electricity+magnetism+strong+weak) as well as quantum and relative physics (and any other apparently conflicting theories). This should basically explain the universe to the extent we need it explained.



I _believe_ this is a pretty important distinction. I'm quite certain the greatest physicists in the world don't mean "everything", so much as "observable phenomenon".

The misuse of Theory in popular culture, and among non-scientists really drives me nuts.

Anyhooo, regarding the OP. I'm fairly confident that "understanding everything" is as irrelevant to humanity as a perfect triangle. In a world defined by action and reaction, perfect triangles are interesting to think about, but unecessary for survival and success.

As for "faith", unless the usage of the word is synonymous with "confidence", (e.g. "I have faith that my SureFire will survive this caving trip"), it is a concept utterly devoid of usefulness, which promotes behavior antithetical to everything productive about humanity.

No human being actually relies on faith to get anything done in the world. Faith by it's very nature implies confidence in something that cannot be shown to have merit. 

Imagine what the average person would think of someone who said...

"I have faith I can predict the lottery numbers"
"I have faith I can catch bullets in my teeth"
"I have faith that Elvis lives in Argentina with Hitler"
"I have faith that the moon is made of cheese"
"I have faith that Democrats are better than Republicans"

Most people's first, instinctual response would be "Prove it!"

Again, I'm not talking about faith used in place of "confidence".

Faith in airplanes, medicine, flashlights, and friends isn't "faith". It's confidence born of repeated experiences which show that those things can be relied upon to perform according to expectations.


----------



## LowBat (Aug 18, 2010)

Are we talking the Grand Unified Theory (all forces of nature are related) which Einstein spent the latter half of his life trying to figure out, or are we talking how things have progressed since The Big Bang (Hydrogen, Helium, and a little bit of Lithium with gravity pulling them together until a nuclear reaction takes place, followed billions of years later by super nova thus making heavier elements)?


----------



## wyager (Aug 18, 2010)

LowBat said:


> Are we talking the Grand Unified Theory (all forces of nature are related) which Einstein spent the latter half of his life trying to figure out, or are we talking how things have progressed since The Big Bang (Hydrogen, Helium, and a little bit of Lithium with gravity pulling them together until a nuclear reaction takes place, followed billions of years later by super nova thus making heavier elements)?


This was what's confusing. People are throwing the incompleteness theorems around when the subject isn't every piece of knowledge available :thinking:
"everything" was poorly defined.


----------



## ama230 (Aug 18, 2010)

Science = proving something by reproducing results .

Math = science results into an equation of some sort.

These both rely on everything being static, which as we all know Nothing is. They are just like statistics and when we are able to reproduce something, therefore we should know what its going to do and explain it. Time and space are all made up and are far from being systematic, we can only rely on small constants and then build from there but as far as knowing everything, the purpose of life would cease to exist after that.

There is no way we will be able to tell what the purpose is of something and why it is that way. Again as someone mentioned above, it is in our makeup to try to make sense and then deem it a fact but again this is a theory or a law. 

This reality that we all share but perceive differently is a system of chaotic events that are going to cycle no matter what happens. This entails a start and an end, a start and an end, a start and an end, etc..... This is the way we see it as our present form entails us to somewhat analyze or structure matter. We are here for a limited time until we restructure our form and become something else(another cycle). A wave is as close as I can get it and this is a generated form that we use to describe but a wave is a series of small steps and we are only a step and nothing more.

Again this is the way I see it as much as i love science and a little math. As most of can agree on how can you truly know something as you can surely replicate it but will it prove to be the same time and time again, this is testing the validity of constants. Try to get an object and project it upwards and see where it lands, do the exact same thing again and I guarantee it will not happen again. We can estimate but it will not happen again as there are too many variables.

One thing is the man in the suit would definitely sell everything for this answer of everything as he would bend that over to and make it squeal once he found out!

Again this is just another theory....

This is another interesting thread as I enjoy everybody else's perception and theories..


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado (Aug 18, 2010)

> nitesky said:
> 
> 
> > No reference to Heisenberg?
> ...



Are we talking about Heisenberg or cats?

Is Heisenberg a zombie? or is the cat a zombie?


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 18, 2010)

Flashlight Aficionado said:


> Are we talking about Heisenberg or cats?



You can only observe if we're talking or what we're talking about, not both simultaneously.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 18, 2010)

Flashlight Aficionado said:


> Are we talking about Heisenberg or cats?
> 
> Is Heisenberg a zombie? or is the cat a zombie?



I thought it was Schrodinger's Cat. Are you saying that Heisenberg thought it was his?

And everyone knows that zombies aren't real.


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado (Aug 19, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> I thought it was Schrodinger's Cat. Are you saying that Heisenberg thought it was his?



I don't think it belonged to either of them. I think it was just the name of the cat. Do we have any science historians to clear up this mess?



> And everyone knows that zombies aren't real.


 Schrodinger said they are real. He just didn't use the word, 'zombie'. He said something along the lines of, "They are both dead and alive at the same time."


----------



## 65535 (Aug 19, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> I thought it was Schrodinger's Cat. Are you saying that Heisenberg thought it was his?
> 
> And everyone knows that zombies aren't real.



The only thing Heisenberg was certain about was that he wasn't certain about anything. He surely wasn't certain about that either.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Aug 19, 2010)

(preface: no sarcasm intended) 

Here is my "Theory of Everything": People are stupid. There are few exceptions to the theory.

Unfortunately this theory has true most of my life and I have generally not come across many people who prove it wrong in the long run. Most CPF who don't argue just to argue, a few other forums I am on and sporadic people here and there have been exceptions to the rule.


----------



## asdalton (Aug 19, 2010)

Gödel's incompleteness theorem is relevant for formal, deductive systems like mathematics. Physical science is not in this category.


----------



## flatline (Aug 19, 2010)

asdalton said:


> Gödel's incompleteness theorem is relevant for formal, deductive systems like mathematics. Physical science is not in this category.



+1

Godel's incompleteness theorem is often used as "proof" that there will always be a place for a "God of the Gaps", even though it makes no claims about the physical universe.

--flatline


----------



## Nitro (Aug 19, 2010)

wyager said:


> I certainly don't mean proving every true equation and fact in the universe-by theory of everything I meant a grand unifying theory, eg one that linked gravity and (electricity+magnetism+strong+weak) as well as quantum and relative physics (and any other apparently conflicting theories).


Even after we create a new system to solve today's problems, there will be NEW problems that cannot be solved. That's the whole point. There will never be a "do all end all" system of laws that can be used to solve any problem. There will always be a problem that can't be solved by any system we come up with. The old saying, "The more we know, the more we don't know" will always be true.



> This should basically explain the universe to the extent we need it explained.


Not true at all! Look at the history and progression of physics. Newton's laws were fine for 200 years, until Einstein came along and gave us a new system that described the laws of motion at high speeds i.e. where Newton's laws break down. However, Einstein theories break down at very small levels. Currently we're trying to come up with a new system (Theory of Everything) that unifies Einstein's theory and Quantum theory. If/when that happens it will open up a whole new set of doors (questions) that cannot be opened (answered).

When will it stop... never.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 19, 2010)

asdalton said:


> Gödel's incompleteness theorem is relevant for formal, deductive systems like mathematics. Physical science is not in this category.


 
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is relevant for ANY system of laws (axioms) we create to describe the Physical Universe.


----------



## asdalton (Aug 19, 2010)

The physical sciences don't use axioms.


----------



## orbital (Aug 19, 2010)

+

Absolutely there's a Theory of Everything, it's called_* Entropy*_

I can confirm this by looking into my back hall closet after a couple months,
and seeing the remarkable mess that occurs _all on its own_ :hahaha:


----------



## jeeves (Aug 19, 2010)

The Universe we see and know is only about 1/5 of the actual 'mass' of the Universe.

I think... without any [real] back ground or research... that
Dark matter has a lot to do with our everyday existence, possibly more than gravity as we know it.
If we ever gain a better understanding of what is currently 'Dark Matter' we'll be more apt to develop a theory that includes Quantum, Relative, and any number of new theories/sciences which, as a whole, will be able to describe and predict everything. I think the 'future' would also be something said theory can describe.

Minority report here we come. 


Unfortunately, personal choice is a variable that can and (I think) inevitably will be the undoing of a theory that can predict the future (which is part of 'everything'). 
In that sense, Nitro may be right. There may not be potential (or room) for a theory of everything.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 19, 2010)

asdalton said:


> The physical sciences don't use axioms.


All man made systems used to describe something are based on a finite set of laws, axioms, parameters, programs, truths, rules or whatever you want to call them. All systems based on a finite set of laws cannot be exhaustive, according to Godel's Theorem. Therefore any man made system cannot be complete. In other words, man cannot create a Universal Truth System, that can derive an answer to any question. If we could, scientists (and all men for that matter) would be out of work.

I'll even take this one step further. 

Because no finite system man creates can prove itself to be consistent, man will never be able to create a system (machine, computer, robot) that can think like man. If we were able to create such a system, we would see that such a system is consistent. However the system cannot prove its own consistency, so it is not true that such a system sees all the facts we do (i.e. its own consistency). Therefore such a system wouldn't think like us.


----------



## wyager (Aug 19, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Because no finite system man creates can prove itself to be consistent, man will never be able to create a system (machine, computer, robot) that can think like man. If we were able to create such a system, we would see that such a system is consistent. However the system cannot prove its own consistency, so it is not true that such a system sees all the facts we do (i.e. its own consistency). Therefore such a system wouldn't think like us.


LOL. 
Sorry, but that's drawing the theorem way too far. A brain is easy to replicate with the processing power and scanning tech. Don't try and mix theoretical mathematical logic and biology.


----------



## Steve K (Aug 20, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Because no finite system man creates can prove itself to be consistent, man will never be able to create a system (machine, computer, robot) that can think like man.



I'm probably taking this the wrong way, but... is mankind's brain the ultimate in logic and thought? Considering some of the results, I'd say that there is room for improvement....

(or maybe the political environment is just depressing me..)

regards,
Steve K.

okay, back to the topic --


----------



## asdalton (Aug 20, 2010)

Asserting and reasserting that physical science is based upon axioms doesn't make it so.

What are those axioms?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

wyager said:


> LOL.
> Sorry, but that's drawing the theorem way too far. A brain is easy to replicate with the processing power and scanning tech. Don't try and mix theoretical mathematical logic and biology.


Just because you can create the hardware, doesn't mean you can create the software.

However, there is a way around the problem that will allow for an AI machine to exist. You allow the machine to build itself, by evolving. It is possible (and consistent with the theorem) to create a machine that will learn on its own, and evolve. Then if/when the machine becomes as advanced as us, we (and it) would not be able to understand the software, or prove its consistency.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

Steve K said:


> I'm probably taking this the wrong way, but... is mankind's brain the ultimate in logic and thought? Considering some of the results, I'd say that there is room for improvement....


It's not that we're so smart that we can't be created. It's that we're so dumb, we cannot create ourselves.


----------



## angelofwar (Aug 20, 2010)

Nitro said:


> It's not that we're so smart that we can't be created. It's that we're so dumb, we cannot create ourselves.


 


+1 Nitro!


----------



## wyager (Aug 20, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Just because you can create the hardware, doesn't mean you can create the software.
> 
> However, there is a way around the problem that will allow for an AI machine to exist. You allow the machine to build itself, by evolving. It is possible (and consistent with the theorem) to create a machine that will learn on its own, and evolve. Then if/when the machine becomes as advanced as us, we (and it) would not be able to understand the software, or prove its consistency.


Dude, first off, software is just a manifestation of hardware. If you get the neural network started up, then set the proteins and got the virtual synapses firing in the exact image of a snapshot of a working human brain, there's no reason it would not work 100% like a human (with the right sensory input jury-rigged to the right places in the brain). There's absolutely no reason we can't prove its consistency, or any reason we would even want to... in fact, the machine would probably not be consistent if it worked properly.



Nitro said:


> It's not that we're so smart that we can't be created. It's that we're so dumb, we cannot create ourselves.


What do you base this on?

The incompleteness theorem is basically a very complex way of saying circular reasoning does not work, it's has zero implications with bio-engineering.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

asdalton said:


> Asserting and reasserting that physical science is based upon axioms doesn't make it so.
> 
> What are those axioms?


 
When I say axioms I'm referring to laws i.e. the laws of nature. Whether they're observable or assumed is immaterial. They are still used in a deductive system (theory) to describe something i.e. the Universe.

A deductive system (such as mathematics, logic etc) allows you to describe something larger than itself, without defining every possible combination, or observing every event. You cannot describe the Universe by observing everything, so if there is to be a "Theory of Everything", it would have to be a deductive system i.e. based on laws.

However, Godel's theorem tells us a deductive system cannot prove itself to be consistent AND be complete. Therefore, there will never be a consistent deductive system (theory) that fully describes everything (the Universe).


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

wyager said:


> What do you base this on?


 
"The human mind is incapable of formulating (or mechanizing) all its mathematical intuitions, i.e., if it has succeeded in formulating some of them, this very fact yields new intuitive knowledge, e.g., the consistency of this formalism. This fact may be called the 'incompletability' of mathematics. On the other hand, on the basis of what has been proved so far, it remains possible that there may exist (and even be empirically discoverable) a theorem-proving machine which in fact is equivalent to mathematical intuition, but cannot be proved to be so, nor even be proved to yield only correct theorems of finitary number theory" - Kurt Godel


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 20, 2010)

Nitro said:


> it remains possible that there may exist (and even be empirically discoverable) a theorem-proving machine which in fact is equivalent to mathematical intuition, but cannot be proved to be so,



Which is what I said in my previous post; a computer will eventually produce a theorem that is so complex and enigmatic that there won't be enough human manpower or time to figure out how it came to the conclusion (and the computer will continue building on the knowledge irregardless.)

There are a finite number of scientists/mathematicians on Earth who have a finite amount of processing time; the computer has no such limitation.


----------



## wyager (Aug 20, 2010)

Nitro said:


> "The human mind is incapable of formulating (or mechanizing) all its mathematical intuitions, i.e., if it has succeeded in formulating some of them, this very fact yields new intuitive knowledge, e.g., the consistency of this formalism. This fact may be called the 'incompletability' of mathematics. On the other hand, on the basis of what has been proved so far, it remains possible that there may exist (and even be empirically discoverable) a theorem-proving machine which in fact is equivalent to mathematical intuition, but cannot be proved to be so, nor even be proved to yield only correct theorems of finitary number theory" - Kurt Godel


And? Just because the computer could be better at proofs than us and we can't understand them doesn't mean that it's in any way impossible.


----------



## DM51 (Aug 20, 2010)

wyager said:


> ... there's no reason it would not work 100% like a human


Hmmm... but _WHICH_ human? That's the kind of detail that bothers me...


----------



## wyager (Aug 20, 2010)

DM51 said:


> Hmmm... but _WHICH_ human? That's the kind of detail that bothers me...


I suppose whichever human you copy. Then, by tweaking the virtual brain a little bit we can probably learn a lot about personality, conscience, etc.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> Which is what I said in my previous post; a computer will eventually produce a theorem that is so complex and enigmatic that there won't be enough human manpower or time to figure out how it came to the conclusion (and the computer will continue building on the knowledge irregardless.)


 


Nitro said:


> However, there is a way around the problem that will allow for an AI machine to exist. You allow the machine to build itself, by evolving. It is possible (and consistent with the theorem) to create a machine that will learn on its own, and evolve. Then if/when the machine becomes as advanced as us, we (and it) would not be able to understand the software, or prove its consistency.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

wyager said:


> And? Just because the computer could be better at proofs than us and we can't understand them doesn't mean that it's in any way impossible.


 


Nitro said:


> However, there is a way around the problem that will allow for an AI machine to exist. You allow the machine to build itself, by evolving. It is possible (and consistent with the theorem) to create a machine that will learn on its own, and evolve. Then if/when the machine becomes as advanced as us, we (and it) would not be able to understand the software, or prove its consistency.


----------



## flatline (Aug 20, 2010)

Nitro said:


> All man made systems used to describe something are based on a finite set of laws, axioms, parameters, programs, truths, rules or whatever you want to call them. All systems based on a finite set of laws cannot be exhaustive, according to Godel's Theorem. Therefore any man made system cannot be complete. In other words, man cannot create a Universal Truth System, that can derive an answer to any question. If we could, scientists (and all men for that matter) would be out of work.



The rules of Chess are a finite set of man-made axioms, yet there is no scenario on a chess board that is undefined. All possible moves are clearly defined as legal or illegal. Why should we believe that the physical universe can't be similarly described?

I'm no mathematician and I'm sure I don't properly understand and appreciate all the subtle implications of Godel's theorem, but it doesn't seem like Godel's theorem maps to the real world the way you seem to think it does.

--flatline


----------



## wyager (Aug 20, 2010)

flatline said:


> The rules of Chess are a finite set of man-made axioms, yet there is no scenario on a chess board that is undefined. All possible moves are clearly defined as legal or illegal. Why should we believe that the physical universe can't be similarly described?
> 
> I'm no mathematician and I'm sure I don't properly understand and appreciate all the subtle implications of Godel's theorem, but it doesn't seem like Godel's theorem maps to the real world the way you seem to think it does.
> 
> --flatline


I didn't even think of that... good point!


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

DM51 said:


> Hmmm... but _WHICH_ human? That's the kind of detail that bothers me...


 
To answer that question, we would first need to define what it is to be human. I'd say most people would agree that each person consists of three distinct parts

1. Hardware; the physical body and brain
2. Software; the memories, skills, opinions and behavior in general.
3. Consciousness; the sense of self, personal identity, pure awareness, the spark of life or even the soul.

We know that 1 and 2 are different in everyone. However, the question becomes, is 3 the same in everone i.e. is everybody's consciousness the same? Or, is it unique in all of us?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

flatline said:


> The rules of Chess are a finite set of man-made axioms, yet there is no scenario on a chess board that is undefined. All possible moves are clearly defined as legal or illegal. Why should we believe that the physical universe can't be similarly described?
> 
> I'm no mathematician and I'm sure I don't properly understand and appreciate all the subtle implications of Godel's theorem, but it doesn't seem like Godel's theorem maps to the real world the way you seem to think it does.


For the simple fact that it is not complete. Remember, a system cannot be consistent AND complete at the same time. Nor can the system itself prove it's own consistency. We (humans) know it's consistent because we are not part of (within) the system (game). We are on a higher level.


----------



## asdalton (Aug 20, 2010)

Nitro -

Seriously, stop digging.

Your misuse of the incompleteness theorem is on par with common misuses of quantum mechanics and the second law of thermodynamics. It's snake oil. It doesn't say what you think it says.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/godels-theorem.html


----------



## wyager (Aug 20, 2010)

asdalton said:


> Nitro -
> 
> Seriously, stop digging.
> 
> ...


Any reasonable use of the incompleteness theorem in this thread stopped the moment it was used in the context of neurology...


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

asdalton said:


> Nitro -
> 
> Seriously, stop digging.
> 
> ...


To describe the Universe (in any way) you need a Formal System. You cannot do it by observation alone. It would take forever. But anytime you have a formal system, which is based on fundamental laws, Godel's theorem applies.

As I said, whether or not a law is observed (which is also an assumption that what you see is in fact real), or assumed to be true based on are own intuition is irrelevant. Once inside the formal system, the same rules apply.

I am curious though. What exactly are you trying to say, that someday man will hold all the keys to the Universe, and all knowledge will eventually be known? I'm saying that will never happen, and so is Godel's theorem.


----------



## entoptics (Aug 20, 2010)

From my understanding, Godel's ideas only apply to mathematics, which is nothing more or less than a language system devised to describe stuff (maybe the best, maybe not). As with most languages, it is currently too incomplete to accurately describe everything.

Other languages, pheromones and imagery for instance, can describe things mathematics currently can't.

Perhaps "full understanding" will come as a conglomeration of descriptive techniques. Perhaps not.

Either way, it's mostly irrelevant (both to the original post topic and real life) since Theory of Everything is meant to describe a potential unification of currently well defined physical laws, and not all possible knowledge and truth.


----------



## wyager (Aug 20, 2010)

OK. I've done some more reading. Apparently the main idea behind incompleteness is that there is no formula to determine if every statement is true or false (i.e. prove it). It has no implications in the maximum amount of knowledge we can have or in artificial intelligence. It really only applies in abstract math, like computer science. Those other articles were too complex for me to pay much attention, but that one lays it out straight.


----------



## wyager (Aug 20, 2010)

doble postado-oops!


----------



## Nitro (Aug 20, 2010)

wyager said:


> OK. I've done some more reading. Apparently the main idea behind incompleteness is that there is no formula to determine if every statement is true or false (i.e. prove it). It has no implications in the maximum amount of knowledge we can have or in artificial intelligence. It really only applies in abstract math, like computer science. Those other articles were too complex for me to pay much attention, but that one lays it out straight.


 
Actually, the incompleteness theory pertains to any "Formal System" based on fundamental laws, rules, programs etc. That includes computers, minds, machines, robots etc.

However, there is still an OPEN debate in the world of science (not just in this thread) of whether the Universe can be modeled as a formal logical system, i.e. a great computing machine. If you believe that the Universe is one giant computer (i.e. formal system), then Godel's theorem applies. I believe that it is. What do you think?

Kind of a sick joke someone (or thing) is playing on us. They won't even allow us to know IF we can truly know everything. Guess they don't want us to give up trying. :laughing:


----------



## ama230 (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Actually, the incompleteness theory pertains to any "Formal System" based on fundamental laws, rules, programs etc. That includes computers, minds, machines, robots etc.
> 
> However, there is still an OPEN debate in the world of science (not just in this thread) of whether the Universe can be modeled as a formal logical system, i.e. a great computing machine. If you believe that the Universe is one giant computer (i.e. formal system), then Godel's theorem applies. I believe that it is. What do you think?
> 
> Kind of a sick joke someone (or thing) is playing on us. They won't even allow us to know IF we can truly know everything. Guess they don't want us to give up trying. :laughing:



Let me ask you a question....

Every time you had asked yourself the question, "I wonder how it works?"

Then once you found out and were able to replicate or predict what it does or is going to do. Therefore you lost interest or respect for it because...

1) It's no longer a question and has become an answer. Loss of interest.

2) That was simple... I can't believe it was so simple... Then losing respect.

All of us can admit to one of these as once you find out how the trick is performed it no longer is a challenge or intriguing. I believe that if this question is answered, this is where we lose our identity of a human and our real purpose.

Also do any of you think that our structuring is a little primitive to actually be asking these questions. Like 90 percent of humanity thinks that we are advanced. It is and always will be more of a continuum of mathematics and physics that will never make sense due to it always being an open loop. This benifiting a select few rather than the rest of the crowd, which has always turned out rather bad.

We have yet to add to our periodic table, ever expanding physics and actually manage our own situations(personal lives, politics, environment etc...) Then to think the personal matters are the simple things and to even answer the others, its just scary!!!:duh2:

Great thread again and good to see no one getting crazy...lovecpf


----------



## entoptics (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> ...i.e. a great computing machine. If you believe that the Universe is one giant computer (i.e. formal system), then Godel's theorem applies. I believe that it is. What do you think?
> 
> Kind of a sick joke someone (or thing) is playing on us. They won't even allow us to know IF we can truly know everything. Guess they don't want us to give up trying. :laughing:



I think we've come to the root of Nitro's "question" finally. It's not so much a question, as an assertion.

Nitro is asserting that there is meaning and design in some sort of "machine universe"

There is no evidence for this, and thus it is a leap of "faith". Until you can point to any evidence for the "sick joke" and it's consequences, then it is irrelevant to being alive.



ama230 said:


> ...once you find out how the trick is performed it no longer is a challenge or intriguing. I believe that if this question is answered, this is where we lose our identity of a human and our real purpose.



Similarly, I would ask ama230 to show any evidence of a "real purpose".



ama230 said:


> We have yet to add to our periodic table, ever expanding physics and actually manage our own situations(personal lives, politics, environment etc...)



This is purely false. We have been adding elements to the periodic table since BEFORE there was a periodic table, physics has changed from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Quantum, and our "own situations" have gone from 30 year life span to 80 year lifespan with a decrease in suffering and increase in personal liberty.

Please provide substantial evidence for such bold assertions before attempting to baffle the readers with complicated explanations for claims that are yet to be shown as relevant.


----------



## Empath (Aug 21, 2010)

Removed a wildly off-topic posting, capable of redirecting the discussion to something entirely irrelevant and burying the thread's topic.

If you want to discuss something else, start a new thread.


----------



## flatline (Aug 21, 2010)

ama230 said:


> Let me ask you a question....
> 
> Every time you had asked yourself the question, "I wonder how it works?"
> 
> ...



That doesn't make sense to me. When I learn how something works, I...

1) feel a sense of wonderment that the mechanism is capable of creating the effects that it does.

2) renewed interest in trying to understand the capabilities and limitations of the newly discovered mechanism.

Understanding how something works is just the beginning. Trying to then generalize the possible applications of the mechanism is where the real excitement lies. My interest only wanes when my imagination putters out.

That's how I approach knowledge as an Engineer. From the scientists I've met, they seem to have a similar approach.

--flatline


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

entoptics said:


> Nitro is asserting that there is meaning and design in some sort of "machine universe"
> 
> There is no evidence for this, and thus it is a leap of "faith". Until you can point to any evidence for the "sick joke" and it's consequences, then it is irrelevant to being alive.


You're asserting that the Universe is something else. Where's your evidence?

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Asdalton. Do you think man will eventually hold all the keys to the Universe, and learn all knowledge?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

flatline said:


> Understanding how something works is just the beginning. Trying to then generalize the possible applications of the mechanism is where the real excitement lies. My interest only wanes when my imagination putters out.


Understanding how a system works, puts you ABOVE it. Meaning you are no longer (or never were) part of that system.


----------



## ama230 (Aug 21, 2010)

flatline said:


> That doesn't make sense to me. When I learn how something works, I...
> 
> 1) feel a sense of wonderment that the mechanism is capable of creating the effects that it does.
> 
> ...



Great outlook as I share the same....

This is a general outlook that was being described as a whole, i.e. the rest of the world. Not including us engineers, scientists and etc...

Most are looking to far into what I am saying and asking. I am just stating a question and this is purely observational.

Then answering the question, real purpose...

As an engineer I see things for their simplicity and therefore do not need to break it down. The only reason things are so complex is to protect a persons IP or ideas. Most structures are just too complicated and almost fight themselves when dealing with a task.

I am just stating the other side of this is, When we let go or stop thinking about something...this is when the real or true solution comes along. This is the real purpose I am talking about. Instead of designing something to run on petrol we could harness something that is already existing in nature, going with what is the transfer of energy instead of trying to store it. This is what complexity has done is that we have forgotten that we can do things with one less step making it a more efficient way of process control.

I messed up on the statement I said earlier and apologize for that. I meant to say that if we answer the question of everything, then we become a machine rather than a human. This is where we become systematic rather than pragmatic and lose touch of personal relationships and the simple things in life. As we live longer we forget that our time is valuable and needs to be managed in appropriate manner than a reckless one. 

As we advance we simply regress... 

Again this is an observation and not a fact...


----------



## ama230 (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Understanding how a system works, puts you ABOVE it. Meaning you are no longer (or never were) part of that system.



Great statement and this is what im getting at. You get where this is going, no need to answer these questions in a systematic nature just need to see all aspects as a whole.:twothumbs


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Understanding how a system works, puts you ABOVE it. Meaning you are no longer (or never were) part of that system.


Sorry, that's just wrong. If someone put their mind to it, they could (with some effort) make a computer that was able to understand its own hardware and functions. That doesn't mean AI, but if I wanted to I could program a microcontroller to reprogram itself according to the situation in a couple of hours (a simple self-understanding system). What you're talking about is the belief that only god(s) can know everything, which is just wrong. The only limit to our knowledge is the uncertainty principle. Well, perhaps storage space is a consideration but we don't really want to know the exact relationship between two atoms of carbon a million light years away. Even provided incompleteness did apply in the physical universe, a simple way around it is leaving a few things we don't care about unknown.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

wyager said:


> Sorry, that's just wrong. If someone put their mind to it, they could (with some effort) make a computer that was able to understand its own hardware and functions. That doesn't mean AI, but if I wanted to I could program a microcontroller to reprogram itself according to the situation in a couple of hours (a simple self-understanding system).


Sorry, you're wrong on this. Man cannot create a computer, machine, robot etc. that can prove itself consistent (i.e. understand itself). This is a FACT and not debatable, because it was proven by Godel's theorem.

A computer dublicating itself is not the same as it understanding itself.


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Sorry, you're wrong on this. Man cannot create a computer, machine, robot etc. that can prove itself consistent (i.e. understand itself). This is a FACT and not debatable, because it was proven by Godel's theorem.


"_This brings us to the other, and possibly even more common fallacy, that Gödel's theorem says artificial intelligence is impossible, or that machines cannot think. The argument, so far as there is one, usually runs as follows. Axiomatic systems are equivalent to abstract computers, to Turing machines, of which our computers are (approximate) realizations. (True.) Since there are true propositions which cannot be deduced by interesting axiomatic systems, there are results which cannot be obtained by computers, either. (True.) But we can obtain those results, so our thinking cannot be adequately represented by a computer, or an axiomatic system. Therefore, we are not computational machines, and none of them could be as intelligent as we are; quod erat demonstrandum. This would actually be a valid demonstration, were only the pentultimate sentence true; but no one has ever presented any evidence that it is true, only vigorous hand-waving and the occasional heartfelt assertion._"

Quod erat demonstrandum.
We can prove/understand ourselves-even the fact that humans are self-aware immediately destroys the idea that machines cannot understand themselves.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

wyager said:


> We can prove/understand ourselves-even the fact that humans are self-aware immediately destroys the idea that machines cannot understand themselves.


Are you seriously saying we know how and why we think?

Also, are you saying a computer is self-aware? It would have to be in order to understand a computer.


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Are you seriously saying we know how and why we think?
> 
> Also, are you saying a computer is self-aware? It would have to be in order to understand a computer.


I don't have to know how and why we think... if a human can do it, so can a computer. There is not a shred of logical proof otherwise.

Current computers might not be self-aware (according to a brilliant Stanford professor I talked to, there's no proof they aren't) but that doesn't mean they can't be.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

wyager said:


> I don't have to know how and why we think... if a human can do it, so can a computer. There is not a shred of logical proof otherwise.


So you are saying a computer is NOT a Formal System?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

> Current computers might not be self-aware (according to a brilliant Stanford professor I talked to, there's no proof they aren't) but that doesn't mean they can't be.


Now this brings up an interesting question: Are computers (or any inadament object) self-aware?

It also brings us back to my earlier question. We can agree that a human mind has three distinct parts:

1. Hardware; the physical body and brain
2. Software; the memories, skills, opinions and behavior in general.
3. Consciousness; the sense of self, personal identity, pure awareness, the spark of life or even the soul.

We know that 1 and 2 are different in everyone. However, the question becomes, is 3 the same in everone i.e. is everybody's consciousness the same? Or, is it unique in all of us?


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro is saying that the goldfish cannot know the nature of the fishbowl, which is valid. 

But once you've mapped the background radiation, observed particle/anti-particle pairs occurring and annihilating, and teleported photons, you're at least making the first steps towards looking into the fishbowl from the outside.

And self-awareness isn't some sort of magic bullet towards building sentient computers; a Roomba is self-aware, it knows it's physical state and returns to its charging dock as needed, yet no one refers to the automatic vacuum as "self-aware". A much larger watermark will have been reached when a computer passes the Turing Test, and can convince everyone that it's indistinguishable from something that bears consciousness. It doesn't actually have to be self-aware, it can just act like it.

If you're really interested in the future of the relationship between man and machine, read some Ray Kurzweil, particularly _The Age of Spiritual Machines_ and _The Singularity is Near_, both cover the topic exhaustively.


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> So you are saying a computer is NOT a Formal System?


A human is close enough to a formal system that computers could emulate one. Even if we stuck with current logic-based computers, you could still perfectly emulate a human brain.



Nitro said:


> Now this brings up an interesting question: Are computers (or any inadament object) self-aware?
> 
> It also brings us back to my earlier question. We can agree that a human mind has three distinct parts:
> 
> ...



Well, I don't think it has anything to do with if the object is "inadament", but being inanimate might change things. A computer is certainly not inanimate... And as for
1.Hardware; the body can be replicated, the brain can be simulated
2.Software; just a manifestation of what's stored on the hardware-this too can be simulated
3.Consciousness/the soul-A quasi-religious construct that bears no meaning with science. The soul is an imaginary contraption similar to the "magic smoke" of electronics thought up by primitive humans to alleviate fear of death. Any attempt to use the concept of a soul that is not a manifestation of brain software (i.e. a mystical force inside your body) renders any "logic" of arguments based off that use refutable and incorrect.

Consciousness, personality, self-awareness are only manifestations of brain development. A human is a chemical machine, there is nothing mystical about us. We can already simulate less complex chemical reactions-the brain is next.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

wyager said:


> A human is close enough to a formal system that computers could emulate one. Even if we stuck with current logic-based computers, you could still perfectly emulate a human brain.


So are you saying a computer IS or ISN'T a Formal System?


----------



## entoptics (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> You're asserting that the Universe is something else. Where's your evidence?
> 
> I'll ask you the same thing I asked Asdalton. Do you think man will eventually hold all the keys to the Universe, and learn all knowledge?



I'm actually not asserting anything. The burden of proof is therefore on you.

As for your question, it's irrelevant. What I think has nothing to do with much of anything. Regardless, I cannot answer the question, because the premise is poorly defined.

"Keys to the Universe...all knowledge"????

This implies there is a limit to knowledge ("all"), and some sort of goal or purpose ("keys"). Until you can demonstrate that assertion, the question is impossible to answer.

I think it would help if you would demonstrate you actually understand Godel's Theory by explaining it. Simply stating "Godel's Theory proves XYZ" is unlikely to convince anyone of anything.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

wyager said:


> Consciousness, personality, self-awareness are only manifestations of brain development. A human is a chemical machine, there is nothing mystical about us. We can already simulate less complex chemical reactions-the brain is next.


So are you saying Consciousness is not a separate (distinct) part of the mind, but in fact comes about from the Software (i.e. Memories etc.)?

So if a computer starts out non-self-aware, and continues to get pumped full of information, when (and how) does it finally become self-aware?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 21, 2010)

entoptics said:


> I'm actually not asserting anything. The burden of proof is therefore on you.


My only assertion is this:

1. If the Universe is similar to a Formal System, it means nobody WITHIN the Universe can understand it, describe it, control it.
2. If the Universe is not similar to a Formal System, then it's possible for someone (or thing) to understand it, control it etc. 

Neither can be proved, but so far the Universe acting like a Formal System makes more sense to me. At least until man discovers the final secret to the Universe.



> As for your question, it's irrelevant. What I think has nothing to do with much of anything. Regardless, I cannot answer the question, because the premise is poorly defined.


 
No, the question is the MOST relevant. If you believe man will someday hold the key to the Universe, you believe number 2 above. If you don't believe man will ever hold the key, you believe number 1.



> This implies there is a limit to knowledge ("all"), and some sort of goal or purpose ("keys"). Until you can demonstrate that assertion, the question is impossible to answer.


Number 2 above implies there is a limit to knowledge. Number 1 does not.



> I think it would help if you would demonstrate you actually understand Godel's Theory by explaining it. Simply stating "Godel's Theory proves XYZ" is unlikely to convince anyone of anything.


 
Godel's incomleteness theorem simply states that a Formal System cannot be consistent and complete at the same time. It also states that a Formal system cannot prove itself to be consistent.

A simple proof is this: Take any formal system F. Then ask it if this statement is true or false: "This statement cannot be proven in the formal system F". If the statement can be proven in the formal system, then it is false, and hence a false statement was proven, and the system therefore inconsistent. On the other hand, if the statement cannot be proven, then it is true, and it's an example of a true statement that cannot be proven. Therefore, the formal system F is either inconsistent or incomplete.


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> So are you saying Consciousness is not a separate (distinct) part of the mind, but in fact comes about from the Software (i.e. Memories etc.)?
> 
> So if a computer starts out non-self-aware, and continues to get pumped full of information, when (and how) does it finally become self-aware?


Consciousness is a result of hardware and software. This is very clear. If we put the correct software on binary hardware we could theoretically emulate a brain perfectly.


----------



## flatline (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Now this brings up an interesting question: Are computers (or any inadament object) self-aware?
> 
> It also brings us back to my earlier question. We can agree that a human mind has three distinct parts:
> 
> ...



We can agree that the Hardware exists.

Software is just a state encoded into the hardware and is therefore just an abstraction to make the behavior of the hardware easier to understand.

"personal identity", "pure awareness", "soul", etc are fictions. Our awareness of ourselves is, again, just a property of the hardware as it functions.

The label for this position according to my philosophy classes is "eliminative materialist". A quick google search on those terms will yield all sorts of interesting reading written by very intelligent people who would be unwilling to agree that the human mind has the 3 components you listed.

--flatline


----------



## mudman cj (Aug 21, 2010)

wyager said:


> Consciousness is a result of hardware and software. This is very clear. If we put the correct software on binary hardware we could theoretically emulate a brain perfectly.





flatline said:


> "personal identity", "pure awareness", "soul", etc are fictions. Our awareness of ourselves is, again, just a property of the hardware as it functions.



These are unprovable statements, not facts.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 21, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> These are unprovable statements, not facts.



And that's why the Turing test is key; getting to the point where the device appears conscious is more important initially than figuring out if it actually is or not.


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> These are unprovable statements, not facts.


Where's your evidence? The only people suggesting there is anything non-replicatable about human brain anatomy are religious figureheads, not scientists. On top of that, it is very provable, we just haven't done it yet (as StarHalo said).

However, there is not a single microscopic piece of evidence to suggest that the chemical processes of a brain cannot be replicated on a machine, so it is most likely the turing test will consistently be beaten within the next few years.


----------



## mudman cj (Aug 21, 2010)

I have no need to prove the the quoted statements were unprovable, but strictly speaking I should have said that they are unproven, and for that you have my apology. If those that make statements such as those I quoted but cannot prove them, then they have made statements about their beliefs. Such beliefs constitute a type of religion in themselves, one of materialism. An open mind would be an alternative...

As for the Turing test, the best it can do is show that the system appears to be conscious. That does not mean that it is conscious. The only reason we believe one another to be conscious is because we feel that we are conscious and we recognize others to be similar to ourselves and then deduce that they too are conscious. I don't know why StarHalo says it is initially more important to pass the Turing test than to know if the system is actually conscious. That is interesting in itself.


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

For all I know, none of you are conscious. However, you are all passing a turing test (a forum is a perfect turing test), so I can assume you are all conscious.


----------



## entoptics (Aug 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Godel's incomleteness theorem simply states that a Formal System cannot be consistent and complete at the same time. It also states that a Formal system cannot prove itself to be consistent.



Entoptic's Theory simply states that giving a simple synopsis of a theory is not actually explaining it or showing it's been appropriately applied.



Nitro said:


> A simple proof is this: Take any formal system F. Then ask it if this statement is true or false: "This statement cannot be proven in the formal system F". If the statement can be proven in the formal system, then it is false, and hence a false statement was proven, and the system therefore inconsistent. On the other hand, if the statement cannot be proven, then it is true, and it's an example of a true statement that cannot be proven. Therefore, the formal system F is either inconsistent or incomplete.



I'm not sure how the "simple proof" applies to the Universe. How is it decided that "This statement cannot be proven in the formal system F"? 

What exactly is the statement anyway? Do you mean "Statement X" as in some arbitrary bit of math or logic, or do you mean something like "I always Lie"


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

entoptics said:


> Entoptic's Theory simply states that giving a simple synopsis of a theory is not actually explaining it or showing it's been appropriately applied.




I can vouch for this theory!
:thumbsup:


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 21, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> I don't know why StarHalo says it is initially more important to pass the Turing test than to know if the system is actually conscious. That is interesting in itself.



Because it will mean we can create a device that is indistinguishable from a conscious thing, which will have profound impact and applications. Some creative folk will eventually release a device/some software that not only passes the Turing test, but it always seems human to everyone all the time; when it is asked of the creators if this is conscious or not, the honest answer will be "Could be.."


----------



## flatline (Aug 21, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> I have no need to prove the the quoted statements were unprovable, but strictly speaking I should have said that they are unproven, and for that you have my apology. If those that make statements such as those I quoted but cannot prove them, then they have made statements about their beliefs. Such beliefs constitute a type of religion in themselves, one of materialism. An open mind would be an alternative...



Materialism should always be the default position for any critical thinker since no other metaphysical philosophy has ever made testable claims that survived rigorous testing in the real world. Yet you test materialism every time you successfully heat something in the microwave. Or drive your car. Or otherwise benefit directly from the progress of the physical sciences.

Also, please don't confuse materialism with religion. That's as silly as saying that Chemistry or Applied Physics is a religion. To paraphrase James Randi, "Materialism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby".

--flatline

Edit: Randi's original quote was "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". I have no idea if he was quoting someone else or if the quote is original. And for the record, atheism is usually a subset of materialism, although it doesn't have to be. It would be weird to meet a superstitious atheist, but as long as his superstitions don't posit the existence of a god, then he'd still be an atheist.


----------



## ama230 (Aug 21, 2010)

wyager said:


> Where's your evidence? The only people suggesting there is anything non-replicatable about human brain anatomy are religious figureheads, not scientists. On top of that, it is very provable, we just haven't done it yet (as StarHalo said).
> 
> However, there is not a single microscopic piece of evidence to suggest that the chemical processes of a brain cannot be replicated on a machine, so it is most likely the turing test will consistently be beaten within the next few years.



There is no way that a machine can replicate itself and therefore think for itself as a result has not been built by itself. Having a conscious aspect means that we are aware of our own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings. These have to be experienced and not programmed, how can you tell someone how to feel, where they came from or even how to think. This is absurd as saying someone is born smart or in shape, we define these ourselves by acting on our own will or choice. Having a computer that is self fixing, think or creating would deem it a perpetual process and would not be possible.

Also there is no religious implications to my profound thought process, they are just series of experiences that have thus shaped my theory. No need to bring that into here as this an open mind discussion. 

Having a theory of everything is far beyond these theories mentioned. making assumptions on something that hasnt been seen or experienced is just a hypothesis. We can make a fine print that states that this is this with certain unknown but in truth there are more unknowns than knowns. This would still make us in the same or general area of the world is flat.

of course you could program these entities but these are implanted rather than experienced and therefore cannot be made to think like a human. We think to survive, procreate and love, a machine does what it does by continuing a loop of logic and if i were to state anything it sounds like we have a computer telling us were wrong. 

Logistics and reasoning are just crazy themselves...


----------



## ama230 (Aug 21, 2010)

StarHalo said:


> Because it will mean we can create a device that is indistinguishable from a conscious thing, which will have profound impact and applications. Some creative folk will eventually release a device/some software that not only passes the Turing test, but it always seems human to everyone all the time; when it is asked of the creators if this is conscious or not, the honest answer will be "Could be.."




Good one starhalo!


----------



## wyager (Aug 21, 2010)

ama230 said:


> 1.There is no way that a machine can replicate itself and therefore think for itself as a result has not been built by itself. Having a conscious aspect means that we are aware of our own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings. These have to be experienced and not programmed, how can you tell someone how to feel, where they came from or even how to think. This is absurd as saying someone is born smart or in shape, we define these ourselves by acting on our own will or choice. Having a computer that is self fixing, think or creating would deem it a perpetual process and would not be possible.
> 
> 2.Also there is no religious implications to my profound thought process, they are just series of experiences that have thus shaped my theory. No need to bring that into here as this an open mind discussion.
> 
> ...


1. It is quite possible to make a self-replicating machine. And are you saying that a computer is not aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings? It most definitely is, it even knows its own thoughts better than a human. "These have to be experienced and not programmed, how can you tell someone how to feel, where they came from or even how to think."
Are you serious? It's incredibly easy to manipulate the way someone feels, and there are a number of scenarios where you could "re-program" someone in to believing something that is not true about, for example, where they came from (an amnesia patient is an obvious one).
"we define these ourselves by acting on our own will or choice." It sounds as though you believe that humans are mystical or special in some way. There is no evidence to support this, and the idea of "free will" is absurd. Everything in the universe is predictable barring events at the quantum level, that includes humans and computers. Humans don't have any more will than a computer does, as our genes regulate the way our brain works. We are just as programmed as a computer, our instincts and thoughts are simply the result of the way our brain evolved.
"Having a computer that is self fixing, think or creating would deem it a perpetual process and would not be possible.":sigh:
Clearly you have no idea the difference between a perpetual and sustaining process. Humans are self fixing, thinking and creating, does that make us a perpetual and impossible process? Perpetual=performing an action infinitely without external energy input. Sustaining=performing an action infinitely with external energy input. Perpetual is generally not possible, but sustaining is everywhere....

2.Clearly you believe some religious or quasi-religious ideas, such as the idea that humans are for some reason humans are not just machines... :shrug:

3.Inductive reasoning, man. It's quite possible to know something without experiencing it, _a. priori. _

4.The sole purpose of any life form is reproduction, but calling it a "purpose" is generous. You think the slime we evolved from had any more feeling than a computer? Probably not. And a computer being programmed is the exact same thing as a human learning how to do something. Anything you or I do is just because we were programmed to do it-things like art, music, television, recreational drugs etc. are just significant hardware/software glitches that are perpetuated due to our particular reproduction system.

Sorry if I sound negative, but I'm tired of people trying to pass metaphysics as science.


----------



## entoptics (Aug 22, 2010)

Easy with the LOLs Wyager. No need for explicit derision in such a friendly debate.



ama230 said:


> There is no way that a machine can replicate itself and therefore think for itself as a result has not been built by itself. Having a conscious aspect means that we are aware of our own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings. These have to be experienced and not programmed



This is false.



ama230 said:


> Also there is no religious implications to my profound thought process, they are just series of experiences that have thus shaped my theory. No need to bring that into here as this an open mind discussion.



"Profound thought process"...? I'm not sure I'd consider the disorganized and hard to follow postings you've so far made as "profound". 

Regardless, there appears to be an underlying religious tone to the original post topic. It implied that mankind is fundamentally incapable of understanding its surroundings, and therefore "faith" in some nebulous and undefined thing is necessary for being "human". That is close enough to "religion" in my opinion.



ama230 said:


> Having a theory of everything is far beyond these theories mentioned. making assumptions on something that hasnt been seen or experienced is just a hypothesis. We can make a fine print that states that this is this with certain unknown but in truth there are more unknowns than knowns. This would still make us in the same or general area of the world is flat.



Say what??? I'd suggest rereading your posts before hitting the submit button. No matter how "profound" your thinking is, if the average english speaking person can't make heads or tails of what you said, I'm not sure how we can comment/debate your ideas.



ama230 said:


> of course you could program these entities but these are implanted rather than experienced and therefore cannot be made to think like a human.



Are you suggesting that a toddler knows that it will get burned by a red hot stove top, before it's ever experienced a burn? Are you also suggesting that a 7 year old already knows that poison ivy will make them itch, before being told "Leaves of three, leave it be"?


----------



## wyager (Aug 22, 2010)

entoptics said:


> Easy with the LOLs Wyager. No need for explicit derision in such a friendly debate.


Edited... 
I felt the need for some derision, now I've calmed a bit


----------



## mudman cj (Aug 22, 2010)

flatline said:


> Materialism should always be the default position for any critical thinker since no other metaphysical philosophy has ever made testable claims that survived rigorous testing in the real world. Yet you test materialism every time you successfully heat something in the microwave. Or drive your car. Or otherwise benefit directly from the progress of the physical sciences.
> 
> Also, please don't confuse materialism with religion. That's as silly as saying that Chemistry or Applied Physics is a religion. To paraphrase James Randi, "Materialism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby".
> 
> ...



I do not agree that materialism should be the default position for any critical thinker. Materialism includes the assumption that the only thing that exists is matter. Our science continues to advance at a rapid pace, and it is quite possible that there are forms of energy/matter that exist but we cannot yet measure or perceive in a testable way, but given time it could become possible. I am not advocating belief in these things, but merely an allowance for the possibility of such things. Materialism is a belief system that excludes the possibility of the existence of as yet unmeasured or unperceived things. Materialism is a subset of atheism, and is even more limiting.


----------



## angelofwar (Aug 22, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> I do not agree that materialism should be the default position for any critical thinker. Materialism includes the assumption that the only thing that exists is matter. Our science continues to advance at a rapid pace, and it is quite possible that there are forms of energy/matter that exist but we cannot yet measure or perceive in a testable way, but given time it could become possible. I am not advocating belief in these things, but merely an allowance for the possibility of such things. Materialism is a belief system that excludes the possibility of the existence of as yet unmeasured or unperceived things. Materialism is a subset of atheism, and is even more limiting.


 
:thumbsup:


----------



## flatline (Aug 22, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> I do not agree that materialism should be the default position for any critical thinker. Materialism includes the assumption that the only thing that exists is matter.



That's not a true characterization of materialism. Materialism posits that the behavior of all things in the universe can be explained without relying on the existence of and intervention by forces outside of the universe.



> Our science continues to advance at a rapid pace, and it is quite possible that there are forms of energy/matter that exist but we cannot yet measure or perceive in a testable way, but given time it could become possible.


And the materialist believes that when such forms of energy/matter are discovered, we'll be able to describe their properties and behavior without resorting to otherworldly intervention.

As a critical thinker, the materialist must be willing to entertain the idea of otherworldly powers if there is compelling evidence to support that conclusion, but he will not simply jump to that conclusion in the absence of a better explanation.



> I am not advocating belief in these things, but merely an allowance for the possibility of such things. Materialism is a belief system that excludes the possibility of the existence of as yet unmeasured or unperceived things.


Again, this is an incorrect characterization of the materialist position.

Materialism doesn't exclude the possibility of such things a priori, but it is only willing to accept the existence of such things in the face of compelling evidence. Materialism only survives because no such evidence has ever survived scrutiny.



> Materialism is a subset of atheism, and is even more limiting.


No, you've got it backwards. Materialism is a superset of atheism. It's possible to not believe in the existence of gods yet still believe in magic, but not the other way around.

Materialism is more strict than atheism, but I would not call it limiting. Instead, I would call it empowering since my ability to understand the universe around me isn't constrained by the whims of some power outside the physical laws of the universe.

--flatline


----------



## mudman cj (Aug 22, 2010)

Definitions of materialism from:

Merriam-Webster

The Free Dictionary

Your Dictionary

Based upon these definitions, I must disagree with several of your conclusions; however, I am not interested in attempting to 'win' an argument about the definition of materialism. I suppose the point of this is that we should each take care to explain our positions rather than rely on terminologies which have meanings that are not well agreed upon.


----------



## flatline (Aug 22, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> Definitions of materialism from:
> 
> Merriam-Webster
> 
> ...



If you replace "matter" with "matter and energy" in the first and 3rd definitions, then they are largely correct (it's like they were written before Einstein made his contributions). I have no issue with the second definition.



> Based upon these definitions, I must disagree with several of your conclusions; however, I am not interested in attempting to 'win' an argument about the definition of materialism. I suppose the point of this is that we should each take care to explain our positions rather than rely on terminologies which have meanings that are not well agreed upon.



No argument here. We should always strive to communicate as clearly as possible.

--flatline


----------



## scott2907 (Aug 22, 2010)

I think the great thing about this thread is that it shows the great intelligence and fantastic mental and social diversity of CPF members. As an LEO, I'm constantly amazed by how stupid humans can be, and it takes a discussion like this to remind me that not everyone in the world thinks in terms of who owes them their living.

For the record, and my two cents:
I've looked into this for many years with the same enthusiasm. From the abstraction of "42" to quantum mechanics, and a degree in engineering and math. After considering everything I think there is one true law. That nature always finds a balance. Everything exists because it is. Everything balances. If the balance is upset, then something else exists for a while. 

In terms of religion, God is nature. Nature is God. I was once a scientist who only believed in determinism. Once you understand the quantum world - even a little bit, you understand that (nature=God) is watching. Understandable but untouchable. The delayed choice quantum eraser is beyond us. There must be a higher power. Maybe he sent his message in a book through his son / prophet , maybe not. It doesn't matter. The balance does. The theory of everything? As simple as 1=1. And as complicated as life. A beautiful array of organised chaos. Just like the Photon.

Thanks to all you CPF'ers who make my night-time reading so interesting.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 22, 2010)

flatline said:


> The label for this position according to my philosophy classes is "eliminative materialist". A quick google search on those terms will yield all sorts of interesting reading written by very intelligent people who would be unwilling to agree that the human mind has the 3 components you listed.


I'll ask you the same thing I asked Wyager. If a computer starts out non-self-aware, and continues to get pumped full of information, when (and how) does it finally become self-aware?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 22, 2010)

wyager said:


> Consciousness is a result of hardware and software. This is very clear. If we put the *correct software* on binary hardware we could theoretically *emulate* a brain perfectly.


Where will this "correct software" come from?



wyager said:


> On top of that, it is very provable, we just haven't done it yet.


No, it's not provable until it's proved.



wyager said:


> However, there is not a single microscopic piece of evidence to suggest that the chemical processes of a brain cannot be replicated on a machine


There is no evidence to suggest it can. It's not doable until it's done.



wyager said:


> For all I know, none of you are conscious. However, you are all passing a turing test (a forum is a perfect turing test), so I can assume you are all conscious.


I'd say it makes a huge difference to know if a machine is conscious or not after passing the Turning test. If a machine passes the test and is not conscious, that would mean that a mind and a machine are somehow still different. However, in my opinion, a non-conscious system will never pass a Turning test forever. Meaning there will always be someone (a conscious system) able to trick it in some finite amount of time.

I'll ask again, because nobody has yet to answer it: Will man ever find all the keys to the Universe? BTW, this is a yes or no question.

My only assertion is that man doesn't know for sure the answer to this question, and won't know until it's proven there are no more keys left to find. That's a tall order! Correct me if I'm wrong (again, I don't know because you haven't answer that question), you seem to be asserting that it's a proven fact that man WILL find all the keys to the Universe. If so, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you.


----------



## wyager (Aug 22, 2010)

scott2907 said:


> In terms of religion, God is nature. Nature is God. I was once a scientist who only believed in determinism. Once you understand the quantum world - even a little bit, you understand that (nature=God) is watching. Understandable but untouchable. The delayed choice quantum eraser is beyond us. There must be a higher power. Maybe he sent his message in a book through his son / prophet , maybe not. It doesn't matter. The balance does. The theory of everything? As simple as 1=1. And as complicated as life. A beautiful array of organised chaos. Just like the Photon.


Ummm.... I feel like I have a pretty good insight in to the quantum world, and no matter how closely I look I don't see a little man in there giving a rat's *** about humanity. If anything, understanding quantum mechanics has just reinforced my ideas of a godless universe.... QM even takes away the need for an external energy source for the big bang. And god can't be all-knowing or all-seeing if quantum mechanics is true (so why call it god?). Also, there are many realms of physics, even relativistic physics, where 1≠1. 1+1 does not always equal 2. Often a million miles per hour plus a million miles per hour equals around 1.99999555 million miles per hour. So assuming something as simple as 1=1 is not always correct.

Edit:


Nitro said:


> I'll ask you the same thing I asked Wyager. If a computer starts out non-self-aware, and continues to get pumped full of information, when (and how) does it finally become self-aware?



A fetus becomes self-aware/conscious at approximately 25 weeks (according to some top neurologists with big, expensive MRI machines). There's no reason a computer can't do the same.



Nitro said:


> 1.Where will this "correct software" come from?
> 
> 
> 2.No, it's not provable until it's proved.
> ...




1.Duh. Where every other piece of software comes from right now.

2.That's like saying "I'm invincible until I die." Of course it's freaking provable, use your head. There are even ways we can prove if something is provable or not provable. You're the one pushing the incompleteness theorem!

3.Again, using that stupid "impossible until it's possible" reasoning. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a brain can be replicated, ever heard of a dobelle eye implant? We can already simulate parts of the brain. There are zero observable reasons for why we couldn't replicate/simulate a brain. What you're trying to push is like saying "There is no evidence to suggest that it's possible to put a human on mars, because it hasn't been done yet." Absolutely false.

4.TURING test. TURING. And again, if you don't believe that a Turing test will work, then how can you prove anyone besides yourself is conscious? (protip-you can't, but it's not constructive to assume no one else is conscious).

5.How is that a yes or no question? You haven't even defined keys....

6.And you are asserting the opposite. The burden of proof often lies with the limiting assertion (in this case, yours).


----------



## ama230 (Aug 22, 2010)

wyager said:


> "Having a computer that is self fixing, think or creating would deem it a perpetual process and would not be possible.":sigh:
> Clearly you have no idea the difference between a perpetual and sustaining process. Humans are self fixing, thinking and creating, does that make us a perpetual and impossible process? Perpetual=performing an action infinitely without external energy input. Sustaining=performing an action infinitely with external energy input. Perpetual is generally not possible, but sustaining is everywhere....
> 
> 2.Clearly you believe some religious or quasi-religious ideas, such as the idea that humans are for some reason humans are not just machines... :shrug:
> ...



Of course I have so called agnostic thoughts, as something was created from something as its a transfer of energy, and if you label it this way then it is this way to you.

Perpetual is something as simple as the waves that crash or the wind that blows and it is something that will continue indefinitely. Sustaining is something that humans are and do, we cannot fix ourselves as we are altering(jimmy rigging) ourselves to prolong a limited life.

If you read what i had wrote it was referring to a machine and has a clear statement. Waygner and entoptics, if you do not understand what I am stating then how can you comment on how it is wrong. You have to see both sides before you can imply that a person is this or that. You guy's logic has very little meaning as most on here see differently and you have to see it that way.

A robot will never have the idea of "will" as its going to have a structure of logic that will do what it does on the benefit of all as a whole(the creators). A human does this but acting on the benefit of its own.

Also a machine will never be able to biologically reproduce and the knowledge the human is born with is involuntary and then the rest of the stuff is experienced. A human can involuntary do many things such as jump, throw a ball and run. A machine has to voluntarily compute these things and then go through a set of fail safes and this is not what the human brain does, then this is where its going to differ. Its so called will can not act upon its already existing set of instructions.

I have already lost you two as you already said that a human is like a machine. Then with this way of thinking, of course my statements would not make any sense. Also if a machine were to replicate it would be asexual and would not share affection or compassion and this is another trait of a human that cannot be put into logic or programmed. As simple as its is google what the definition of something is or to read a book and believe what they are saying, this is a discussion on what you think and how you came to this. You have to actually think like someone to actually retort or reply why their implications are not valid.

Also to scott2907, great explanation as you get where the other side is getting at here.:twothumbs

Then to mudman cj, glad you pointed this one out. To define something would make it materialistic and this is logic that states it is or it isn't. There are multiple answers to a question its just how it is seen. 

Nobody's here to say they're right, wheres the fun in that. Its a session of brain exercise.:welcome:


----------



## wyager (Aug 22, 2010)

ama230 said:


> 1.Of course I have so called agnostic thoughts, as something was created from something as its a transfer of energy, and if you label it this way then it is this way to you.
> 
> 2.Perpetual is something as simple as the waves that crash or the wind that blows and it is something that will continue indefinitely. Sustaining is something that humans are and do, we cannot fix ourselves as we are altering(jimmy rigging) ourselves to prolong a limited life.
> 
> ...


1.lolwut.
2.Umm…wrong. First, the earth won't be around for long. Second, you might need to look up entropy and the heat death of the universe. As for the second half of that, our medical science is well beyond the point of jimmy rigging. We're close to immortality of some kind IMO. 
3.Part of your statements were coherent, so they commented on those parts. And as for their logic not having any meaning, it really doesn't matter how differently people see. They can still be wrong. Science doesn't care what you believe.
4.WHAT? First off, you are assuming that we will program it according to asimov's laws… which we have already broken thousands of times with military tech. And you basically just said humans don't have will either, we act out of self-preservation and nothing more.
5.Wrong…. Machines can be built to self-assemble, in fact they are already doing it… do you ever wonder how robotic arms are assembled? A slightly less complex robotic arm…. and that was assembled by a slightly less complex one, just like biological reproduction. There's no reason this process can't be automated. At this point in the paragraph, it's become difficult to understand what you are saying, but it sounds like you're trying to say that automatic functions performed in the central brain are "involuntary". This is incorrect, just because your higher brain functions (aka consciousness) don't always control them doesn't make them involuntary. You are also assuming a very basic and ideal robotic structure, which leads me to believe you don't know much about robotics in the first place. If for some reason you wanted to, you could do a perfect silicon analogue of a brain.
6. At this point, you're just spewing random romantic/humanistic crap. Of course love/affection can be programmed, those emotions are just sublimations of the desire to reproduce. And if we wanted to, we could have sexually reproducing machines although it wouldn't make much sense to do so. And I can't understand the last part of paragraph 6. :thinking:


----------



## blasterman (Aug 23, 2010)

> Its so called will can not act upon its already existing set of instructions.


 
Put me in the group that is convinced that artifical intelligence is not even on the scope of the technological horizon? Why? Because every example I've seen of a computer or apparatus that has so called 'AI' continues to function as a pile of algorithms that would repeat the same out-come if given the same in-put. Biological AI doesn't behave this way. Advanced Computational architectures stopped evolving when mathematicians were put in charge.

Then again the cold truth is that every living organism on earth exists because of the need for an amino acid molecule to replicate itself like it's been doing for a couple billion years. At some point we will have to de-couple our existence and perception from the primordial basis, and then things get interesting.

I think it's less of an issue of 'Theory of Everything' to 'We know everything' even though we don't. I thought Science was the pursuit of knowledge and not the pursuit of truth. That's religion's job.


----------



## entoptics (Aug 23, 2010)

ama230 said:


> Perpetual is something as simple as the waves that crash or the wind that blows and it is something that will continue indefinitely...


Methinks you need to look up "perpetual". It means FOREVER. Not indefinitely. In terms of machinery and energy, it means FOREVER without external input.

Waves and wind are by no sane definition perpetual. I suppose "perpetual" could be used to describe them in a poetic sense, but certainly not literal. As a geologist, I can provide you with hundreds of examples of places where the wind and waves stopped. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can find a picture of a dead calm beach if you google it.



ama230 said:


> if you do not understand what I am stating then how can you comment on how it is wrong.


I can't speak for wyager, but I only commented on the your amply supply of statements that are clearly and demonstrably false (such as your definition of perpetual or claims that machines can't replicate). The parts I didn't understand, I either ignored, or requested clarification.



ama230 said:


> A human can involuntary do many things such as jump, throw a ball and run. A machine has to voluntarily compute these things and then go through a set of fail safes and this is not what the human brain does, then this is where its going to differ. Its so called will can not act upon its already existing set of instructions.


Unless I'm mistaken, you are saying that throwing an inside fastball is involuntary somehow? And you are implying that jumping doesn't require physical calculations? Please elaborate. Please describe what exactly the human brain does do, and how it performs these actions without voluntarily initiating them.



ama230 said:


> I have already lost you two as you already said that a human is like a machine.


Do you have any evidence that the human body/mind is not a machine and requires a metaphysical component? It seems to behave like a machine in every way I can think of. It requires fuel, runs on electricity, has levers, pulleys, and sensors. It is readily programmed and subject to environmental inputs. Just because the machinery is more complicated than you personally can understand, doesn't automatically make it somehow not a machine. Imagine a computer or laser in 2000 B.C. Pretty sure the locals would consider it mystical rather than a machine.

I'm not necessarily claiming the human body is a machine in the literal sense. I just see no evidence that it is not. Obviously I'm not a physiologist or psychologist though, and _*current*_ machinery does not do everything a human does.



ama230 said:


> Also if a machine were to replicate it would be asexual and would not share affection or compassion and this is another trait of a human that cannot be put into logic or programmed.


Methinks you don't know what asexual reproduction is. I'm also not sure why a machine can't sexually reproduce. Sexual reproduction is nothing more or less than a sharing of blueprints between two or more individuals when producing an offspring. In the case of biological earth based organisms, this is DNA, but there is nothing that says it can't be computer code or some other form of information.

As for compassion and love. Please define these traits, and explain why a machine couldn't be created to have them. Theoretically, a machine could be programmed to determine that puppies are being smashed by cars and put itself in danger to save them.



ama230 said:


> You have to actually think like someone to actually retort or reply why their implications are not valid.


Actually, I believe this statement is actually the complete opposite of reality. If you think like they do, wouldn't you simply agree with them? The fact that you don't think like I do, and I consider you to be misinformed or wrong, is the principle reason I'm bothering to reply with something more than a "+1 to ama230"



ama230 said:


> Its a session of brain exercise.:welcome:


+1 to ama230


----------



## entoptics (Aug 23, 2010)

blasterman said:


> I thought Science was the pursuit of knowledge and not the pursuit of truth. That's religion's job.



No nee no no no!!!

As far as I can tell, science is the pursuit of knowledge with the final goal being a set of "Truths" which have predictive powers aimed at enhancing the survivability and happiness of the human race (and other species I suppose).

As far as I can tell, the purpose of a religion (whether that religion is true or false) is principally a way for a relative few number of folks to control the behavior of a considerably larger number of folks.


----------



## wyager (Aug 23, 2010)

blasterman said:


> Put me in the group that is convinced that artifical intelligence is not even on the scope of the technological horizon? Why? Because every example I've seen of a computer or apparatus that has so called 'AI' continues to function as a pile of algorithms that would repeat the same out-come if given the same in-put. Biological AI doesn't behave this way. Advanced Computational architectures stopped evolving when mathematicians were put in charge.
> 
> Then again the cold truth is that every living organism on earth exists because of the need for an amino acid molecule to replicate itself like it's been doing for a couple billion years. At some point we will have to de-couple our existence and perception from the primordial basis, and then things get interesting.
> 
> I think it's less of an issue of 'Theory of Everything' to 'We know everything' even though we don't. I thought Science was the pursuit of knowledge and not the pursuit of truth. That's religion's job.


We could construct artificial AI to produce a different output every time, if for some reason we wanted to.... And computational methods haven't stopped evolving in the slightest, binary computers are a convention but I suggest you check out an FPGA lab at a major college next time you get a chance 
And as for "I thought Science was the pursuit of knowledge and not the pursuit of truth. That's religion's job."
I could blow that statement out of the water in more ways than I can count, but that's not the point of this thread.



entoptics said:


> I can't speak for wyager, but I only commented on the your amply supply of statements that are clearly and demonstrably false (such as your definition of perpetual or claims that machines can't replicate). The parts I didn't understand, I either ignored, or requested clarification.


My thoughts exactly, that's what I assumed happened


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 23, 2010)

blasterman said:


> Because every example I've seen of a computer or apparatus that has so called 'AI' continues to function as a pile of algorithms that would repeat the same out-come if given the same in-put.



If that were true, then every search engine you put a query into would produce the same results. But each search engine has its own unique method of coming up with results, its own demographic of users that can shape its output, it's "experience".


----------



## mudman cj (Aug 23, 2010)

I assume he meant that if a given user enters the same search terms then they would receive the same search results. Regardless, it would certainly be possible to introduce some degree of randomness into the results in order to produce varying outputs. This brings up the subject of Complexity Theory, which I highly recommend everyone look into if you are interested in the notion of adaptable systems.


----------



## wyager (Aug 23, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> I assume he meant that if a given user enters the same search terms then they would receive the same search results. Regardless, it would certainly be possible to introduce some degree of randomness into the results in order to produce varying outputs. This brings up the subject of Complexity Theory, which I highly recommend everyone look into if you are interested in the notion of adaptable systems.


Search engines are a perfect example of this not being correct-the results change constantly, especially with an equation like the one google uses involving hundreds of variables (reportedly).


----------



## Nitro (Aug 24, 2010)

wyager said:


> A fetus becomes self-aware/conscious at approximately 25 weeks (according to some top neurologists with big, expensive MRI machines). There's no reason a computer can't do the same.


We don't know how (or why) a fetus becomes conscious. That could be a reason why we can't know how (or why) a machine can.



> 1.Duh. Where every other piece of software comes from right now.


From guys like me. I've been creating software for over 30 years. And I can say without a doubt nobody has yet to create software that can pass a Turning test, let alone prove it to be self-aware.



> 2.That's like saying "I'm invincible until I die." Of course it's freaking provable, use your head. There are even ways we can prove if something is provable or not provable. You're the one pushing the incompleteness theorem!


The Incompleteness Theorem is proven to be true for Formal Systems, and that includes computers. For you to deny that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.



> 3.Again, using that stupid "impossible until it's possible" reasoning. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a brain can be replicated, ever heard of a dobelle eye implant? We can already simulate parts of the brain. There are zero observable reasons for why we couldn't replicate/simulate a brain. What you're trying to push is like saying "There is no evidence to suggest that it's possible to put a human on mars, because it hasn't been done yet." Absolutely false.


Some evidence to suggest it does not mean proof. You're talking about the likely hood of it happening. It's much more likely that we'll put a man on Mars than it is we create a machine that is self-aware, AND that we actually understand what it is we created. That's the part you're failing to grasp.



> 4.TURING test. TURING. And again, if you don't believe that a Turing test will work, then how can you prove anyone besides yourself is conscious? (protip-you can't, but it's not constructive to assume no one else is conscious).


I can't prove anyone else is conscious. I can only know that I am, so I assume others are as well. Unless of course you all fail the Tuning test at some point in time. Which from the looks of this thread could be soon.  (Joking)



> 5.How is that a yes or no question? You haven't even defined keys....


Secrets, Laws, Truths i.e. To fully understand how (and why) the Universe works.



> 6.And you are asserting the opposite. The burden of proof often lies with the limiting assertion (in this case, yours).


Until man creates a machine that passes the Tuning test, the proof is on you. If a machine is created that does pass, then the proof is back on me, to trick it. It's that simple.

Here's the difference between you and I. Read this very carefully.

I'm saying it hasn't been proven that man can fully understand a machine that is self-aware (conscious), and I don't believe it ever will. This is because I believe the human mind is similar to a Formal System, and can't prove it's own consistency (i.e. fully understand itself), based on Godel's theorem. Furthermore, if we were to somehow create a system (let's say by copying our own brain etc) similar to the human mind, that is self-aware, we wouldn't fully understand it either. BTW, we humans create other humans everyday, they're called children. But that doesn't mean we fully understand their minds. Boy isn't that the truth... :laughing:

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that it positively can and will happen; that man will create and fully understand a system that is self-aware. i.e. Man will fully undertsand himself. This hasn't happened yet, nor is it certain that it will. So, you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between fact and opinion. Now, if you were to say, you BELIEVE it will happen someday, but it just hasn't happened yet, you'd have much more credibility. Then we could agree to disagree on this point, and more the conversation forward.


----------



## wyager (Aug 24, 2010)

Nitro said:


> 1.We don't know how (or why) a fetus becomes conscious. That could be a reason why we can't know how (or why) a machine can.
> 
> 
> 2.From guys like me. I've been creating software for over 30 years. And I can say without a doubt nobody has yet to create software that can pass a Turning test, let alone prove it to be self-aware.
> ...


1.Based on advanced imaging techniques, it appears that a fetus's brain becomes similar in activity to that of a child in 23-25 weeks. Even if this isn't when a fetus becomes conscious, a fetus has to become conscious some time between conception and birth, so again, this would suggest that it's possible to become conscious from a non-conscious state.

2. No one created animation Microsoft word for like 25 years of computers being around, but no one was suggesting it was impossible just because it wasn't out yet. (Well maybe some people were, such as yourself).

3.Thanks, Sherlock. As I've said multiple times, I know that. I'm not denying the incompleteness theorem, you just have no idea how to apply it. You're the one who was saying nothing is provable until you prove it. That's not true at all, as there are proofs showing whether or not you can prove something (like the incompleteness theorem).

4. I'm not trying to prove it. I'm trying to say that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that it can't be done. That's the part you're failing to grasp. Actually, you're failing to grasp basically the whole thing… Give me a proof that says it's more likely we can put a man on mars than make AI. Oh wait, you're just spewing useless illogical conjecture.

5.
>tuning
>turning
I think you're just trying to troll me now, it's hard to take you seriously when you spell turing wrong in multiple ways, whether you mean to or not.

6.Again, there is no reason to suggest we can't. Your misapplications of the incompleteness theorem are not valid reasons as to why we couldn't.

7.I'm not going to even validate your statements if you can't spell turing correctly. A tuning test is in the field of harmonics….

8.This is just wrong on so many levels. There is literally no reason that we can't perfectly understand the human mind or understand a mechanical mind. Have you ever used the TOP command in unix? It's like that.

9. I'm having trouble distinguishing between fact and opinion? You're the one pushing religion in to a scientific argument and mis-applying experimental theorems to a laughable extent. You're trying to use the incompleteness theorem to justify a belief that mankind is inherently stupid or crippled, which is not logically appropriate in any way. I had to try very hard not to over-use the crackup emoticon when writing this statement, but I'm almost at my limit of treating you like someone who has any understanding of science.


----------



## DM51 (Aug 24, 2010)

wyager said:


> a fetus has to become conscious some time ... it's possible to become conscious from a non-conscious state


I don't know about when fetuses become conscious or not, but it's probably the same as with teenagers. One minute they are completely unconscious, then you empty a pail of cold water over their heads and all of a sudden they seem to wake up.

Which is figuratively what is going to happen in this thread, unless you cut out the rude and disparaging personal remarks. 

The pail is ready...


----------



## Nitro (Aug 24, 2010)

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Either [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]. . . [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]the human mind [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]. . . [/FONT]*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]_*infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems." - Kurt Godel*_[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In other words, Godel believed one of these two scenarios has to be true: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1. If the human mind is on the same level as a finite machine (i.e. Formal Axiomatic System) (i.e. Computer), than there will always be an unsolvable problem out there. Hence there will never be a Theory of Everything. Furthermore, we could never prove ourself consistent (fully understand ourself), because that would defy his 2nd theorem.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]2. On the other hand, if the human mind is on a higher level than a finite machine that puts us closer to the level of the Universe, it may be possible to solve any problem. However, that also means no finite machine (man made computer that we can fully comprehend) (i.e. Turing Machine), will ever reach the infinite level of the human mind. Furthermore, there would never be a finite Formal System of Laws (Axioms) (i.e. Theory of Everything) to describe the human mind, or the Universe.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]I will point out, neither has been proven true, or false, by him or anyone else since.[/FONT]


----------



## wyager (Aug 25, 2010)

Nitro said:


> *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Either [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]. . . [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]the human mind [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]. . . [/FONT]*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]_*infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems." - Kurt Godel*_[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In other words, Godel believed one of these two scenarios to be true: [/FONT]
> 
> ...


As you said, either
A)The human mind is superior to a finite machine, and you are wrong about us never finding the keys to the universe, and I am wrong about AI
OR
B)The human mind is not superior to a finite machine, and you are wrong about AI being impossible, and I am wrong about the keys to the universe

Of course, this would mean that I too am wrong about one or the other (as I said), but this is only if your application of the theorem to the physical universe is correct. This leads us to another bridge, one of the following two is correct:
A)You properly applied the incompleteness theorem, and we are both incorrect in some way.
B)You improperly applied the incompleteness theorem, and you are incorrect in both of your statements (No AI+No theory of everything), while my statements hold logical ground.

So basically, there's no way you're right here. At least one of your statements has to be incorrect.


On top of that, I don't think my definition of a "theory of everything" requires that every permutation of every equation be solved, so it would not violate the incompleteness theorem (again, provided you applied it properly). So even if you did apply the theorem correctly within a non-abstract universe (which has been contested), then we still have to get around whether or not my definition of a theory of everything even requires a complete (infinite) set of equations. I suppose at this point I'm just arguing semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that it is logically necessary for either AI to be possible, or for man to hold the keys to the universe (within the logical scenario you have constructed). So which one is it gonna be?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 25, 2010)

"Godel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. Because of Godel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Godel's theorem applies to them." - Freeman Dyson


----------



## Nitro (Aug 25, 2010)

"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind." - Stephen Hawking


----------



## Nitro (Aug 25, 2010)

"For the record I love Science, Math etc etc etc. I think we need it just like we need a set of laws, constitution etc. However, it is my belief that Science (i.e. man) will never be able to understand everything. In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything." - Nitro


----------



## Nitro (Aug 25, 2010)

wyager said:


> So which one is it gonna be?


It doesn't matter. Both scenarios lead to the same conclusion. i.e. That there can never exist a finite set of laws to describe an infinite system (i.e. the Universe), AND any system (finite or infinite) cannot fully describe (comprehend) itself.


----------



## entoptics (Aug 25, 2010)

Nitro said:


> It doesn't matter. Both scenarios lead to the same conclusion. i.e. That there can never exist a finite set of laws to describe an infinite system (i.e. the Universe), AND any system (finite or infinite) cannot fully describe (comprehend) itself.



I'm not entirely certain this is anything more than an "immovable object, irresistible force" paradox, with little or no practical value, and really not all that fun to contemplate.



Nitro said:


> In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything.



This on the other hand is an extreme example of a non-sequitor, which has no foundation in logic or science. Cloaking it in Godel's Theory is never going to prove it, and only makes such arguments suspicious at best.

With mankind's current understanding, perhaps your "incomplete or inconsistent" dichotomy is correct, but history is full of accepted theories being altered or struck down by new information.

Therefore, I "*believe*" (which is very distinct from "*have faith*") that mankind will never have an "algorithim" (e.g. computer, equation, etc) that is capable of describing and predicting every aspect of the universe...

...not because it isn't theoretically possible, but because mankind (and possibly the universe) won't be around long enough, and there is currently no imaginable need for such a thing.

EDIT: Also, you are misusing (intentionally I suspect) the accepted definition of Theory of Everything, which I must admit is a very poor name for what physicists are actually implying. It should be called "The Theory of Unification" or something similar.


----------



## wyager (Aug 25, 2010)

Nitro said:


> It doesn't matter. Both scenarios lead to the same conclusion. i.e. That there can never exist a finite set of laws to describe an infinite system (i.e. the Universe), AND any system (finite or infinite) cannot fully describe (comprehend) itself.


Oh, It doesn't matter? That explains why you sustained the argument with me over both subjects for quite a while. If you really believe what you're saying about incompleteness, you have to choose. Is AI impossible, or is knowing everything impossible? Don't try and skirt the question, I want you to decide.


Nitro said:


> "Godel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. Because of Godel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Godel's theorem applies to them." - Freeman Dyson


He is not saying that we will not have an all-encompassing theory. He is saying that we will not be able to solve every problem, which we don't even want to do. "pure mathematics is inexhaustible" is not a limit on the number of equations we can discover, he's saying there is an infinite number of true equations. We can't solve, derive, simplify, etc an infinite number of equations. That much is obvious, you don't even need godel to tell you that.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 25, 2010)

"The *Theory of Everything* (*TOE*) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and, ideally, has predictive power for the outcome of _any_ experiment that could be carried out _in principle." - Wikipedia_

That is the defenition I'm using, Freeman Dyson is using and Stephen Hawking is using. I'm not sure what definition you guys are using. You guys are free to believe what you want, but don't try to deny the beliefs of Freeman Dyson and Stephen Hawking, who probably have more knowledge on the subject than any living person on the planet. 

What's interesting is I just discovered Mr. Hawking recently changed his mind about the existence of a TOE. I came to the conclusion over 20 years ago while studying Godel's theorems back in my college days. Maybe I should have wrote him a letter and informed him. It might have saved him the disappointment. :laughing:


----------



## wyager (Aug 25, 2010)

Don't try and tell me not to argue with the "pros" when you're misquoting them. I just demonstrated that you improperly used the quote about mathematics being infinite. You also avoided answering my first question, no AI or no TOE?


----------



## Nitro (Aug 25, 2010)

wyager said:


> Don't try and tell me not to argue with the "pros" when you're misquoting them. I just demonstrated that you improperly used the quote about mathematics being infinite. You also avoided answering my first question, no AI or no TOE?


Wyager, you still aren't grasping it yet, but I do have faith in you.

Kurt Godel, Freeman Dyson and Steven Hawking all believe ONE of these two scenarios to be true. Read them again very carefully:

1. If the human mind is on the same level as a finite machine (i.e. Formal Axiomatic System) (i.e. Computer), than there will always be an unsolvable problem out there. Hence there will never be a Theory of Everything. Furthermore, we could never prove our self consistent (fully understand our self), because that would defy his 2nd theorem.

2. On the other hand, if the human mind is on a higher level (infinite system) than a finite machine that puts us closer to the level of the Universe, it may be possible to solve any problem. However, that also means no finite machine (man made computer that we can fully comprehend) (i.e. Turing Machine), will ever reach the infinite level of the human mind. Furthermore, there would never be a finite Formal System of Laws (Axioms) (i.e. Theory of Everything) to describe the human mind, or the Universe.

BOTH scenarios come to the SAME conclusion. That is, there can never exist a TOE, AND man cannot understand himself, or an AI machine that's on the same level as himself. It doesn't mean an AI machine on our same level can't exist, it just means we won't be able to understand it.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 25, 2010)

I think you guys are failing to comprehend the difference between a Finite System and an Infinite System. They are obviously different. However, the same rules apply to both. It's just that an Infinite System is on a higher LEVEL than a Finite System.

The following statements are true:
A Finite System CANNOT understand an Infinite System.
A Finite System CANNOT understand a higher Finite System.
A Finite System CANNOT understand the same Finite System.
A Finite System CAN understand a lower Finite System.

An Infinite System CANNOT understand a higher Infinite System.
An Infinite System CANNOT understand the same Infinite System.
An Infinite System CAN understand a Finite System.

To summarize:
A System cannot understand a higher system, or itself.
However, a System can understand a lower system.


----------



## wyager (Aug 26, 2010)

Nitro said:


> 1. If the human mind is on the same level as a finite machine (i.e. Formal Axiomatic System) (i.e. Computer), than there will always be an unsolvable problem out there. Hence there will never be a Theory of Everything. Furthermore, we could never prove our self consistent (fully understand our self), because that would defy his 2nd theorem.


This is one of the places you are wrong. You are assuming that a set of equations that can describe any scenario is the same thing as an infinite set of equations. There are billions of equations to describe possible scenarios in a game of chess, but you only need a handful to completely understand the game. The set of equations needed for a theory of everything is finite, not infinite. On top of that, you are keeping the idea that a human is an infinite system in the scenario. The only reason you would possibly think this is if you had religious motivation (not scientific). Implying that humans are inherently different is not scientifically correct at all.

It's nice that you "have faith" in me, but I won't change my mind just because you keep saying the same things over and over. You mis-quoted those people, so stop trying to use them as an argument. 

At this point this thread has become a lot of copy and paste from previous statements, you even quoted yourself at one point. I'm not going to bother replying unless someone has something new to say, which hasn't happened for a while now.


----------



## entoptics (Aug 26, 2010)

Nitro said:


> "The *Theory of Everything* (*TOE*) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and, ideally, has predictive power for the outcome of _any_ experiment that could be carried out _in principle." - Wikipedia_



The key parts you are misusing, as I'm certain Mr Hawking and Mr Dyson would agree, are...

Most egregious is *"predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle."*

"Predictive power" is not synonymous with "know everything that will happen"

The 2nd is *"all known physical phenomena"*. That leaves considerable room for the discovery of new phenomena that don't fit the TOE.

TOE for dummies = unification of the theories of gravity, atoms, quantum mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics. Obviously not a perfect list, but you get the point.


----------



## ama230 (Aug 26, 2010)

Nitro said:


> "For the record I love Science, Math etc etc etc. I think we need it just like we need a set of laws, constitution etc. However, it is my belief that Science (i.e. man) will never be able to understand everything. In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything." - Nitro



I agree with this and nitro and star halo are getting whats going on and where most theorists have arrived at. Good one with the children example as it couldn't be put simpler.:twothumbs

We will never understand the human anatomy but when we do this is where we become the machine. Also dealing with (pico, nano and micro) electronics everyday, they will always have a tolerance for components due to physics being inconsistent. Even with super duper conductors in the most ideal conditions are unpredictable due to heat being the most chaotic form of energy. There isn't a element out there that doesn't require doping to fix its imperfect makeup when it comes to manufacturing. Atoms are always acting a fool when trying to find a balance.

You are stating that we will make present physics bend in order to make a machine understand itself and become self aware. Then this being true, you are 100% correct. This is where the computer wins and we are left in the stone ages. God dang you machines and this is when the resistance starts. I'm in definitely in! grouphug:...:buddies:.............)

In conclusion, knowing these things 100% will conclude to a machine understanding itself, thus it won't happen. This applies with a human as well... Not being political, religious or etc as labels are toooo logicy(nothing against them) you could define the way I think as faith based but its more of an optimistic ethical respect approach, if one were to put into terms...

Perpetual(non-nerdy definition): it continues in a closed loop fashion and cannot be stopped by human interaction, only partially harnessed (electromechanical, photovoltaics and thermoelectrics...etc....)

Everything is basically perpetual in motion as energies are constantly being exchanged and with what you say is they come to a stop. I think this is a new law of physics or something. However, how can we label something as forever as we have no perception of infinite or never ending. It something that continues to move with or without us being here, before and after our existence. The term is used very loose and has tons of connotations, so define sparingly if you will.

I understand it completely as I have several devices of my design, building and delivering using this very technology. It exists in few third world countries off the grid and works very well, then again when this motion(energy) stops existing I might be out of business?:sick2:

It would also be helpful to stop reading what others have come up with and think for yourself as the reasoning here is too systematic and perpetual, might want to break the loop and say what if or maybe once in a while. Life's pretty boring with everything being put into logic and not to mention downright depressing. Again just my opinion...:shrug:

As some are getting hostile on here, they are going to get this nice conversation "washed out". Pretty please with a cherry on top, take it down a notch.:bow:..........Spank you very much:twothumbs

Also take my comment with a grain of salt as this is just a perception into reality. Great outlooks so far and oh so interesting.:thumbsup:

"ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE IS GIVING ME A RAGING BRAINER!!!"


lovecpf


----------



## entoptics (Aug 26, 2010)

Nitro said:


> The following statements are true:
> A Finite System CANNOT understand an Infinite System.
> A Finite System CANNOT understand a higher Finite System.
> A Finite System CANNOT understand the same Finite System.
> ...



A big chainsaw CANNOT love a bigger chainsaw.

Prove me wrong! Clearly you don't understand what a chainsaw is!

Simply asserting things without firm explanations and evidence doesn't make them true. Hell, even a good explanation with some evidence won't prove it true.

I get the impression you may not be able to express "understand" adequately, since you keep avoiding an explanation for Godel's theorem that is more than "Godel States XYZ"

Why don't you start with an understandable explanation for why you are willing to believe...

"A finite system cannot understand itself"
"An infinite system cannot understand itself"

Explain in a logical manner how you (or Godel) came to either of these conclusions.


----------



## ama230 (Aug 26, 2010)

entoptics said:


> A big chainsaw CANNOT love a bigger chainsaw.
> 
> Prove me wrong! Clearly you don't understand what a chainsaw is!
> 
> ...



Easy chief as this isnt an argument, please tone it down as this thread is very interesting and the thread is veryyyyyyy close to getting put on lock down. Pretty please with a cherry on top?


----------



## entoptics (Aug 26, 2010)

ama230 said:


> We will never understand the human anatomy...



There's that freewheeling use of the word understand again. Regardless, the argument of "we don't know everything about it now, so we can never know everything about it" is both unimportant and unfounded. Given a billion years, who knows. Who cares. Either way, there's no evidence that "faith is required".



ama230 said:


> Perpetual(non-nerdy definition): it continues in a closed loop fashion and cannot be stopped by human interaction, only partially harnessed (electromechanical, photovoltaics and thermoelectrics...etc....)
> 
> Everything is basically perpetual in motion as energies are constantly being exchanged and with what you say is they come to a stop. I think this is a new law of physics or something.



First of all, I'd stick with the nerd definition, and not invent your own.

2nd of all, the nerds established a principle called entropy quite awhile back and have been testing it since by making everything from missiles to mayonnaise, so the second gem of a statement is pretty far from accurate. All things most certainly are NOT in perpetual motion. Exchanging of energies is in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE of perpetual.

Not a new law of physics. Perhaps you should read more.



ama230 said:


> I understand it completely as I have several devices of my design, building and delivering using this very technology...


If third world countries have perpetual energy creating devices, it's a certainty that they won't be third world countries for long.



ama230 said:


> It would also be helpful to stop reading what others have come up with... Life's pretty boring with everything being put into logic and not to mention downright depressing. Again just my opinion...:shrug:


Methinks the use of the most powerful tool mankind has ever invented, namely "Writing things down for others to use later, so they don't have to go back and figure it out themselves again", is helpful, and once again, the EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is almost assuredly true.



ama230 said:


> As some are getting hostile on here, they are going to get this nice conversation "washed out". Pretty please with a cherry on top, take it down a notch.:bow:..........Spank you very much:twothumbs


+10


----------



## ama230 (Aug 26, 2010)

Its perpetual harnessing not creating. Everything is in constant motion. Atoms, molecules...etc...... These are always being broken or partnered with others and thus the perpetual motion of energy. Its always in motion and being exchanged through entropy and enthalpy, thermo stuff etc... 

Photons are always being emitted, heat is always being exerted and wind and air are always moving due to reactions of celestial bodies. Harnessing these without causing the user to have any knowledge or experience would be pretty hard without a perpetual form of energy source. Definitions are so loose when its comes to certain terms. I can only explain it so much as you have to see or work with the following.... I agree with what you are saying as nothing is perpertual as we have to witness it before we can deem it so, but this is as close to it as possible. 

When two colors like blue and red mix:
1)it becomes purple
2)it becomes bled
3)it becomes bluish red
4)it becomes dark blue
There are many connotations and explanations. Vocabulary is very diverse and math is a whole different ballgame. Mixing them could cause the world to go!

So when you say that the ocean stops moving the atoms stop moving too? 

When doing your math equations in school they assume that everything is static but in reality everything is in motion, thats how energy. When water is sitting in a glass the water molecules are still moving due to everything around it having an effect on it. Unless its is at 0K then maybe its not moving or exchanging energy.

There isnt really faith its just believing and accepting that something is just untouchable and unexplainable.

I got to admire youre outlook on life as everything's possible though.


----------



## jtblue (Aug 26, 2010)

Wow this is deep.....

There will never be a theory for everything, well i hope so anyway.

I believe that human beings are a very enquisitive species that strives to find out the causes and effects off all things that surround us. 

Imagine how boring life would be if you already knew how to get with that chick at the other end of the room :kiss:

As a flashlight enthusiast I believe that I and most others who use this forum use our flashlights because deep within we want to be able to discover what lies beyond ourselves in the darkness.

lol yeah I'm just rambling on now...back to the LED section I go


----------



## wyager (Aug 26, 2010)

ama230 said:


> Its perpetual harnessing not creating. Everything is in constant motion. Atoms, molecules...etc...... These are always being broken or partnered with others and thus the perpetual motion of energy. Its always in motion and being exchanged through entropy and enthalpy, thermo stuff etc...
> 
> Photons are always being emitted, heat is always being exerted and wind and air are always moving due to reactions of celestial bodies. Harnessing these without causing the user to have any knowledge or experience would be pretty hard without a perpetual form of energy source. Definitions are so loose when its comes to certain terms. I can only explain it so much as you have to see or work with the following.... I agree with what you are saying as nothing is perpertual as we have to witness it before we can deem it so, but this is as close to it as possible.
> 
> ...


1. Again, look up the heat death of the universe. What you are saying is wrong, at some point there will be no significant movement of energy.
2."we have to witness it before we can deem it so." You should really look up a. priori and "reasoning".
3.What? Mathematics is not a human language, it is 100% consistent. There is no "purple vs bluish red" in mathematics.
4.Yes.
5.Everything HAS energy, but exchange of energy is what causes movement and reactions. Even at 0K there is still energy, but there's no heat moving around.
6.Oh wow. Believing that something is untouchable and unexplainable just because you feel like it is the stupidest affliction ever to hit humanity. The christians were always really bad with this, they burned the heretics and witches and put bans on science just because they believed that some things were unexplainable. If you want to go live in the middle ages, be my guest. Have fun dying at age 35.



jtblue said:


> Wow this is deep.....
> 
> There will never be a theory for everything, well i hope so anyway.
> 
> ...


Just because you want adventure doesn't mean you should stop learning. often times learning opens up new adventures. 



ama230 said:


> We will never understand the human anatomy but when we do this is where we become the machine. Also dealing with (pico, nano and micro) electronics everyday, they will always have a tolerance for components due to physics being inconsistent. Even with super duper conductors in the most ideal conditions are unpredictable due to heat being the most chaotic form of energy. There isn't a element out there that doesn't require doping to fix its imperfect makeup when it comes to manufacturing. Atoms are always acting a fool when trying to find a balance.
> 
> You are stating that we will make present physics bend in order to make a machine understand itself and become self aware. Then this being true, you are 100% correct. This is where the computer wins and we are left in the stone ages. God dang you machines and this is when the resistance starts. I'm in definitely in! grouphug:...:buddies:.............)
> 
> ...


1.What? We already have a 99.9% perfect understanding of human anatomy, we're a little behind on the brain but that's it.
2.What? AI ≠ evil robots.
3.What? I'm trying to get around the butchering of the english language, but I think your first sentence is 100% wrong. Optimism and ethicality are not logical constructions.
4.Your "non-nerdy" definition is completely incorrect. Perpetual=100% efficient conversion of energy, from one form to another. Even if all you want is heat, this is still impossible due to blackbody radiation.
5.Perpetual in a scientific context has only one definition… you aren't using it. We have an excellent perception of infinity BTW, we've already mastered the concept in many fields of mathematics.
6.You have several devices using what technology? I know for a fact you don't have any perpetual motion devices….
7.Just because something is boring or depressing does not make it false. How about you stop lying to yourself and see the real world, not some magical fairy land where your desired laws of nature are true.
8.Agreed.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 26, 2010)

entoptics said:


> The key parts you are misusing, as I'm certain Mr Hawking and Mr Dyson would agree, are...
> 
> Most egregious is *"predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle."*
> 
> ...


 
After reading this definition again, you make a good point. However, I don't believe Wikipedia is defining TOE the same way Mr Hawking, Mr Dyson and myself are defining it. The* "all known physical phenomena"*, should simply say "*all physical phenomena".* Wouldn't "Everything" mean everything, regardless of whether we know about it yet? Is it not true that if I don't know about it yet, it still exists, and is a part of everything? The old saying, "If a tree falls in a forest with nobody around, does it still make a sound?" comes to mind. My point is a Theory of Everything and a Theory of Unification are not the same thing. I think that has been our confusion.

Even I wouldn't argue that we will be able to find a system to describe TODAY'S known phenomena i.e. Theory of Unification. We've been doing that all along. However, there will always be more (new) phenomena appearing that we can't explain. I'll take it one step further, the act itself of finding a current TOE will raise more questions that can't be answered by the TOE, therefore negating it's stance as a TOE. Ever notice every time we answer one question, more questions appear? That's been my point from the very beginning. i.e. It will never end. A Final, Ultimate TOE will never be found. To define it in technical terms, it takes an infinite set of laws to describe an Infinite System (Universe). And that's the conclusion Godel, Hawking and Dyson came to. BTW, Hawking, Dyson and Einstein did believed at one point that an Ultimate TOE was possible to find (i.e. a finite set of laws could fully describe the Universe). Einstein spent the latter part of his life trying to find one. And there are scientists still today who believe an Ultimate TOE can/will be found. My question is, do you?


----------



## Nitro (Sep 16, 2010)

For those who want to read more on this subject, checkout the book "Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker.


----------

