On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
<benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> John Clark-12 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk
> >> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is true.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following sentence
> >> without
> >> > demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert but
> >> a
> >> > computer can:
> >> >
> >> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true."
> >> >
> >> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently
> >> assert
> >> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
> >> > asserting
> >> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert
> all
> >> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That
> >> is
> >> a
> >> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
> >> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that
> >> from
> >> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
> >> difference.
> >>
> >> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
> >> empirical:
> >> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
> >> programming
> >> a
> >> computer'
> >>
> >> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my
> >> problem
> >> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible
> because
> >> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer
> doesn't
> >> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that
> you
> >> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
> >> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of
> >> programming the computer the right way. To put it another way, it shows
> >> you
> >> that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer, because
> >> you
> >> are the one programming it.
> >>
> >> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built
> >> them),
> >> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them.
> >>
> >
> > I once played with an artificial life program.  The program consisted of
> > little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired brains.
> >  Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
> > artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
> > gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to
> find
> > them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I, nor the
> > original programmer perhaps ever thought of.
> >
> > Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so, why
> > would
> > I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?
> Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because we
> don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it
> will
> be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just
> won't
> invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give them.
>
>
>
It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the
universal dovetailer.


> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You might say we only do what we were instructed to do by the laws of
> >> nature, but this would be merely a metaphor, not an actual fact (the
> laws
> >> of
> >> nature are just our approach of describing the world, not something that
> >> is
> >> somehow actually programming us).
> >>
> >
> > That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true laws,
> not
> > our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.
> >
> > Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our brain
> are
> > as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The point is
> > that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive of
> > building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think it is
> > an
> > error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of computation
> > that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we know, we
> > seem to be in the same boat.
> I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can
> be
> described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it
> seems
> all laws are necessarily incomplete.
> It is just dogma of some materialists that the universe precisely follows
> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no evidence
> for it either.
>

So do you postulate that the laws of physics have to be malleable for
humans to be creative?


>
> Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms in
> our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, quantum mechanical laws just give
> us a probability distribution, they don't tell us what actually will
> happen.
>

They place bounds on what can happen.  For example conservation of mass,
momentum, charge, etc.  And all possibilities do happen.


> In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise
> laws.
> Some scientists say that the probability distribution is an actual precise,
> deterministic entity, but really this is just pure speculation and we have
> no evidence for that.
>

We have better than evidence, there is actually a logical argument that
demonstrates the CI idea (that there is a single universe with collapse) is
not possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to