wes,
Originally posted by wesmorris
You said: "1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God."
Which I called meaningless. Hmm.. let me see if I can recall why...
My proof is long and windbaggish and who knows, maybe mistaken. I'll give you a synopsis.
If you increase a POV to the point at which is contains every single facet of the universe in consciousness simultaneously, the meaning of "mind" evaporates. It is no longer a POV, as it would necessarily have to encompasses and permeate all others.
2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.
3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.
4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.
5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.
6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.
7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.
At the limit
[MIND]<--->[REALITY]
M = R
[axiomatic method]--->[exact correspondence]<---[scientific method]
Exact correspondence is a descriptive isomorphism.
I think that fundamentally the only reasonable position regarding epistemology is agnosticism. There is a long winded explanation as to why, but I summarize that any other argument is in essence "argument from authority". I argued it a few different places. It's been a while but I'll await your response before bothering to look it up.
Are you stating an opinion? The universe operates in accordance to logical rules. The rules must hold or we would not exist. The logics[rules] are universal-invariants, they are not arguments from anthropocentric authoritarian dogma. This is not a human centered universe, it is a God centered universe. Only a super-intelligence can create a universe.
If it is possible for monkeys to spontaneously appear blah vblah blah.
What can I say Wes? Your "monkey" comment says it all...
A description that is exactly one to one and onto, exists as a limit, if the limit is converging. There is no escaping this fact, if the convergence is mathematically demonstrated to exist. Fermat's last theorem is "child's play" in comparison.
You said "If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality"
To which I replied: "If it is possible for monkeys to spontaneously appear blah blah blah."
Which is an attempt to illustrate an equivalently meaningless 'if', by the logic I present above that mind is a meaningless term in your application, as its definition would change fundamentally. Ahh, definitions. What a game we can play there eh?
Yes, advanced calculus would be meaningless to a group of monkeys on the outskirts of civilization.
So you have constructed an if to nowhere, much as I did with the monkey thing.
Monkey see, monkey do?
QUOTE, Lee Smolin:
A very important part of turning cosmology into a science is to understand all the implications of a seemingly trivial statement: "There is nothing outside the universe". One aspect of this is that there can be no observer outside the universe. We must understand the universe in a way in which the scientific description of it is a description made and used by observers who are part of the system itself. This seems to go against the idea that the scientific view of nature is objective, and an objective description is always based on observations of a system from outside. If cosmology is to be a science, we must invent a new notion of objectivity that allows the observers of the system also to be part of it.
[...]
As there can, by definition, be nothing outside the universe, a scientific cosmology must be based on a conception that the universe made itself.
-END/QUOTE-
The past "universal light cone" can be represented as a variable that is unknown.
At T = 0, X = X
Professor Smolin explains that there is "nothing outside the "real" universe. If there is nothing outside the real universe, then it is self contained:
[X] = [X]
We observe the universe "changing":
[X] changes by D[X] , where D is a "difference" operator.
[X] ---> [X + D[X]]
[X+D[X]] ---> [X + D[X + D[X]]]
[X+D[X+D[X]]]---> [X + D[X+D[X+D[X]]]]
etc.
etc.
etc.
X is self embedding.
So there should be a way to empirically verify this self embedding of the universe. Since all motion is relative, the universe cannot be expanding in an absolute sense.
Non sequiter, as you use mind in an illogical context.
If the descriptive isomorphism exists, it exists as a universal information processing system, or computation, i.e. a universal "mind".
My statements are driven by my conviction in my logic. What about yours? Surely you can't claim this untrue when you make statements like "Chris Langan has done[and is doing] his homework." Sounds like you're expressing devotion of sorts. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
Recognition is not necessarily devotion.
A little I guess. It's more that I'm annoyed by argument from authority. There is no such thing except in the minds of varying degrees of sociopaths IMO.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
