Smartest man proves God to be real
- Thread starter J.P.
- Start date
You know, even proponents of IQ tests acknowledge that an IQ test measures - the person's ability to score in an IQ test. To be sure, there is SOME correlation between intelligence and that ability, but not any direct ratio. You can meet people who score poorly, yet function very well and appear quite bright, and others (and this is more often) who score high, but do not seem sensible.
Even an arguably high intelligence is no guarantee that what you say makes sense. Simply put, being intelligent does not neccessarily equal being smart.
Hans
Okay, I know that this isn't a physics forum, but I'm reading the paper and I'm going to take issue with a couple of things. First problem: the conception of time.
Why does every model of the universe assume that time exists outside of the present? The fact that we remember that something happened does not mean that the past still exists in any way.
The concept of the past as some kind of physical trail that we leave behind us in the "space/time continuum" is possibly only a metaphor, and the concept of some kind of deterministic future as a road that we have yet to travel is kind of the same...
If the universe is simply a system of interacting particles, then the past is only something that we remember in order to try to understand the interactions, and the future is something that we try to predict for the same reason. The fact that we do this at all seems to be proof enough to believe in free will...
Second problem: metaphorical construction.
My main problem with this "Theory of Everything" so far is that it only attempts to provide a metaphor for the universe, and metaphorical reference will not lead to the "absolute truth" any faster or more accurately than scientific study... if you understand how a car works in terms of little gnomes running around inside and turning little cranks, it's great that you're trying to understand and all but you're still wrong.
So, looking for a compelling picture of how "everything" works (in this case, so far, a self-modifying computer program, or so it seems) kind of presumes that reality is simple enough to jam into some small subset of itself and thereby be accurately modeled. This is giving human intelligence too much credit for extrapolation. I'm sorry, but if you look at a cube you don't see a cube, you see 1, 2, or 3 sides of the cube and extrapolate its shape from a two-dimensional image. We're good at it with visual perception, but you still don't have a complete understanding of the cube from that one image.
Why does every model of the universe assume that time exists outside of the present? The fact that we remember that something happened does not mean that the past still exists in any way.
The concept of the past as some kind of physical trail that we leave behind us in the "space/time continuum" is possibly only a metaphor, and the concept of some kind of deterministic future as a road that we have yet to travel is kind of the same...
If the universe is simply a system of interacting particles, then the past is only something that we remember in order to try to understand the interactions, and the future is something that we try to predict for the same reason. The fact that we do this at all seems to be proof enough to believe in free will...
Second problem: metaphorical construction.
My main problem with this "Theory of Everything" so far is that it only attempts to provide a metaphor for the universe, and metaphorical reference will not lead to the "absolute truth" any faster or more accurately than scientific study... if you understand how a car works in terms of little gnomes running around inside and turning little cranks, it's great that you're trying to understand and all but you're still wrong.
So, looking for a compelling picture of how "everything" works (in this case, so far, a self-modifying computer program, or so it seems) kind of presumes that reality is simple enough to jam into some small subset of itself and thereby be accurately modeled. This is giving human intelligence too much credit for extrapolation. I'm sorry, but if you look at a cube you don't see a cube, you see 1, 2, or 3 sides of the cube and extrapolate its shape from a two-dimensional image. We're good at it with visual perception, but you still don't have a complete understanding of the cube from that one image.
LOL!
That sarcastic remark really does sum up what I think about this matter.
Exactly!
Success in academics does not come from being naturally bright. It comes from being inquisitive, strong-willed, and determined. You must also be willing to learn.
You must also know how to apply that knowledge.
----------
M*W: Well said!
I have been somewhat watching this guy and loosely following his "TOE" for a few years now.
Why?
The same reason that so many people believe he is right.
Because I WANT him to be right.
He is the underdog that everyone wants to root for.
Beyond that, he personifies so many peoples' desire to be that Joe Blow that comes up from nowhere and has no formal training to thumb his nose at all the "smart" scientists and say, "No. You have it all wrong. Here's the answer you have been looking for."
They want him to be that guy who changes the world and wins the Nobel Prize and changes the way everyone thinks by no means other than his won intellect.
People (including me) want that romanticized version of the underdog to win.
However, wanting him to be right, and him actually being right are not the same thing.
That desire tends to cloud objective judgement.
Why?
The same reason that so many people believe he is right.
Because I WANT him to be right.
He is the underdog that everyone wants to root for.
Beyond that, he personifies so many peoples' desire to be that Joe Blow that comes up from nowhere and has no formal training to thumb his nose at all the "smart" scientists and say, "No. You have it all wrong. Here's the answer you have been looking for."
They want him to be that guy who changes the world and wins the Nobel Prize and changes the way everyone thinks by no means other than his won intellect.
People (including me) want that romanticized version of the underdog to win.
However, wanting him to be right, and him actually being right are not the same thing.
That desire tends to cloud objective judgement.
He maybe smart, but certainly he is not inspired.
He can't prove the impossible.
Moreover, your hero'IQ is beaten great deal by the astronomical IQ of this woman:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache...avant.com/+Marilyn+vos+Savant+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
There is some sort of controversy about her actual IQ.
However most critics agree that it is at least 197.
Check out this link. Notice at the end of it the IQs of the historical geniuses. Einstein's IQ is 160!
[http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/iq.html]
Actually no. Quote: COMMENT: With regard to super-high childhood IQ scores [derived from: (MA/CA) x 100]: It is clear from Hollingworth's work and the work of others that there is a marked "regression to the mean" with maturity. It has been suggested that childhood "ratio" scores have a natural standard deviation of 24 (cf. the Cattell Scale), so it is necessary to multiply the excess above the mean by 2/3rds to convert a childhood score to an adult score with the conventional SD16. That would imply the following adult scores: IQ 200+ for Sidis, and IQ 185 for Savant. Still, extremely high, but more probable.
http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/
A seemingly idiot can be a genius, a genius can be an idiot within other areas. I don't believe Savant is an exception to this rule.
Look for an example at the Marilyn was wrong website:
http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/
http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Q&A/Q&A.htm#06/13/98
However, serious research have showed that a person scoring around 210 St-Bin as a child, normally scores around 170 St-Bin as an adult (Like a really brilliant mathematician).
http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Q&A/Q&A.htm#05/08/99
Don't you have to explain "why" [9.] is wrong and if you understand what the words "syntax, operators, functors ...etc" mean, and if, or not, those concepts correspond to what exists, before you can pronounce [9.] false?
Some programs are more complex than others. In order to say that [10.] is false, you must prove that the universe is far too simplistic to be "conscious". You have not.
Therefore MRC_Hans' refutation is refuted.
Conclusion?
Chris Langan has done[and is doing] his homework.
About all you did was throw out several opinions without any logical meat behind them. I would advise you to lose the smug air and read through the list before going any further.
God is a perfect entity:
It is assumed that propositions are true when they correspond to what exists. To accept that the total existence "exists" cannot be an assumption. It is a perfect correspondence to truth, which should not be at all problematic, because: "necessarily it is a truth, or necessarily it is not a truth", which is an absolutely true statement. An absolutely true statement is a perfection. Both this ontological initialization of the necessarily recognizable instantiated universal sufficiency itself, and the existential truths that follow from it, are non-assumptional, and therefore exactly "true" because of an exact generic correspondence to existence, or they are correspondingly exactly generally false iff existence does not exist.
The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of potentiality of existence, and conversely, the potentiality of existence is obviously, negation of the potentiality of non-existence. If, that which necessarily exists is nothing but discrete, non-compositional existential entities, then such discrete non-compositional existential entities are greater in existence than an existing absolute compositional existential entity, but this statement is obviously absurd, since an existing absolutely compositional existential entity must contain all existing non-compositional existential entities, by definition; ergo, either nothing exists, or else an entity that is absolutely-compositionally-existential, necessarily composes existence. By definition, the compositional entity is perfect, if it is absolute. Now we exist either in ourselves, or in some composition of total existence, which, necessarily exists. Therefore, total existence is an entity being an absolute, that is to say, a perfection. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, the perfect entity is God.
Here is a very interesting Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe paper:
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes44/newcomb.html
It is assumed that propositions are true when they correspond to what exists. To accept that the total existence "exists" cannot be an assumption. It is a perfect correspondence to truth, which should not be at all problematic, because: "necessarily it is a truth, or necessarily it is not a truth", which is an absolutely true statement. An absolutely true statement is a perfection. Both this ontological initialization of the necessarily recognizable instantiated universal sufficiency itself, and the existential truths that follow from it, are non-assumptional, and therefore exactly "true" because of an exact generic correspondence to existence, or they are correspondingly exactly generally false iff existence does not exist.
The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of potentiality of existence, and conversely, the potentiality of existence is obviously, negation of the potentiality of non-existence. If, that which necessarily exists is nothing but discrete, non-compositional existential entities, then such discrete non-compositional existential entities are greater in existence than an existing absolute compositional existential entity, but this statement is obviously absurd, since an existing absolutely compositional existential entity must contain all existing non-compositional existential entities, by definition; ergo, either nothing exists, or else an entity that is absolutely-compositionally-existential, necessarily composes existence. By definition, the compositional entity is perfect, if it is absolute. Now we exist either in ourselves, or in some composition of total existence, which, necessarily exists. Therefore, total existence is an entity being an absolute, that is to say, a perfection. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, the perfect entity is God.
Here is a very interesting Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe paper:
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes44/newcomb.html
"Chris Langan has done[and is doing] his homework."
J.P.
Your arguments have been shown to be weak by about every person other than you posting in this thread.
This makes you seem more like a cultist with a IQerotic fixation on Cris Langden, than a person actually questioning the idea of "god".
J.P.
Your arguments have been shown to be weak by about every person other than you posting in this thread.
This makes you seem more like a cultist with a IQerotic fixation on Cris Langden, than a person actually questioning the idea of "god".
Argument from authority is a commonly recognised logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how high somebody's IQ is. You still need to examine their claims to determine if they are correct about any particular thing. It simply isn't good enough to say "They're so smart, they MUST be right!" Even geniuses can be wrong. Einstein was wrong about many things.
I disagree.
if god created man in his image,as your book says,then man
(does it include woman?)
would also be perfect.
we all know it aint so,dont we?
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/
J.P.,
I hate to be mean, but this comes across as just so much gibberish. I'm going to translate and you let me know if I'm missing something here.
J.P. > It is assumed that propositions are true when they correspond to what exists.
Somewhat problematic without addressing modality but we'll go with it for now.
J.P. > To accept that the total existence "exists" cannot be an assumption.
Translation: Everything that exists; exists.
J.P. > It is a perfect correspondence to truth, which should not be at all problematic, because: "necessarily it is a truth, or necessarily it is not a truth", which is an absolutely true statement.
Translation: The previous statement is true which is not problematic because a statement is necessarily either true or false, this is absolutely true. (We'll ignore modal problems with this statement for the moment.)
J.P. > An absolutely true statement is a perfection.
It depends upon what you mean by 'a perfection'. As it stands the statement is nonsensical or perhaps may be taken as a definition.
J.P. > Both this ontological initialization of the necessarily recognizable instantiated universal sufficiency itself, and the existential truths that follow from it, are non-assumptional,
Translation: (I have no f-ing clue what you are trying to say here. What is a 'necessarily recognizable instantiated universal sufficiency'?)
J.P. > and therefore exactly "true" because of an exact generic correspondence to existence, or they are correspondingly exactly generally false iff existence does not exist.
Translation: This proposition is true because it corresponds to what exists.
J.P. > The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of potentiality of existence, and conversely, the potentiality of existence is obviously, negation of the potentiality of non-existence.
I disagree completely. The potentialities are perfectly compatible; it is the actualities that are negations of each other. Something may potentially exist or not exist, but it cannot exist and not exist in the same frame of reference.
J.P. > If, that which necessarily exists is nothing but discrete, non-compositional existential entities, then such discrete non-compositional existential entities are greater in existence than an existing absolute compositional existential entity, but this statement is obviously absurd, since an existing absolutely compositional existential entity must contain all existing non-compositional existential entities, by definition;
Translation: The whole is greater than the part.
J.P. > ergo, either nothing exists, or else an entity that is absolutely-compositionally-existential, necessarily composes existence.
Translation: Therefore either nothing exists or the whole of existence, comprised of existent parts, exists.
J.P. > By definition, the compositional entity is perfect, if it is absolute.
Same thing as before, what exactly do you mean by 'perfect' and 'absolute'?
J.P. > Now we exist either in ourselves, or in some composition of total existence, which, necessarily exists.
I don't see where you've established that anything necessarily exists.
J.P. > Therefore, total existence is an entity being an absolute, that is to say, a perfection. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, the perfect entity is God.
Basically, this is just another unfounded assertion. Translation: God is the totality of existence.
It just doesn't work J.P.
~Raithere
I hate to be mean, but this comes across as just so much gibberish. I'm going to translate and you let me know if I'm missing something here.
J.P. > It is assumed that propositions are true when they correspond to what exists.
Somewhat problematic without addressing modality but we'll go with it for now.
J.P. > To accept that the total existence "exists" cannot be an assumption.
Translation: Everything that exists; exists.
J.P. > It is a perfect correspondence to truth, which should not be at all problematic, because: "necessarily it is a truth, or necessarily it is not a truth", which is an absolutely true statement.
Translation: The previous statement is true which is not problematic because a statement is necessarily either true or false, this is absolutely true. (We'll ignore modal problems with this statement for the moment.)
J.P. > An absolutely true statement is a perfection.
It depends upon what you mean by 'a perfection'. As it stands the statement is nonsensical or perhaps may be taken as a definition.
J.P. > Both this ontological initialization of the necessarily recognizable instantiated universal sufficiency itself, and the existential truths that follow from it, are non-assumptional,
Translation: (I have no f-ing clue what you are trying to say here. What is a 'necessarily recognizable instantiated universal sufficiency'?)
J.P. > and therefore exactly "true" because of an exact generic correspondence to existence, or they are correspondingly exactly generally false iff existence does not exist.
Translation: This proposition is true because it corresponds to what exists.
J.P. > The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of potentiality of existence, and conversely, the potentiality of existence is obviously, negation of the potentiality of non-existence.
I disagree completely. The potentialities are perfectly compatible; it is the actualities that are negations of each other. Something may potentially exist or not exist, but it cannot exist and not exist in the same frame of reference.
J.P. > If, that which necessarily exists is nothing but discrete, non-compositional existential entities, then such discrete non-compositional existential entities are greater in existence than an existing absolute compositional existential entity, but this statement is obviously absurd, since an existing absolutely compositional existential entity must contain all existing non-compositional existential entities, by definition;
Translation: The whole is greater than the part.
J.P. > ergo, either nothing exists, or else an entity that is absolutely-compositionally-existential, necessarily composes existence.
Translation: Therefore either nothing exists or the whole of existence, comprised of existent parts, exists.
J.P. > By definition, the compositional entity is perfect, if it is absolute.
Same thing as before, what exactly do you mean by 'perfect' and 'absolute'?
J.P. > Now we exist either in ourselves, or in some composition of total existence, which, necessarily exists.
I don't see where you've established that anything necessarily exists.
J.P. > Therefore, total existence is an entity being an absolute, that is to say, a perfection. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, the perfect entity is God.
Basically, this is just another unfounded assertion. Translation: God is the totality of existence.
It just doesn't work J.P.
~Raithere
Rait, nice try.
You might also like to take a stab at the latest Rumsfeld "Foot in Mouth" award -
"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
John Lister, spokesman for the campaign which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."
http://www.rense.com/general45/rumsfeldlondon.htm
You might also like to take a stab at the latest Rumsfeld "Foot in Mouth" award -
"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
John Lister, spokesman for the campaign which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."
http://www.rense.com/general45/rumsfeldlondon.htm