How do you know you are not "A.I."?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For me, it is an infinite number of zeros, with a 1 that is in there only to make up the logical assertion of .999... with infinite nines and how that is different from 1. Both sets of infinite decimals strike as illogical, unverifiable.

Numbers like 0.00...1 where it is understood that there are infinitely many 0's before the final digit 1 are infinitely small numbers. They were the intuitive foundations of analysis (i.e., calculus), but are not generally used because it wasn't until the 20th century that a rigorous (i.e., logical) treatment of such numbers was formulated. These infinitely small numbers are called infinitesimal hyperreal numbers and can be used to show that 0.999... equals 1. You can find an elementary treatment of infinitesimal calculus here: Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach, and slightly more advanced treatments here: Foundations of Infinitesimal Calculus and here: Mathematical Background: Foundations of Infinitesimal Calculus

Because they appear identical. After having accepting faith in 1 and equals

What does your faith in "equals" involve? That is, what do you believe it means for one number to equal another number? If by your faith in 1 an equals you accept 1=1, does this imply that 1+1=1+1, 1+2=1+2, 1+3=1+3,...,1+n=1+n?

 

[viole]

It could also be numbers that deal with infinity in some fashion.



I see it as a non-sequitur. You asked what else it could be, concluded it can't be anything else.



1 - .999... = .000...1 (or one number dealing with infinity subtracted from one would logically be another number dealing with infinity to offset the plausible difference).

I can prove it cannot be anything else. The only way to make you see that is use geometry, sorry, with the hope of being able to appeal to your intution. Final shot, then I am out

Consider the equation x = x/10. We already know that zero is a solution because 0/10 = 0. But is that solution unique?

Let's go back to my two straight lines with cartesian equations:

y = x
y = x/10

If you take an xy cartesian plane and plot various points that satisfy these equations, you will immediately see that they represent two different and not parallel straight lines.

How do we find the intersection, if any? We impose that the y coordinate is the same, for instance. That is a necessary condition for intersection.

Ths leads to our initial equation:

x = x/10

Does that have at least one solution? Yes, zero. We know that. So, if we plug in zero in the x of both equation we get the same y. It cannot be otherwise, since we imposed that condition.

So, x = 0 and y = 0 satisfy both equations of the two lines. As it can be easily verified. It is their intersection.

And what is the number of intersections of two non parallel straight lines (remember Euclid)? One, of course.

Therefore, the solution is unique. Non parallel straight lines on the plane meet at one and only one point. Which entails that the solution of x = x/10 is unique (otherwise you get two different intersections for the same y) and can only be zero. The known solution.

So, any number that is equal to itself when divided by 10 can only be zero. And if 0.000...1 satisfies this property, then 0.00...1 can only be equal to zero. Ergo the difference between 1 and 0.9999... Is zero. And so, 1 = 0.9999....

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Numbers like 0.00...1 where it is understood that there are infinitely many 0's before the final digit 1 are infinitely small numbers. They were the intuitive foundations of analysis (i.e., calculus), but are not generally used because it wasn't until the 20th century that a rigorous (i.e., logical) treatment of such numbers was formulated. These infinitely small numbers are called infinitesimal hyperreal numbers and can be used to show that 0.999... equals 1. You can find an elementary treatment of infinitesimal calculus here: Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach, and slightly more advanced treatments here: Foundations of Infinitesimal Calculus and here: Mathematical Background: Foundations of Infinitesimal Calculus

Started reading the first link. Stopped when I encountered a 'rule' that is to me questionable. If I cared to truly understand Calculus, I reckon I would discuss that with a more advanced student or teacher and may or may not be satisfied with the answer provided, but likely be told to move on. If I cared to truly understand Calculus, I think moving on would be wise, as I could always come back with later understandings to see if I can answer my earlier inquiry myself. At this moment, I don't truly care to learn Calculus. But I do think if certain 'rules' are seen as a given (for how Calculus must be seen to work), then I think I could plausibly at some point go along with the notion that .999... = 1. Though, I'd be keenly aware that I have faith in those rules and didn't actually scrutinize them in a truly reasonable fashion. I accepted them and chose to move on.

What does your faith in "equals" involve?

Philosophically, or even spiritually, and speaking in sound bite terms, I would say equals means to me "is." That 5 is 5. Where faith is met with some degree of doubt comes from equations such as 1 + 4 is 5. Then I have to have faith in at least one other thing that I understand to be addition, but possibly if I analyze what I'm actually observing, that I have faith in a few more things occurring within an equation. As I was, at one time, very very good with arithmetic, I am very used to taking for granted my ability to do basic equations (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, though division could be better). When taking it for granted, it really comes across to me as regurgitating data based on high familiarity with patterns. But if I analyze it, I see it as the point where reason is combined with faith. I don't see them as separate endeavors that should forever be held as separate. I think faith comes first, never leaves, and where doubt/uncertainty is present (via a problem), reason helps in providing a path to overcome that doubt.

That is, what do you believe it means for one number to equal another number? If by your faith in 1 an equals you accept 1=1, does this imply that 1+1=1+1, 1+2=1+2, 1+3=1+3,...,1+n=1+n?

Explained above, I think.

 

[Acim]

I can prove it cannot be anything else. The only way to make you see that is use geometry, sorry, with the hope of being able to appeal to your intution. Final shot, then I am out

Consider the equation x = x/10. We already know that zero is a solution because 0/10 = 0. But is that solution unique?

Let's go back to my two straight lines with cartesian equations:

y = x
y = x/10

If you take an xy cartesian plane and plot various points that satisfy these equations, you will immediately see that they represent two different and not parallel straight lines.

How do we find the intersection, if any? We impose that the y coordinate is the same, for instance. That is a necessary condition for intersection.

Ths leads to our initial equation:

x = x/10

Does that have at least one solution? Yes, zero. We know that. So, if we plug in zero in the x of both equation we get the same y. It cannot be otherwise, since we imposed that condition.

So, x = 0 and y = 0 satisfy both equations of the two lines. As it can be easily verified. It is their intersection.

And what is the number of intersections of two non parallel straight lines (remember Euclid)? One, of course.

Therefore, the solution is unique. Non parallel straight lines on the plane meet at one and only one point. Which entails that the solution of x = x/10 is unique (otherwise you get two different intersections for the same y) and can only be zero. The known solution.

So, any number that is equal to itself when divided by 10 can only be zero. And if 0.000...1 satisfies this property, then 0.00...1 can only be equal to zero. Ergo the difference between 1 and 0.9999... Is zero. And so, 1 = 0.9999....

Ciao

- viole

See ya later!

I see the hole in this logic, but choose not to reply because you announced you are out. So, not worth my responding to. If anyone else reading this thread would care for my response, I will give it. But will just note it is rather obvious and anyone pretending to understand where I'm coming from could likely find the hole I speak of, though arguably there is more than 1 hole. Or as many as 1.999... holes.

 

[Willamena]

Consider the equation x = x/10.

How can x have two identities?

 

[atanu]

Hypothetical -

Assuming that you are right and that there is an aspect of subjective experiencing which transcends the specificities of form - what is the argument against this transcendent reality being self aware in an electronic system ?

It will simply mean that a transcendent reality is pre-existing. The situation is same here too. In all our hypothesis regarding awareness, the awareness is pre-existing.

If a machine were to pass the Turing test someday, an existing conscious entity must certify that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?

Pain and suffering.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

also posted in another thread: here's a link to a recent debate between scientists on this subject...

http://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.html

If the universe is a simulation, including us, how would we be able to determine that it is a simulation and not "real"?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How can x have two identities?

It can't. If it did, 10 = 10/10, which is 10=1, etc.

It will simply mean that a transcendent reality is pre-existing. The situation is same here too. In all our hypothesis regarding awareness, the awareness is pre-existing.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

If a machine were to pass the Turing test someday, an existing conscious entity must certify that.

What was the first such conscious entity?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

One would need to be intelligent to be an artificial intelligence.

Intelligent meaning leftist in your fluid lexicography, I'm sure.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

One would need to be intelligent to be an artificial intelligence.

And also one would need to be artificial to be an artificial intelligence...

 

[Willamena]

..

Speaking for myself the answer would be 'no'. Consciousness requires non-physical elements also.

In what way?

 

[George-ananda]

..

In what way?

In my school of thought, consciousness is a non-physical entity that can experience through the physical. The physical is just a creation of this fundamental consciousness. Biological entities have subtle layers that transmit consciousness that an inanimate object does not have.

 

[Willamena]

In my school of thought, consciousness is a non-physical entity that can experience through the physical. The physical is just a creation of this fundamental consciousness.

Does the entity experience through the non-physical as well?

Biological entities have subtle layers that transmit consciousness that an inanimate object does not have.

I don't know what subtle layers means.

 

[George-ananda]

Does the entity experience through the non-physical as well?

Actually only the non-physical is capable of experiencing. The physical is just atoms and electrons moving around without the capacity to experience the bigger picture.

I don't know what subtle layers means.

What we experience is often called the gross physical. Above this are material planes of finer/subtler matter of higher vibrational/dimensional (dimensions beyond our familiar three) attributes. In fact only 4% of the matter in the universe is directly detectable by our gross senses and physical instruments. Such things as souls, heaven-planes, etc. are part of the subtle layers.

 

[Willamena]

Actually only the non-physical is capable of experiencing. The physical is just atoms and electrons moving around without the capacity to experience the bigger picture.

Can the entity experience through the non-physical?

I'm asking if "experience" is only of the physical, or can we experience the meaningful as well (meaningful standing in gross contrast to physical).

What we experience is often called the gross physical. Above this are material planes of finer/subtler matter of higher vibrational/dimensional (dimensions beyond our familiar three) attributes. In fact only 4% of the matter in the universe is directly detectable by our gross senses and physical instruments. Such things as souls, heaven-planes, etc. are part of the subtle layers.

4% of souls?

 

[Etritonakin]

I was just reminded of these lyrics.....

Looking down on empty streets, all she can see
Are the dreams all made solid
Are the dreams all made real
All of the buildings, all of those cars
Were once just a dream
In somebody's head
She pictures the broken glass, she pictures the steam
She pictures a soul
With no leak at the seam


Any simulation must be composed of that which is real.
That which we call reality once did not exist -but that from which it was made existed before our reality was made.
We are presently limited in perception and power just as an intelligent and self-aware character in a video game would be.

Self-awareness and intelligence are essentially the same whether human or caused by humans. Artificial intelligence and self-awareness are not false or unreal -they simply require a creator to become real.
If artificial intelligence is that which would not exist without man deciding to create it, then we are artificial intelligence if we would not exist without another intelligence deciding to create us.

The "real" intelligence would more correctly be called the original intelligence.

Could our "new" reality have come to exist -ordered from whatever material or data which preceded it -without a creator or intelligence of some sort which was up to the task?

As we are not the original intelligence because we truly do not know how we came to exist and did not bring all things into existence -and our reality and perspective bear an uncanny resemblance to a simulation -are we not artificial on some level?

Is everything in our reality artificial because it is not what it is, but is made up of smaller things which make reality seem real to us?

Water really isn't water -it is hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen and oxygen aren't really elements -they are electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., etc.

Is the most basic "matter" of such a simple nature that it would be more correct to call it data?

We believe man came to exist "naturally" -but would not artificial intelligence be correct in believing the same of itself if we did not introduce ourselves?
What is so unnatural about being created?

We may not have direct proof of a creator (though some individuals may) -but direct action by a creator may be far removed, just as we might set in motion complex creative processes.

If the most simple "matter" would be better described as data, can ANYTHING truly happen or exist without some level of intelligence?

Intelligence cannot be separate from reality. Even modeling happens in reality -even if it is not then applied to another part of reality.
Even the imagination is reality.
Reality also cannot be separate from intelligence.

Reality is certainly the result of intelligence -and intelligence is also certainly the result of reality.
The whole of reality is indicative of the whole of intelligence -and vice-versa.

I think we err when thinking one was responsible for the other.
Neither can exist without the other.
Neither can change or become more complex without the other.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Any simulation must be composed of that which is real.
That which we call reality once did not exist -but that from which it was made existed before our reality was made.

I think I understand what you mean....the real is eternal and thus has always existed? As for manifestation of forms...these are always changing through the cycles of creation and destruction...but the underlying substance of the forms is forever the same...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I was just reminded of these lyrics.....

Looking down on empty streets, all she can see

Oh Streets!.....Sorry, I thought you said empty sheets. My bad.

 

[Etritonakin]

Oh Streets!.....Sorry, I thought you said empty sheets. My bad.

and... that's how I know everything is not a simulation. Only reality can knowingly answer such profundity with such crudeness.

....she said last night