You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[gnomon]

You obtain perfect knowledge with up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start.

 

[PolyHedral]

Nonsense: if you're going to take that approach, all human beings are also strong and brilliant.

But the original comparison was to "perfection;" All humans are immeasurably weak and stupid compared with the absolute best they could be.

 

[atanu]

Then what is the problem? You seem to be alluding to the fallacy of the stolen concept, but it's hard to understand.

You are talking about logical validity of my conclusions?

• As per idea emanating from so-called you (since yourself is an illusion-- a mere number) your knowledge of the Universe alone is correct. Although you and your awareness are illusions, you are privy to some equations that desribe the universe, including life and intelligence. What are you? A special software? God? Privy to special knowledge?
• As per so-called you, human mind is software. So your thoughts are as good as any other -- mere model and not truth. The model has unraveled the equations that describe everything, including the model itself?
• If intelligence is created through laws, then it is subject to pure causal determinism. What you believe is causally determined, as puppets are made to dance. Do not hold the notion that you have any freedom of rationality and free enquiry. Your thoughts are causally determined, since intelligence itself is. The notion that you have any freedom to know the truth is a big illusion, as you also are.
• As per so-called you, the intelligence is a product of computation. Has any one seen any product to know about its cause? Has any car known its creator. Has any character of a novel known any author? May be in your novel it happens.
• As per so-called you, some set of equations are the truth. You uphold the equations as truth but you deny the reality of awareness that cognised and knew the equations.
• I have not even questioned whether your equations truly desribe you and your fantastic notions.

..........................

It does seem to me that your ideas are borrowed from somewhere and you do not understand them completely. I may be wrong or i may not be understanding your point. In that case, kindly write in about 500 words what exactly is your philosophy, so that there remains a basis for discussion, if you wish so. Else your one-liners are meaningless to me.

 

[PolyHedral]

It does seem to me that your ideas are borrowed from somewhere and you do not understand them completely. I may be wrong or i may not be understanding your point. In that case, kindly write in about 500 words what exactly is your philosophy, so that there remains a basis for discussion, if you wish so. Else your one-liners are meaningless to me.

It's a Sunday evening and you're expecting me to write philosophical essays? However, I'll do it anyway, since this discussion is interesting, but I don't need 500 words.

I don't need 500 because my main principle is very short: a sufficiently-detailed map is indistinguishable from the terroritory. The description and the object being described by that description are not seperable.

For the best example, consider a circle. It is generally agreed that nothing in reality is perfectly circular; this follows quite logically, since it is impossible to build a perfect circle from finitely small pieces. What, then, is a circle? A circle is a set of points that follow a specific relationship. But this relationship/set of points is only a description; it corresponds to nothing in reality. Yet we still say that set of points is a circle, (or, if you wait a moment, the circle) not a mere description of one.

Also, if you do the paperwork correctly, the descriptions are relative. If we go back to the example of a circle, a circle has two free parameters that we can choose, that seperate it from other circles: its position, and its radius. (We can also choose the diameter or the circumference, but this forces the radius to a specific value.) However, how we measure length is actually arbitarary; we can, if we want, describe all distances in circle-radii. As long as we are clear that that is what we're doing, we will be accurate. (Depending on the purposes, we may also have to provide how to translate a "circle-radii" into a more widespread unit.) Similarly, the origin of our coodinates is arbitarary; we will be correct so long as the distances between objects remain the same. What we can therefore do is define the origin as the center of the circle we are looking at, and measure distances in this-circle-radii. Suddenly, every possible circle we can imagine becomes the same object: the set of all points a unit distance from the origin. Therefore, all circles are, in some sense, identical.

How does this apply to reality? Let's jump around a bit and look at the Matrix Hypotheses: the idea that reality is in fact a computer program, running on some vast, external hardware. I am sure this is a possibility, because I have seen no counterargument for it. However, all possible computer programs can be described by mathematics. In order for the Matrix hypothesis to be a possibility, there must exist a computer program on some hardware that would, in theory, simulate the universe. This simulation would be both a complete, perfect description of the universe, and a universe in itself. It is impossible, in principle, to distinguish between a perfect simulation of the universe and the "real" universe itself; their descriptions are therefore identical; they are therefore the same thing.

Mathematics and truth are indistinguishable, and and the truth (seperate from the statements that are true) is indistinguishable from reality.

As per idea emanating from so-called you (since yourself is an illusion-- a mere number) your knowledge of the Universe alone is correct. Although you and your awareness are illusions, you are privy to some equations that desribe the universe, including life and intelligence. What are you? A special software? God? Privy to special knowledge?

Not-particularly-special software. At least, unless you ascribe value to scarcity. The knowledge in question is not "special," though; it is simply the statement that the universe is described by a set of particular relationships. They can be deduced simply by looking at the universe in enough detail.

As per so-called you, human mind is software. So your thoughts are as good as any other -- mere model and not truth.

Does not follow. Or rather, does not immediatly follow. Can you show that the truth is not a particular set of statements about reality?

If intelligence is created through laws, then it is subject to pure causal determinism. What you believe is causally determined, as puppets are made to dance. Do not hold the notion that you have any freedom of rationality and free enquiry. Your thoughts are causally determined, since intelligence itself is. The notion that you have any freedom to know the truth is a big illusion, as you also are.

This is actually an argument. Also, illusions are sometimes useful. Like the illusion of "solidness." Or "position."

As per so-called you, the intelligence is a product of computation. Has any one seen any product to know about its cause? Has any car known its creator. Has any character of a novel known any author? May be in your novel it happens.

Alan Moore does it occasionally. However, in that case, characters and event seldom flow out of a set of rules, because all of this is done on a human brain, and the brain cannot simulate to that degree of complexity.

As per so-called you, some set of equations are the truth. You uphold the equations as truth but you deny the reality of awareness that cognised and knew the equations.

How egocentric. And you're right that some set of equations are the truth, although I don't have access to them. I only have access to a very good approximation.

Incidentally, before you ask, truth is independent from observation. A statement is true regardless of whethere is someone there to say so.

I have not even questioned whether your equations truly desribe you and your fantastic notions.

Things get complicated at high energies, but they don't occur very much on Earth. You'll find that they do describe most of the universe, because studying the universe is where they came from.

 

[9Westy9]

You obtain perfect knowledge with up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start.

Is that on the play-station or the Xbox version?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Is that on the play-station or the Xbox version?

Konami Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[9Westy9]

Konami Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am learned

 

[atanu]

For the best example, consider a circle. It is generally agreed that nothing in reality is perfectly circular; this follows quite logically, since it is impossible to build a perfect circle from finitely small pieces. What, then, is a circle? A circle is a set of points that follow a specific relationship. But this relationship/set of points is only a description; it corresponds to nothing in reality. Yet we still say that set of points is a circle, (or, if you wait a moment, the circle) not a mere description of one.

Also, if you do the paperwork correctly, the descriptions are relative. If we go back to the example of a circle, a circle has two free parameters that we can choose, that seperate it from other circles: its position, and its radius. (We can also choose the diameter or the circumference, but this forces the radius to a specific value.) However, how we measure length is actually arbitarary; we can, if we want, describe all distances in circle-radii. As long as we are clear that that is what we're doing, we will be accurate. (Depending on the purposes, we may also have to provide how to translate a "circle-radii" into a more widespread unit.) Similarly, the origin of our coodinates is arbitarary; we will be correct so long as the distances between objects remain the same. What we can therefore do is define the origin as the center of the circle we are looking at, and measure distances in this-circle-radii. Suddenly, every possible circle we can imagine becomes the same object: the set of all points a unit distance from the origin. Therefore, all circles are, in some sense, identical.

OK. I understand the concept of the General and the Particular.

No. All circles are not identical. They are instances of one General.

How does this apply to reality? Let's jump around a bit and look at the Matrix Hypotheses: the idea that reality is in fact a computer program, running on some vast, external hardware. I am sure this is a possibility, because I have seen no counterargument for it.

Now I understand you man. The reality is not the computer program -- that is only a part. In fact, what you call reality is only the virtual part and the reality you have discarded.

Now I comprehend why your one liners appear incomprehensible to me; you coming from a peculiar defintion of reality.

 

[atanu]

In respect of the question raised in the OP.

Accomplished scientists know that the world of our senses is a representation - a model. Scientists, have defined their scope within this model with an implicit assumption that this model is the reality. Accomplished scientists recognise this assumption as true only in its scope. There are examples of top scientists who have articulated this many times.

Dharmic religions, at least, OTOH, teach that the representational universe is only relatively real. Dharma, in general, holds that there is no true essence of discernment and happiness in this representational universe and that the Truth is ever unborn (beyond mind-senses and beyond changes). They hold that the power of discernment and happiness is in the Truth, which is knowable and must be known in order to dispel the Dukkha that persists due to clinging to the ephemeral objects of this representational universe as real.

I know that abrahamic religions also essentially teach this. But it is much more clouded.

 

[idav]

Accomplished scientists recognise this assumption as true only in its scope.

Dharmic religions, at least, OTOH, teach that the representational universe is only relatively real.

Those two views sound rather similar.

 

[idav]

The OP title is fine with just "you can't have perfect knowledge....".

 

[PolyHedral]

The OP title is fine with just "you can't have perfect knowledge....".

Accomplished scientists know that the world of our senses is a representation - a model. Scientists, have defined their scope within this model with an implicit assumption that this model is the reality. Accomplished scientists recognise this assumption as true only in its scope. There are examples of top scientists who have articulated this many times.

Quote one.

Dharma, in general, holds that there is no true essence of discernment and happiness in this representational universe and that the Truth is ever unborn (beyond mind-senses and beyond changes)

But that would be a true statement, which you've just said is beyond "mind-senses."

OK. I understand the concept of the General and the Particular.

No. All circles are not identical. They are instances of one General.

Then define the general.

Now I understand you man. The reality is not the computer program -- that is only a part. In fact, what you call reality is only the virtual part and the reality you have discarded.

Oh, so you have a counterargument for the Matrix hypothesis? I'd love to hear it.

 

[atanu]

How does this apply to reality? Let's jump around a bit and look at the Matrix Hypotheses: the idea that reality is in fact a computer program, running on some vast, external hardware.

Hello. I said that when you call Virtual the Real, then we have no point on which we can discuss.

But that would be a true statement, which you've just said is beyond "mind-senses."

Did i say that a statement is truth? That mistake you are commiting. No statement is the truth itself. Words are pointers to truth or to illusions.

This is actually an argument. Also, illusions are sometimes useful. Like the illusion of "solidness." Or "position."

Stick to your illusion. I have no problem.

 

[Two-bit guru]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

You make great points! I think a flaw in the implementation of science is that science doesn't know what it doesn't know. It seems to me that science may have outgrown the scientific method in the 20th century with folks like Einstein and Max Planck. Comments?

 

[Two-bit guru]

So in other words it's preferable to rely upon some self-appointed representatives of god (who still possess the same flaws that you've listed) to make some random, arbitrary **** up to conveniently fill in the gaps?

Maybe we could rely on our intuition, our inner union with the universe, the wisdom that we find outside the bounds of logic? I'm not high on the self-appointed reps of god, either.

 

[PolyHedral]

Hello. I said that when you call Virtual the Real, then we have no point on which we can discuss.

Rigirously distinguish the two, then. You can't just declare one real and the other false if they're not actually distinguishable.

Did i say that a statement is truth? That mistake you are commiting.

You must be correct if you wan to be pedantic. I never said a statement was truth; I said a statement was true.

Stick to your illusion. I have no problem.

(That was actually supposed to say, 'That isn't an argument.' Oops.)

 

[jarofthoughts]

You make great points! I think a flaw in the implementation of science is that science doesn't know what it doesn't know. It seems to me that science may have outgrown the scientific method in the 20th century with folks like Einstein and Max Planck. Comments?

If science knew what it doesn't know then it wouldn't not know it any more.
Do you see where you went wrong?

Maybe we could rely on our intuition, our inner union with the universe, the wisdom that we find outside the bounds of logic? I'm not high on the self-appointed reps of god, either.

Do you know what intuition is mate? :sarcastic

 

[Quagmire]

Men wrote the bible. The bible has been written rewritten and manipulated by writers over 1500 years. It was first written at a time when there was very little understanding of the world around them, and science did not exist. Everything was attributed wrongly to God, we know that now because we have science.

What science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is that some people are not prepared to listen and learn. They talk of evidence, but offer none in return. If you ask a religious person for evidence they open one book, and do not lift their head above the pages for further explanation.

I prefer enlightenment. It is a beautiful thing!

Really? Sounds more like you prefer unsubstantiated generalzations.

 

[Photonic]

Really? Sounds more like you prefer unsubstantiated generalzations.

And what about science says to you "Unsubstantiated generalizations?" Or are you referring to his comment about all religions being like that?

 

[atanu]

You are talking about logical validity of my conclusions?

• As per idea emanating from so-called you (since yourself is an illusion-- a mere number) your knowledge of the Universe alone is correct. Although you and your awareness are illusions, you are privy to some equations that desribe the universe, including life and intelligence. What are you? A special software? God? Privy to special knowledge?
• As per so-called you, human mind is software. So your thoughts are as good as any other -- mere model and not truth. The model has unraveled the equations that describe everything, including the model itself?
• If intelligence is created through laws, then it is subject to pure causal determinism. What you believe is causally determined, as puppets are made to dance. Do not hold the notion that you have any freedom of rationality and free enquiry. Your thoughts are causally determined, since intelligence itself is. The notion that you have any freedom to know the truth is a big illusion, as you also are.
• As per so-called you, the intelligence is a product of computation. Has any one seen any product to know about its cause? Has any car known its creator. Has any character of a novel known any author? May be in your novel it happens.
• As per so-called you, some set of equations are the truth. You uphold the equations as truth but you deny the reality of awareness that cognised and knew the equations.
• I have not even questioned whether your equations truly desribe you and your fantastic notions.

Not-particularly-special software. At least, unless you ascribe value to scarcity. The knowledge in question is not "special," though; it is simply the statement that the universe is described by a set of particular relationships. They can be deduced simply by looking at the universe in enough detail.

An animated character in a virtual reality looking deeply and knowing the equations. Joking?

Does not follow. Or rather, does not immediatly follow. Can you show that the truth is not a particular set of statements about reality?

Follows. A pre-programmed software cannot have free thinking.

This is actually an argument. Also, illusions are sometimes useful. Like the illusion of "solidness." Or "position."

Ya. This is just as all other points are. When intelligence is said to be deterministic, arisen out of laws, it cannot know the laws. It is not intelligence in fact.

Alan Moore does it occasionally. However, in that case, characters and event seldom flow out of a set of rules, because all of this is done on a human brain, and the brain cannot simulate to that degree of complexity.

I asked: Has any car known its creator? Has any character of a novel known any author?

How egocentric. And you're right that some set of equations are the truth, although I don't have access to them. I only have access to a very good approximation.

Better than being a megalomaniac who says: There is no self, there is no intelligence but I know all the physics and the math and I assert they are indistiguishable from the truth, which is virtual.

Incidentally, before you ask, truth is independent from observation. A statement is true regardless of whethere is someone there to say so.

Prove it.