You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[PolyHedral]

That is not reason why science should be considered answer to data less realm.

The answer to a lack of data is to gather data.

That is not refutation of Godel. You are assuming that hypercomputation is not work of mind.

No, I'm not. I'm saying hypercomputation cannot be a work of mind; it is impossible for a human to think an infinite number of thoughts.

No. I do not. Accepted.

You don't understand the argument you just quoted?

Godel gave the proposition as either this or that. How you say that the first one is wrong.

The brain-as-a-machine explains a lot more than the reverse. It is also more consistent with what we have seen of how the mind behaves.

 

[atanu]

The answer to a lack of data is to gather data.

No, I'm not. I'm saying hypercomputation cannot be a work of mind; it is impossible for a human to think an infinite number of thoughts.

You don't understand the argument you just quoted?

It is possible in non-local mind.

The brain-as-a-machine explains a lot more than the reverse. It is also more consistent with what we have seen of how the mind behaves.

Godel proposed: “either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”

Prove that the first option false. Or say that Godel was wrong.

 

[atanu]

The brain-as-a-machine explains a lot more than the reverse. It is also more consistent with what we have seen of how the mind behaves.

You mean the mind weighs equal to brain?

 

[PolyHedral]

It is possible in non-local mind.

No, it's not. If it were, most of mathematics could be solved nearly instantly. I stand by the assertion that a hypercomputer is not concevable as an actual device, let alone actually buildable in this universe.

Godel proposed: “either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”

Prove that the first option false. Or say that Godel was wrong.

I said that the second option is correct, and thanks for answering my earlier question: you don't understand what "or" means in this argument.

You mean the mind weighs equal to brain?

The mind is just a matter of interpretation. It is meaning that is assigned to a specific arrangement of matter. That arrangement is the brain.

 

[atanu]

No, it's not. If it were, most of mathematics could be solved nearly instantly. I stand by the assertion that a hypercomputer is not concevable as an actual device, let alone actually buildable in this universe.

That does not prove that mind cannot infinitely surpass a finite machine.

I said that the second option is correct, and thanks for answering my earlier question: you don't understand what "or" means in this argument.

Then explain to me what 'or' means in “either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”

And explain why what comes before 'or' is impossible.

The mind is just a matter of interpretation. It is meaning that is assigned to a specific arrangement of matter. That arrangement is the brain.

Yes no doubt. Your mind's interpretation.:yes:

 

[PolyHedral]

That does not prove that mind cannot infinitely surpass a finite machine.

Then where's your counterexample of a mind processing an infinite stream of data in finite time?

Then explain to me what 'or' means in “either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”

It means that the second part being true is enough for the entire statement to be true.

And explain why what comes before 'or' is impossible.

Infinity is not a meaningful quantity. A human mind cannot imagine an infinite quantity of data.

Yes no doubt. Your mind's interpretation.:yes:

Notice I didn't say anything about the matter it's attached to? That is a fundamental component of the universe, and is not open to interpretation.

 

[Photonic]

This one will suggest that this be read.


Amazon.com: Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (9780465026562): Douglas R. Hofstadter: Books

 

[atanu]

It means that the second part being true is enough for the entire statement to be true.

Ok. So .

Originally posted by PolyHedral

And I've already said that current physics is not the truth, merely very close to it.

2. Check your quote closely:

“either mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine or there are absolutely unsolvable number theoretic problems.”​

The latter is true. There are problems that cannot be solved by any means in finite time.

So, in totality the above two points together prove the OP. 'In totality' because the second part in 2 being true is enough for the entire statement to be true.

 

[atanu]

This one will suggest that this be read.

Amazon.com: Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (9780465026562): Douglas R. Hofstadter: Books

Yes. Copernicus recommended it. I pointed out to him and others that both Hoftstadter and Dawkins hold that 'self' is unknowable. If you search you may find that discussion.

 

[Photonic]

Yes. Copernicus recommended it. I pointed out to him and others that both Hoftstadter and Dawkins hold that 'self' is unknowable. If you search you may find that discussion.

Hofstadter is one of the leading AI scientists on this Planet, how is this not relevant to the discussion of mind?

 

[atanu]

Hofstadter is one of the leading AI scientists on this Planet, how is this not relevant to the discussion of mind?

I did not say anything about Hofstadter's standing and relevance to discussion of mind. If you wish we can discuss it, preferably in a seperate thread or at:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/118799-origin-human-general-awareness.html

 

[Photonic]

I did not say anything about Hofstadter's standing and relevance to discussion of mind. If you wish we can discuss it, preferably in a seperate thread or at:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/118799-origin-human-general-awareness.html

It would seem to me that the past 5 or 6 pages should be merged with that thread.

 

[Straw Dog]

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.

I would say you can't have perfect knowledge period. What is "perfection"? What is "Truth"? How would you determine when you've acquired it? How can you ever be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't more knowledge and truth to be gained elsewhere or through other means? What does the voice of a higher authority sound like? How do you interpret it? Can you ever be positive that your interpretation is entirely accurate? Or that you've received all the Truth that there is to receive from your higher authority?

The questions goes on and on. The road through the Great Unknown.

 

[tomteapack]

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.

1-we invent machines to improve our senses
2-we correct our mistakes
3 -we are real, lol, Gods are the illusion
4-if we cheat we get caught and corrected.

Truth is an INTERPRETATION of facts and is usually (almost always when it is a religious interpretation) WRONG. I will stick with facts and let my higher authority be educated men and women.

 

[gnomon]

Has anyone even heard of Godel?

 

[atanu]

Has anyone even heard of Godel?

Many will hear of him in this thread.

 

[PolyHedral]

Has anyone even heard of Godel?

Godel only applies to higher-level logic for certain, Science gets away with it, I think.

 

[gnomon]

Godel only applies to higher-level logic for certain, Science gets away with it, I think.

I don't know. But then again my understanding of Godel is very, very basic.

So I could be wrong. I'll make an attempt here.

If finding a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible this implies to me that the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, etc. are also limited by Godel's theorem given their reliance upon that same system of mathematics. If the hard sciences are limited by this then one can assume that we cannot have perfect knowledge if perfect is defined as a complete model of the universe that is absolutely true.

I don't know if a proper definition of perfect was ever established in reference to the OP but I cannot think of a better definition in relation to this thread. Of course, this is no reason for others to insert a God of the gaps explanation to fill in the incomplete knowledge.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

I suppose the biggest problem with science is that facts change, so this kinda ruins the strength of those facts..

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't know. But then again my understanding of Godel is very, very basic.

So I could be wrong. I'll make an attempt here.

If finding a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible this implies to me that the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, etc. are also limited by Godel's theorem given their reliance upon that same system of mathematics. If the hard sciences are limited by this then one can assume that we cannot have perfect knowledge if perfect is defined as a complete model of the universe that is absolutely true.

I don't know if a proper definition of perfect was ever established in reference to the OP but I cannot think of a better definition in relation to this thread. Of course, this is no reason for others to insert a God of the gaps explanation to fill in the incomplete knowledge.

My understanding of Godel's theorem is that it is a statement, "There exists a theorem that it is not possible to prove true or false in any given logical system." However, it says nothing about the structure of that theorem, and that's how physics escapes: physics isn't a system of describing statements as true or false; it is a description of a single system of functions. It doesn't produce theorems derived from axioms, but instead it is simply a collection of theorems about the world.

The equivalent in the art would be Godel saying, "I can prove that it is possible to paint a picture that cannot be a real object." The physicists ask, "We have an object. How do we paint it?"