Jump to content
DaniWhite

God and science

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't believe it is. And you have not provided any convincing reason for me to change my mind.

That is a non-sequitur.

Physics is a description of the universe. Therefore our description of the universe is based on mathematics. A description of the universe is not the universe itself.

"A map is not the territory."

Maybe you should do an introductory course in philosophy so you understand what logic is, how to avoid fallacies, and the difference between a signifier and the signified.

 It doesn't have to "be" the universe itself to be a fundamental aspect of it's operation. You can't refute that the universe obeys the laws of physics and the equations that physics uses to make predictions about the universe. It is reasonable to conclude that mathematics is part of the operation of the universe when it is not only geometrical, but obeys certain equations. That could only mean that the universe is mathematical if it obeys equations, because if it didn't function mathematically, it could not obey equations.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have already proved that you don't so there is no point repeating that. No one believes you.

You haven't demonstrated that you are able to reason about my points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You can't refute that the universe obeys the laws of physics and the equations that physics uses to make predictions about the universe.

You have that the wrong way round. The universe doesn't obey our laws of physics, our laws attempt to describe (not always correctly) the way the universe works.

5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

That could only mean that the universe is mathematical if it obeys equations, because if it didn't function mathematically, it could not obey equations.

1. Your conclusion does not allow from the premise.

2. The universe does not obey equations, our equations attempt to describe the way the universe behaves.

3. Our mathematical descriptions are incomplete, approximate and only apply in limited circumstances. (Which is one reason I don't believe that mathematics is part of the operation of the universe).

7 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You haven't demonstrated that you are able to reason about my points

Says the guy who doesn't know what logic is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have that the wrong way round. The universe doesn't obey our laws of physics, our laws attempt to describe (not always correctly) the way the universe works.

1. Your conclusion does not allow from the premise.

2. The universe does not obey equations, our equations attempt to describe the way the universe behaves.

3. Our mathematical descriptions are incomplete, approximate and only apply in limited circumstances. (Which is one reason I don't believe that mathematics is part of the operation of the universe).

Equations can make predictions that can be measured and quantified. They don't have to be complete or exact for the universe to operate based on them (although modern physics is very accurate). How could the universe be described by mathematics if mathematics had nothing to do with the universe? The universe is geometrical, and mathematics is used to describe geometry. That alone shows that mathematics is a part of the operation of the universe, because it has quantities which can be measured and so mathematical models can be proven with those measurements. This would not only prove the mathematical model true, but it proves that the universe functions according to that mathematical principle. If the universe was not operating mathematically, it could not form an output which can be measured (such as gravitational force) which depends, in a mathematical way, on other quantities which can be measured (such as distance).

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Says the guy who doesn't know what logic is.

Says the guy that doesn't understand how geometry is a part of the universe.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Says the guy that doesn't understand how geometry is a part of the universe.

Can you please describe this in some details? Seeing how you know so much about this subject.

But please don't plot twist this into sacred geometry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Says the guy that doesn't understand how geometry is a part of the universe.

I understand how our invention of geometry can be used to describe the universe, to some extent. But that doesn't necessarily say that geometry is part of the universe.

15 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

They don't have to be complete or exact for the universe to operate based on them

So the universe is based on incomplete mathematics? Or only approximately based on mathematics?

Once upon a time, we described the universe describing Euclidean mathematics. Presumably, at that time, you would have insisted that the universe was Euclidean.

Now we can also describe the universe as a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. So, presumably you think that is what the universe is.

But in future there may be a completely different, perhaps quantised, description of the universe and you will insist, that is the way the universe really is.

But all those models will still work. So you can't say that any of them are how the universe really is. They are just descriptions. They provide no basis for saying what the universe really is. 

We don't know, and can't know, what the universe really is, so it is a bit silly to claim that your belief is correct when it is likely to be overthrown in future. Your religious/Platonic beliefs have no basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

 How could the universe be described by mathematics if mathematics had nothing to do with the universe?

 

You are either very confused or just a troll. 

For instance, I can describe the tree I view from my window, but that description has no impact on the tree. 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

How could the universe be described by mathematics if mathematics had nothing to do with the universe?

How could the universe be described by words if words had nothing to do with the universe? (Perhaps that is your justification for the opening of the Gospel of John.)

But words, like mathematics, are just useful human invention. They are not an essential part of the universe "out there".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2017 at 5:00 PM, studiot said:
On 14/11/2017 at 11:49 PM, Endercreeper01 said:

If you look through the lens of science, the universe cannot be described as anything more than a mathematical system.

Godel killed Hilbert's dream a nearly century ago.

 

Firstly you still haven't answered this.

Did you or someone else disprove Godel's two theorems whilst I was in the bath?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10.11.2017 at 0:15 PM, Prometheus said:

 

 

Quote

Why do you limit your options to 'god did it' or 'everything popped out of nothing'? What about it didn't start, i.e. it's always existed? What about 'we don't know'? Also, as i understand it physicists have found that things do simply pop into existence.

Everything seems to have a beginning and an end and some kind of development or change between these two stages. I as a human being have a beginning and an end. I know I can't life forerver. Maybe if I would live forever and wouldn't have concepts of beginning and end the idea of the universe as beeing there since eternety would not be so strange to me. But in the world I experience nothing comes out of thin air. There is some causation.

Quote

And yes, i'm frequently astonished by existence. Why does that imply god?

I mean if there would be nothing, I would not be bothered so much by existence. Or if the universe and life wouldn't be so complex and beautiful a need for god wouldn' be there. If there only were a plain rock planet and only a few worms, and I would be one of the worms, maybe I wouldnt think, wow this is so amazing, this must be made by a creator. When I go into a kitchen and I find some wheat flour and some ther powders lying there. Ok . But if there is a cake with 5 storeys, nice color, ornaments, and a fantastic smell and it tastes delicious, I say, wow, who did that? How can a fantastic cake compound itself and it no big deal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

Everything seems to have a beginning and an end and some kind of development or change between these two stages. I as a human being have a beginning and an end. I know I can't life forerver. Maybe if I would live forever and wouldn't have concepts of beginning and end the idea of the universe as beeing there since eternety would not be so strange to me. But in the world I experience nothing comes out of thin air. There is some causation

So far as we know, many fundamental particles (eg the electron) have no natural end and no one can definitely say they had a beginning either.

This not only applies at the microscale but also at the largest scale of all to the universe itself.

Unlike Voltaire I don't need a crutch.

Quote

If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

When I go into a kitchen and I find some wheat flour and some ther powders lying there. Ok . But if there is a cake with 5 storeys, nice color, ornaments, and a fantastic smell and it tastes delicious, I say, wow, who did that? How can a fantastic cake compound itself and it no big deal...

Argument from credulity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do crystals growing, breaking apart and regrowing; also require a deity?

Honestly, even having basically an infinite number of chances could have been enough by itself. Have the feeling odds are not really all that low though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

Everything seems to have a beginning and an end and some kind of development or change between these two stages. I as a human being have a beginning and an end. I know I can't life forerver. Maybe if I would live forever and wouldn't have concepts of beginning and end the idea of the universe as beeing there since eternety would not be so strange to me. But in the world I experience nothing comes out of thin air. There is some causation.

And the world seems flat from where i'm sitting: which is enough to convince the many flat-earthers. We evolved to see faces in the bushes, our pattern recognition ability is meant to keep us alive and shagging, not explore the truth. I can appreciate that a lot of ideas in modern physic are counter-intuitive - but that doesn't make them wrong. It just means we have to use a little more imagination.

I'll use any excuse to listen to Carl Sagan explain it:

 

 

16 hours ago, Strange said:

Argument from credulity?

Argument from design isn't it? Which i guess itself is an from incredulity: 'i just can't believe something complicated can arise from something simple'. They need to see some fractals or Conway's game of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

And the world seems flat from where i'm sitting: which is enough to convince the many flat-earthers. We evolved to see faces in the bushes, our pattern recognition ability is meant to keep us alive and shagging, not explore the truth. I can appreciate that a lot of ideas in modern physic are counter-intuitive - but that doesn't make them wrong. It just means we have to use a little more imagination.

I'll use any excuse to listen to Carl Sagan explain it:

 

1

Who doesn't? But I think perhaps Douglas Adams puts it more succinctly and without the need to interrogate/dismiss a lost/misunderstood civilisation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Do crystals growing, breaking apart and regrowing; also require a deity?

Honestly, even having basically an infinite number of chances could have been enough by itself. Have the feeling odds are not really all that low though.

Does god have to be a deity?

On 11/22/2017 at 2:51 PM, DaniWhite said:

 

Everything seems to have a beginning and an end and some kind of development or change between these two stages. I as a human being have a beginning and an end. I know I can't life forerver. Maybe if I would live forever and wouldn't have concepts of beginning and end the idea of the universe as beeing there since eternety would not be so strange to me. But in the world I experience nothing comes out of thin air. There is some causation.

I mean if there would be nothing, I would not be bothered so much by existence. Or if the universe and life wouldn't be so complex and beautiful a need for god wouldn' be there. If there only were a plain rock planet and only a few worms, and I would be one of the worms, maybe I wouldnt think, wow this is so amazing, this must be made by a creator. When I go into a kitchen and I find some wheat flour and some ther powders lying there. Ok . But if there is a cake with 5 storeys, nice color, ornaments, and a fantastic smell and it tastes delicious, I say, wow, who did that? How can a fantastic cake compound itself and it no big deal...

May I add that god need not be strictly a deity as some may imagine god to be.

On 11/22/2017 at 11:16 AM, studiot said:

 

Firstly you still haven't answered this.

Did you or someone else disprove Godel's two theorems whilst I was in the bath?

 

 

 

Explain to me how Godel's theorems would go against anything that I say.

On 11/22/2017 at 9:41 AM, Strange said:

How could the universe be described by words if words had nothing to do with the universe? (Perhaps that is your justification for the opening of the Gospel of John.)

But words, like mathematics, are just useful human invention. They are not an essential part of the universe "out there".

Seriously? Comparing words and mathematics does not make any sense whatsoever.

On 11/22/2017 at 9:35 AM, dimreepr said:

You are either very confused or just a troll. 

For instance, I can describe the tree I view from my window, but that description has no impact on the tree. 

So are you saying that the universe does not operate according to mathematics?

On 11/22/2017 at 9:16 AM, Strange said:

I understand how our invention of geometry can be used to describe the universe, to some extent. But that doesn't necessarily say that geometry is part of the universe.

So the universe is based on incomplete mathematics? Or only approximately based on mathematics?

Once upon a time, we described the universe describing Euclidean mathematics. Presumably, at that time, you would have insisted that the universe was Euclidean.

Now we can also describe the universe as a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. So, presumably you think that is what the universe is.

But in future there may be a completely different, perhaps quantised, description of the universe and you will insist, that is the way the universe really is.

But all those models will still work. So you can't say that any of them are how the universe really is. They are just descriptions. They provide no basis for saying what the universe really is. 

We don't know, and can't know, what the universe really is, so it is a bit silly to claim that your belief is correct when it is likely to be overthrown in future. Your religious/Platonic beliefs have no basis.

When did I say that the universe "is" geometry? It's not about what the universe fundamentally "is" but how it operates. I have stated this numerous times in my previous posts. You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between something "being" what the universe fundamentally "is" versus being an integral aspect of the universe's function. It's not that the universe "is" geometry, but that it operates BY geometry and mathematical algorithms which dictate it's operation. There are algorithms which dictate the function and operation of the universe, to say that such algorithms are not a part of the universe would be saying that the universe does not have any rules by which it functions by. If the universe operates according to certain rules and principles, it must be operating according to certain rules and algorithms. There is no other way that the universe could operate and still follow certain rules and principles if the universe was not like this.

It is clear that the universe is based in 4-dimensional space-time.

Are you seriously not aware that Euclidean and pseudo-Riemann models of manifolds are not mutually exclusive of each other? A Euclidean manifold can still be a pseudo-Riemann manifold. The fact that the universe is not Euclidean means that space-time is something "real" in and of itself which can be curved, which makes the "realness" of space-time an integral aspect of the operation of the universe. The only difference in the models you stated is in how the way that the geometry of space-time behaves, but they don't dispute whether the universe is based in 4 dimensional space-time.

The universe functions in accordance with the laws of physics. Certain quantities, such as force and energy, are related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration in accordance with algorithms which relate such quantities and can be described in an equation. The universe clearly operates in a certain manner that can be distinguished from other possibilities in which the universe could operate by. For example, the gravitational constant could be imagined to be a different value, and that would make the universe operate in a different way by altering the strength of the gravitational force, which is something which can be measured.

The universe's mechanical and physical operation are not random, there are rules which describe how certain measurable quantities (such as the force of gravity) relate to other measurable quantities (such as the distance between two masses). These relations are dictated by rules which relate the quantities to one another, these rules are called algorithms. The universe's operation is in accordance with these specific algorithms which can only be part of the universe itself.

Are you arguing that the universe does not base the rules by which it functions on mathematical algorithms and the geometrical structure of four dimensional space-time? It's clear that the universe must operate according to certain rules and principles that dictate the way that the universe mechanically and physically operates. The universe's function is dictated by something, and that something is based on it's structure in space-time and specific algorithms. There is no way that the universe can't be based in algorithms if it is clear that the universe has rules that it operates by, which are necessary for the universe to work a certain way and not a different way.

On 11/22/2017 at 8:46 AM, Silvestru said:

Can you please describe this in some details? Seeing how you know so much about this subject.

But please don't plot twist this into sacred geometry.

It's simple: The universe operates in a certain way, in accordance with the laws of physics. The algorithms by which the universe functions, in order for quantities such as force and energy to be related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration, and in order for space time to be something which can be "curved", must base it's functioning in four dimensional space-time to function in such a manner.

As for sacred geometry, it is basically the idea of certain geometrical concepts being associated with a spiritual significance. If you are talking about this idea in a strictly scientific sense, then you can't necessarily prove that something has spiritual significance, but that doesn't mean that the idea of sacred geometry can't be supported by observation. For example, the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals are observed in nature. One could relate this to their own previous ideas about spiritual significance to reason that the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals have some sort of significance. It would only make sense in the context of previous ideas about spirituality that such a feature would have spiritual significance. While not exactly scientific, that doesn't make it wrong. It can still be correct without being scientific.
It could be related to the idea of god in that sacred geometry would be "divine" in a sense.

10 hours ago, Prometheus said:

And the world seems flat from where i'm sitting: which is enough to convince the many flat-earthers. We evolved to see faces in the bushes, our pattern recognition ability is meant to keep us alive and shagging, not explore the truth. I can appreciate that a lot of ideas in modern physic are counter-intuitive - but that doesn't make them wrong. It just means we have to use a little more imagination.

I'll use any excuse to listen to Carl Sagan explain it:

 

 

Argument from design isn't it? Which i guess itself is an from incredulity: 'i just can't believe something complicated can arise from something simple'. They need to see some fractals or Conway's game of life.

The question is not just "why is the universe so complex" but "why does the universe exist at all" and "why does consciousness exist in the first place". There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the emergence of consciousness. The concept of god arises as something which would have led to the processes that created the complexity in the first place, and also being something which leads to the emergence of consciousness. While not a scientific concept, that doesn't make it wrong.

Science doesn't have to be the only way of obtaining knowledge. Just because something is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method does not mean it is wrong.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Does god have to be a deity?

Yes. That is what “god” means. 

7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Seriously? Comparing words and mathematics does not make any sense whatsoever.

They are both languages we use to describe the world around us. So it seems to make perfect sense. Do you have any rational argument for why they are not similar?

7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

So are you saying that the universe does not operate according to mathematics?

It isn’t obvious that is the case. There are arguments on both sides (although you haven’t presented any). 

7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not that the universe "is" geometry, but that it operates BY geometry and mathematical algorithms which dictate

That doesn’t change my argument at all. Just because we can describe the universe with math/words/geometry/watercolours doesn’t mean that the universe operates by math/words/geometry/watercolours. 

You have a simple and naive opinion based purely on your religious belief rather than logic. 

7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Are you arguing that the universe does not base the rules by which it functions on mathematical algorithms and the geometrical structure of four dimensional space-time?

I am saying that is just a description. In the same way as Newtonian gravity describes it as a force. So, as you think the universe works according to our description, does that force exist?

Or does the universe only work according to some of our descriptions and not others?

Or did your god stop operating the world according to Newtonian mathematics 100 years ago?

Ther may be an alternative mathematical description in future. Will you then have to insist that the universe doesn’t really operate as 4D space-time after all. 

You seem to suffer from a mediaeval belief that science is about truth. It isn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The question is not just "why is the universe so complex" but "why does the universe exist at all" and "why does consciousness exist in the first place".

It's a question for some people and that particular point was for someone else.

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the emergence of consciousness.

Yet.

Unless you want to say gravity didn't exist 500 years ago: before then there was no scientific mechanism which could have explained why down was down. There are quite a few scientific hypotheses out there about how consciousness arises so people are working on it. I take it you think computers cannot be conscious no matter how complex and convincing their behaviour?

 

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The concept of god arises as something which would have led to the processes that created the complexity in the first place, and also being something which leads to the emergence of consciousness. While not a scientific concept, that doesn't make it wrong.

And it is a useless concept which explains precisely nothing. Worried that things can't have existed forever - no problem make up something called god and say it can exist forever. What has that explained? Can't fathom how consciousness can arise - dally no more, invent something called god and claim he did it. What has that explained?

Why are people so scared to just say 'i don't know'?

 

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science doesn't have to be the only way of obtaining knowledge. Just because something is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method does not mean it is wrong.

I quite agree. But a).those other methods still need thought and rigour and b.) some phenomena are perfectly suited to investigation via the scientific method. Consciousness is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the emergence of consciousness.

There is no complete explanation. That doesn't mean there is no mechanism. Just that we don't fully understand it yet. 

#GodOfTheGaps

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science doesn't have to be the only way of obtaining knowledge. Just because something is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method does not mean it is wrong.

Therefore you agree that mathematics is not the only way of describing the universe, so there is no reason to assume it operates on the basis of that description.

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The concept of god arises as something which would have led to the processes that created the complexity in the first place, and also being something which leads to the emergence of consciousness. While not a scientific concept, that doesn't make it wrong.

But it does relegate it to the level of superstition based on fear of the unknown, rather than a rational explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.11.2017 at 10:54 AM, Strange said:

There is no evidence for that so I wouldn’t say that. On the other hand, just because you, personally, find it implausible doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. That is the fallacy of arguing from incredulity/ignorance. 

Beauty is in our heads, not the universe. We find things beautiful because we have grown up (evolved) with them. 

And, yes, the universe is complex. But I doubt a simple universe could exist. 

Why do you think there is a will involved? That is just anthropomorphising the universe (and she hates that). 

It seems you are creating your own version of the universe and then trying to explain that, instead of understanding the universe as it is. 

Yes, beauty enters the world through our existence. A star or a rock can’t find the universe beautiful, but we can. But there is a foundation out there in the universe that is needed for me to find the universe beautiful.


Because why does the universe evolves to more complex life forms? Why doesn’t the universe say, ok, mikrobes are fine. Worms are ok. Why all the long jouney to us? Why using evolution to develop the species? I mean, if there is no will or no wish, then there wouldn’t be the complexity. I mean, couldn’t the universe life with just rocks, or simple life forms? Why all the effort in creating higher life forms? What does the univers “gain” out of it? If the answer ist nothing, so whats the matter of starting the evolutionary process in the first place?


Nietzsche said: “There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be.”
As a human being I have a persepective, maybe we can not get rid of a perspective completely. I think we  are far away from understanding the universe as it is. To many open questions.

I mean with the same basis of scientific knowledge, some scientists decide, that they believe in god. Others don’t. They have the same raw material but make their own conclusions out of it. We do not have the evidence yet, to say how the universe truly is.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

But there is a foundation out there in the universe that is needed for me to find the universe beautiful.

It is because we have evolved in the universe. 

49 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

Because why does the universe evolves to more complex life forms? Why doesn’t the universe say, ok, mikrobes are fine. Worms are ok. Why all the long jouney to us? Why using evolution to develop the species?

Because it is possible, it happens. I isn't planned or driven.

49 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

I mean, if there is no will or no wish, then there wouldn’t be the complexity.

Evidence? Or just opinion?

It seems the complexity has arisen with no will or wish that it should. 

51 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

What does the univers “gain” out of it?

The universe gains nothing. It is purely driven by the needs of populations (ultimately, the only thing that gains from it is the genome.)

52 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

I mean with the same basis of scientific knowledge, some scientists decide, that they believe in god. Others don’t.

That is because it is a matter of faith and nothing to do with science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Strange said:

Yes. That is what “god” means. 

They are both languages we use to describe the world around us. So it seems to make perfect sense. Do you have any rational argument for why they are not similar?

It isn’t obvious that is the case. There are arguments on both sides (although you haven’t presented any). 

That doesn’t change my argument at all. Just because we can describe the universe with math/words/geometry/watercolours doesn’t mean that the universe operates by math/words/geometry/watercolours. 

You have a simple and naive opinion based purely on your religious belief rather than logic. 

I am saying that is just a description. In the same way as Newtonian gravity describes it as a force. So, as you think the universe works according to our description, does that force exist?

Or does the universe only work according to some of our descriptions and not others?

Or did your god stop operating the world according to Newtonian mathematics 100 years ago?

Ther may be an alternative mathematical description in future. Will you then have to insist that the universe doesn’t really operate as 4D space-time after all. 

You seem to suffer from a mediaeval belief that science is about truth. It isn’t. 

What is mathematics describing? It is describing how the universe operates. It doesn't have to be a perfect description to be an accurate one. If the universe operates a certain way that can be described by mathematics, then what the mathematics is really describing is algorithms which dictate how the universe functions. My argument is that the universe functions on algorithms, while mathematics describes those algorithms. It's not math that "is" part of the universe, but algorithms which are a part of the universe's functioning. That is why mathematics can make predictions, because it is describing algorithms.

Words do not describe algorithms, they describe things and their relation to one another.

13 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Yet.

Unless you want to say gravity didn't exist 500 years ago: before then there was no scientific mechanism which could have explained why down was down. There are quite a few scientific hypotheses out there about how consciousness arises so people are working on it. I take it you think computers cannot be conscious no matter how complex and convincing their behaviour?

How can something be proven to be conscious? Consciousness is not just about a machine such as the brain being able to process information in a way that it appears to have it's own subjective experience, but actually having such subjective experience. This would mean that the consciousness would be the thing that is experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and subjective experience and sentience that the brain, as a machine, appears to have. as a result of it's functioning.

If something cannot be proven to be conscious, then the scientific hypothesis for how consciousness arises would not be able to be tested.

I am not aware of any scientific hypotheses describing how the brain (which can be described as a machine), can produce consciousness, as in sentience and subjective experience (qualia).

I do not suppose computers would be conscious as a result of being sufficiently complex and/or convincing enough. The only way I would accept a computer to be truly conscious is when a workable mechanism for human consciousness is worked out, and not just being a matter of complexity and appearance, and for a computer to adhere to those mechanism which produce consciousness.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What is mathematics describing? It is describing how the universe operates. It doesn't have to be a perfect description to be an accurate one. If the universe operates a certain way that can be described by mathematics, then what the mathematics is really describing is algorithms which dictate how the universe functions. My argument is that the universe functions on algorithms, while mathematics describes those algorithms. It's not math that "is" part of the universe, but algorithms which are a part of the universe's functioning. That is why mathematics can make predictions, because it is describing algorithms.

Words do not describe algorithms, they describe things and their relation to one another.

How can something be proven to be conscious? Consciousness is not just about a machine such as the brain being able to process information in a way that it appears to have it's own subjective experience, but actually having such subjective experience. This would mean that the consciousness would be the thing that is experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and subjective experience and sentience that the brain, as a machine, appears to have. as a result of it's functioning.

If something cannot be proven to be conscious, then the scientific hypothesis for how consciousness arises would not be able to be tested.

I am not aware of any scientific hypotheses describing how the brain (which can be described as a machine), can produce consciousness, as in sentience and subjective experience (qualia).

I do not suppose computers would be conscious as a result of being sufficiently complex and/or convincing enough. The only way I would accept a computer to be truly conscious is when a workable mechanism for human consciousness is worked out, and not just being a matter of complexity and appearance, and for a computer to adhere to those mechanism which produce consciousness.

 

 

You seem to have it the wrong way around. Mathematics is the language of nature, it describes what is going on around us - what is around us does not contain mathematics in an intrinsic sense. Its like saying that you are built based on English because you use that language in your posts. Try to think about what Strange and others are saying and try to notice the different point of view. Here’s a dancing ballerina illusion for refference on getting the different view.

 

DDAB4FD7-746B-4CEE-9B07-68CE6BDDE7C5.gif

 

Edited by koti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

Because why does the universe evolves to more complex life forms? Why doesn’t the universe say, ok, mikrobes are fine. Worms are ok. Why all the long jouney to us? Why using evolution to develop the species? I mean, if there is no will or no wish, then there wouldn’t be the complexity. I mean, couldn’t the universe life with just rocks, or simple life forms? Why all the effort in creating higher life forms? What does the univers “gain” out of it? If the answer ist nothing, so whats the matter of starting the evolutionary process in the first place?

It doesn't say anything. It isn't using evolution. The universe doesn't gain anything. Why insist the universe has such human tendencies?

So what's the point of it all? Well why does does there need to be one? Just to satisfy people who crave purpose to the universe it seems. Which is no reason at all. You have presupposed purpose and then used that to prove to yourself there is purpose - can you see how this reasoning is flawed? These processes are part of the dance of the universe which maybe we'll explain to our satisfaction and maybe we won't. But it's OK to say we don't know - far better than saying, 'erm, yeah, something called god did it - that's all that explained then'.

Even if we say god did it what has that explained? The universe is complicated because he wanted it that way. But why? Nothing has been gained or explained. Except for people afraid of the bizarre nature of the universe, who want to explain things in familiar terms - desire, purpose, will. A being with desires? i can understand that - but this quantum fluctuation stuff - far too abstract. It's often said scientists lack imagination because they deny cool stuff like the supernatural, but when we really look at it we see it's theists who really lack imagination as they need to couch everything in terms of a being with motives and desires - just like them.

Play Conway's game of life, watch a Mandelbrot zoom (or better yet, create them yourself). Observe how extremely complex patterns emerge from the iteration of some ridiculously simple rules for yourself. Then actually learn some basic sciences and observe how complexity arises,

 

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am not aware of any scientific hypotheses describing how the brain (which can be described as a machine), can produce consciousness, as in sentience and subjective experience (qualia).

 

You not being aware of hypotheses is not the same as them not existing. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about all the scientific hypotheses about consciousness, but why would you remain so wilfully ignorant when it's obviously a subject you're interested in and why would you argue from this position of ignorance so strongly? 

After about 10 seconds on google i found three: the Perceptronium,  the Orchestrated Objective Reduction hypothesis and the Astonishing hypothesis. 

 

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

How can something be proven to be conscious? Consciousness is not just about a machine such as the brain being able to process information in a way that it appears to have it's own subjective experience, but actually having such subjective experience. This would mean that the consciousness would be the thing that is experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and subjective experience and sentience that the brain, as a machine, appears to have. as a result of it's functioning.

If something cannot be proven to be conscious, then the scientific hypothesis for how consciousness arises would not be able to be tested.

I do not suppose computers would be conscious as a result of being sufficiently complex and/or convincing enough. The only way I would accept a computer to be truly conscious is when a workable mechanism for human consciousness is worked out, and not just being a matter of complexity and appearance, and for a computer to adhere to those mechanism which produce consciousness.

If you are being consistent then you should also not accept other humans beings are conscious. After all, how do you prove they are conscious? 

 

By the way - are you ever going to answer Studiot's questions about the Incompleteness theorem? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, koti said:

You seem to have it the wrong way around. Mathematics is the language of nature, it describes what is going on around us - what is around us does not contain mathematics in an intrinsic sense. Its like saying that you are built based on English because you use that language in your posts. Try to think about what Strange and others are saying and try to notice the different point of view. Here’s a dancing ballerina illusion for refference on getting the different view.

 

DDAB4FD7-746B-4CEE-9B07-68CE6BDDE7C5.gif

 

Mathematics is describing algorithms. My argument is not that mathematics is an intrinsic part of the universe, but that the universe functions based on algorithms.

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

It doesn't say anything. It isn't using evolution. The universe doesn't gain anything. Why insist the universe has such human tendencies?

So what's the point of it all? Well why does does there need to be one? Just to satisfy people who crave purpose to the universe it seems. Which is no reason at all. You have presupposed purpose and then used that to prove to yourself there is purpose - can you see how this reasoning is flawed? These processes are part of the dance of the universe which maybe we'll explain to our satisfaction and maybe we won't. But it's OK to say we don't know - far better than saying, 'erm, yeah, something called god did it - that's all that explained then'.

Even if we say god did it what has that explained? The universe is complicated because he wanted it that way. But why? Nothing has been gained or explained. Except for people afraid of the bizarre nature of the universe, who want to explain things in familiar terms - desire, purpose, will. A being with desires? i can understand that - but this quantum fluctuation stuff - far too abstract. It's often said scientists lack imagination because they deny cool stuff like the supernatural, but when we really look at it we see it's theists who really lack imagination as they need to couch everything in terms of a being with motives and desires - just like them.

Play Conway's game of life, watch a Mandelbrot zoom (or better yet, create them yourself). Observe how extremely complex patterns emerge from the iteration of some ridiculously simple rules for yourself. Then actually learn some basic sciences and observe how complexity arises,

If we are not to make assumptions about the nature of god and be rational about the concept, "god" can be considered an agent of change in the universe, the nature of which is not fully understood. In this way, we are not confusing "god" with the symbolism that is used to describe god.

If "god did it" then what that explains is there is a reason why humans are supposed to exist in the universe.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.