|
Author
|
Topic: Logical Proof of Intelligent Design
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. October 2003 01:18
Here is the quote from Stephen Hawking himself:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/Initiatives/Millennium/shawking.html
quote:
At the moment computers have an advantage of speed, but they show no sign of intelligence. This is not surprising because our present computers are less complex than the brain of an earthworm, a species not noted for their intellectual powers. But computers obey Moore's Law put forward by Gordon Moore of Intel. This says that their speed and complexity double every 18 months. It is one of these exponential growths which clearly can not continue indefinitely. However it will probably continue until computers have a similar complexity to the human brain.
Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.
This is why I don't believe the science fiction picture of an advanced but constant future. Instead, I expect complexity to increase at a rapid rate, both in the biological and electronic spheres. Not much of this will happen in the next hundred years, which is all we can reliably predict. But by the end of the next millennium, if we get there, the change will be fundamental.
Increasing computational complexity allows for linear, nonlinear, and eventually, even nonalgorithmic processes.
In a universal computation, as wave functions become phase entangled, the information combines analogously to a type of memory storage. Spacetime remembers the input[feedback].
The computational complexity, memory, and creative ability of a universal mind, would be much greater than a human brain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doron Shadmi
Member
Member # 965
|
posted 01. November 2003 06:08
Hi,
Some ideas that I wrote the a pesron named Clara:
If there is no communication we become closed systems, and closed systems find their death by entropy.
Please let me show you some interesting insight through Hebrew language (my language).
Hebrew belongs to a family of languages that are built on 'roots'.
It means that any word is built on some combination of letters, which is not a specific word.
For example: in Hebrew the words ELEM(=MUTENESS) and ALIMOOT(=VIOLENCE) are built on the same root, which is Aleph.Lamed.Mem .
Through this common root we get the insight that the one how can't express himself (=MUTE=ILEM) through communication, becomes VIOLENT(=ALIM).
And VIOLENCE is a form of using energy to destroy complex systems indiscriminately, or in another words, to increase their entropy.
Please be aware to the difference between COMPLEX to COMPLICATED.
Complex systems are based on simple principles that give them the ability to become energy savers.
And being an energy saver means: maximum results out of minimum energy, which implies minimum entropy.
So through this point of view, the model of INFINITY is:
Nor-begining-never-ending zero-entropy that aware to itself.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 10. November 2003 07:24
This is my interpretation of the ontological proofs of Anslem, Leibniz, and Goedel:
1.) A property is positive iff, its negation is not positive.
2.) A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property[self containment].
3.) A positive property is logically consistent.
4.) A property is God-like iff, it contains all positive properties. The term "God" is therefore defined as an unlimited being that is self contained, and contains, all positive properties.
5.)Being God-like is a positive property.
6.) Being a positive property is logically necessary.
7.) Necessary existence is a positive property.
8.) Therefore God exists.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doron Shadmi
Member
Member # 965
|
posted 10. November 2003 12:56
Hi Russell E. Rierson,
1.) A property is positive iff, its negation is not positive.
Therefore God exists iff God does not exist.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 10. November 2003 14:27
Conjecture:
[Mathematical Reality = language] = [Physical Reality = language]
For example:
Einstein:
R_uv - [1/2]g_uv R = 8pi G T_uv
is more correct than
Newton:
F = G m1 m2 /r^2
The Einstein field equations look very elegant and they contain much more information in their tensor formulations with regards to structure of spacetime and its relation to matter and energy, than does the Newtonian law of gravity. Tensors are a generalization of the "vector" concept. So, generalizations can be closer to isomorphism with reality than the more primitive abstract constructs.
So the exact correspondence, i.e. "one to one and onto", becomes a type of "limit", in the compression of information via powerful generalizations. At the limit of informational compressibility, the physical universe is actually a mathematical universe. Does this limit exist?
The limit exists as an inductive proof.
Therefore God exists.
quote:
Doron Shadmi:
1.) A property is positive iff, its negation is not positive.
Therefore God exists iff God does not exist.
3.) A positive property is logically consistent.
P or ~P
Logical consistency means that if property P is true, then negation ~P cannot also be true.
Either P is true, or ~P is true, but not both.
[ 11. November 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 11. November 2003 04:25
I agree with your interpretation of the ontological proofs. That does seem to me to be how they were arguing. This doesn't mean I agree with their conclusion. The same argument can be used for any set of properties that arguably includes "necessary existence", such as the existence of omnipotent evil (necessary existence of omnipotent evil is a negative quality), the existence of the Essence of "N,E(5)" which has all properties that can be referred to in English in 5 words or less and have words starting with "N" and "E" in them (if these are contradictory, throw out properties in inverse dictionary order until the remaining set is noncontradictory), and so on. Also, there is no demonstration that positive properties are not self-contradictory. And there is no indication that the model world in which this set of all positive properties exists actually corresponds to our world.
(Positive properties that might be self-contradictory would include things like compassion and responsibility; with infinite compassion, you'd help everyone out of the messes they created for themselves, and with perfect responsibility, you'd always let them deal with their own messes.)
Also, I can see where one can have a limit existing as an inductive proof (or by other methods), but I don't see where the "therefore God exists" comes from. What premise is that conclusion based on?
[ 11. November 2003, 05:54: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 12. November 2003 06:54
quote:
Rex:
Also, I can see where one can have a limit existing as an inductive proof (or by other methods), but I don't see where the "therefore God exists" comes from. What premise is that conclusion based on?
Thanks Rex. I beleive you are correct. The "therefore God exists" does not necessarily follow. I made another hopefully improved rough draft:
An interpretation of Anslem, Langan, Leibniz, and Goedel:
1.) The mind exists.
2.) The mind perceives existence.
3.) That which sustains the existence of mind, is logically prior to existence of mind. Therefore perceptions, "positive properties" P, have an existence. That which sustains the related "positive properties" of existence is necessarily a "holistic property"; because properties can only relate to other properties within a holistic medium, a holistic property is also a positive property .
4.) A positive property P, is real, iff, its negation ~P, is not real.
5.) A positive property is logically consistent. P or ~P , but not both.
6.) A property is God-like, iff, it sustains all positive properties.
7.) Therefore, being God-like is a holistic property, hence, being God-like is a positive property.
8.) NE[x]: x necessarily exists if it is an essential property
9.) Being NE is God-like
10.) Necessarily there is some x , such, that x is God-like.
IP: Logged
|
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 12. November 2003 11:12
Russ
Trying to go through your argument...
1.) The mind exists.
Okay (I assume you mean your own mind, rather than anything more contraversial).
2.) The mind perceives existence.
Okay.
3.) That which sustains the existence of mind, is logically prior to existence of mind.
Okay.
3a.) Therefore perceptions, "positive properties" P, have an existence.
I do not see how this follows from 3, I think you are confusing (or conflating) existence with the perception of existence. Nevertheless, I would accept it as true.
3b.) That which sustains the related "positive properties" of existence is necessarily a "holistic property"
[This sentence is ambiguous in exactly what follows from what. I have broken it up according to my best guess.] You certainly could claim this as a definition of "holistic property", otherwise perhaps u could explain the term.
3c.) Properties can only relate to other properties within a holistic medium, .
Again, you could claim this as a definition of "holistic medium".
3d.) Therefore a holistic property is also a positive property
This begs the question, what sustains related negative properties? Would that not be a "holistic property" too, and would this holistic property then be negative?
4.) A positive property P, is real, if, its negation ~P, is not real.
I do not get this. This suggests tall, honest and good are not positive properties, as clearly short, dishonest and evil are real properties.
5.) A positive property is logically consistent. P or ~P , but not both.
Seems true of any property.
6.) A property is God-like, if, it sustains all positive properties.
Why is this so (or is this a definition of God-like)?
7.) Therefore, being God-like is a holistic property.
This would follow from 6 and 3b.
7a.) Therefore, being God-like is a positive property.
This would follow from 7 and 3d.
8.) NE[x]: x necessarily exists if it is an essential property
This seems to be a definition of "essential property", so is okay.
9.) Being NE is God-like
I do not understand this. Having defined NE[x] one way, you seem to be using NE in an entirely different way. Is the property "being", i.e. NE[being] or the property "being" is an essential property? Why is "being" an essential property? I guess that "being" would be a positive property if statement 4 was true.
10.) Necessarily there is some x , such, that x is God-like.
I guess this follows from 9, if we accept that "being" is an essential property and a positive property.
Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 12. November 2003 14:30
quote:
Again, you could claim this as a definition of "holistic medium".
3d.) Therefore a holistic property is also a positive property
This begs the question, what sustains related negative properties? Would that not be a "holistic property" too, and would this holistic property then be negative?
4.) A positive property P, is real, if, its negation ~P, is not real.
I do not get this. This suggests tall, honest and good are not positive properties, as clearly short, dishonest and evil are real properties.
Thanks for the help Pixie ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
"Holistic" can be defined as an interacting whole entity that is more than the sum of its parts.
Positive properties can be defined as existing properties with "negative properties" being defined as that which does not exist. Tall, honest, good, short, dishonest, evil, are all positive properties following from the definitions.
3 needs more work.
Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. November 2003 21:18
This is an interpretation of Anslem, Langan, Leibniz, Goedel, and Hartshorne.
1.] Matter is a form of energy; energy is primary to matter.
2.] Energy is defined[ in physics] as the ability to do work.
3.] Work is defined as [Force*Distance].
4.] Force is an aspect of a distributed field; fields are primary to energy.
5.] Physical laws determine the dynamics of quantum fields; physical law is primary to fields.
6.] Physical laws must have a principle of organization.
7.] Either physical laws result from a unifying principle of organization, or, physical laws result from an infinite regress.
8.] Infinite regress is an absurdity, therefore, physical laws are the result of an organizing principle.
9.] "Organizing principle" implies purpose, purpose implies mind.
10.] Organizing principle is derivative of mind, therefore mind is primary to physical law.
11.]The mind that is primary to physical law is called "God"
Definition:
G = God = creator
C = creation = that wich is created
C is dependent on G.
Without G, C would not exist.
P--->Q
means "if P then Q" ,
P
therefore Q
[1.] G is necessary or G is impossible, G or not-G
[2..] If G exists, G's existence is necessary, "N" , G--->N[G]
[3.] The existence of G is not a contradiction
[4.] Therefore G is not impossible
[5.] N[G] or not-N[G]
[6.] not-N[G]--->N[not-N[G]]
[7.] N[G] or N[not-N[G]]
[8.] N[not-N[G]] --->N[not-G]
[9.] N[G] or N[not-G]
[10.] not-N[not-G]
[11.] N[G]
[12.] G
`
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 24. November 2003 06:46
There still seem to be a few gaps in the logic. For instance, you never argue that organizing principles are primary to physical law. Rather, you argue that physical law has an organizing princple. (Analogy: matter is primary to a car. A turn signal is not, but a car has a turn signal.)
Also, even if we accept that organizing princple implies purpose which implies mind, what mind is being implied? For example, if I call something an organizing principle, the statement is true as I have a purpose in applying that label, and I have a mind. But my impression is that you wanted something more fundamental than that.
Finally, you label the mind primary to physical law "God", but you don't show that this mind is unique. If there are, say, six billion such minds, do we call them all God?
I have numerous other problems with the argument, but before disagreeing with the premises, it'd be helpful to at least have the logic complete.
-------------
With the second bit, I'm a little confused as to whether the existence of unicorns is a contradiction. I don't believe in unicorns, but I can't see a contradiction in a universe just like ours except wherein unicorns exist. The logic you use would seem to suggest that unicorns must necessarily exist in this universe...or that unicorns are a contradiction?
Likewise, I can imagine a completely consistent universe without narwhals, but apparently since they exist they are necessary. This is an unusual way of looking at things, to say the least.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic