Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:30 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm
I wish you would get off that "Turing-completeness" thing. Turing-complete refers specifically to his creative mechanisms, not to his conclusions.
No. Turing-complete is a property of a logic system. It has nothing to do with Turing himself. It's just named in his honour.
In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer's instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any Turing machine.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm
It has to exhaust ALL possible inputs in its domain to be 'complete'.
Exactly.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm
A 'Turing' machine is a specific architecture design, like a particular Intel model chip. Each chip CAN be designed differently.
No. It's not. A turing machine is anything but specific. Lambda calculus is UNIVERSAL (in terms of utility, not universal in terms of the universe) yet purely theoretic.

It imposes no implementation-specifics whatsoever on you or anyone. Those are merely reliazability concerns.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm
But he had to require ONE specific architecture PRIOR to doing the experiment to demonstrate incompleteness of all possible PROGRAMS written in it. Each program on its machine level speaks the same to its architecture. But the programs that are made act as distinct machine VIRTUAL designs, ...meaning they can be used to design distinct "embedded" electronics that are less than the 'general' computer. Then he showed that of all possible arrangements of ones and zeros that make up a program within the memory of an 'ideal infinite' general computer's memory that could be designed to be as large as possible, could not 'finitely' complete all computing tasks without requiring NEW hardware.
Nope. you don't understand the Halting problem and the close relationship between Godel's incompleteness and the Halting problem.

They are THE SAME observation/conclusion/consequence. Mathematically isomorphic.

incompleteness and undecidability are conjoined at the hip.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710
when I teach Gödel to computer scientists, I like to sidestep the nasty details of how you formalize the concept of “provability in F.” (From a modern computer-science perspective, Gödel numbering is a barf-inducingly ugly hack!)

Instead, I simply observe Gödel’s Theorem as a trivial corollary of what I see as its conceptually-prior (even though historically-later) cousin: Turing’s Theorem on the unsolvability of the halting problem.

This is not me claiming it - this is Scott Aronson claiming it (because clearly appeals to authority are required over and above argumentation) :)
QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:27 pm

logik, Although I appreciate discussions about Turing with you, let's keep this on specific topic and leave that for us to debate elsewhere. The point of this topic is about whether we can or cannot determine the appearance of the singularity AS a literal beginning. It's acceptance is the norm today but with contradictory foundational oversight: that the singularity can be treated as real but ignored upon convenience to preserve certain theories.

The initial stance of Steady State theory was the one who defaulted to treat the singularity as an illusion. Big Bang theory re-appropriated this view but with contradictory and willful ignorance. My argument here is to show that you cannot assume a literal origin nor maintain continuous alterations of the theories that embrace a mystical reinterpretation in guise of 'scientific wisdom' and support by consensus.

The logic here is that you cannot have a claim about ANY origins, whether they are the particular singularity or the state of a fixed and finite quantity 'material singularity' without KNOWING something exists beyond those points based upon the limitations of the form of reasoning you choose....without becoming hypocritical.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:44 pm

2016-11-25_074330.png
2016-11-25_074330.png (33.23 KiB) Viewed 438 times
The above image is used to show that I recognize the distinct differences of the kinds of singularities being used. The Big Bang supported the (at time, T=0) Singularity originally and still fuzzily treats it as existing. They now have had to adopt to the second "material singularity" (at T=1) but it still contradicts itself for not having evidence of anything between T=0 and T=1. The 'gap' is conveniently provided to justify the further logical oddity of having all mass (the red squares) represented as popping into distinct existence. By holding onto the claim at T=0 with the mystical (Nature/God works this way), providing the second point as all they can further speak of, attempt to overcome the prerequisite logic of "knowing" something exists behind it. It is just 'weird' quantum fuzziness with demon-gods of a pantheon of atomic chaotic particles.

I'm trying to avoid speaking particularly of the scientific theories here. So ignoring any one of these, the diagram has a lot to illustrate about other things that show why it is irrational AND non-scientific to base one's belief about REAL singularities. They revert back to the Zeno's paradoxes, that can no longer be resolved because we require knowing what is behind that wall in time and space to 'confirm' it. Speculative assumptions that act as foundations for any theory have to be at least as reasonable to favor local experience OVER mystical ones.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Age » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:04 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:05 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:58 am
So, the Truth IS ...
Define "Truth"
'That' what EVERY one accepts and agrees with.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Age » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:15 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:37 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:21 pm
I think the contradictions act as the 'force' of reality between finite and infinite things where they both have to be true (and false) simultaneously. Thus, add a dimension. Time is one such factor that 'resolves' a prior static state of contradictions. Thus a 'creative' logic is what nature is about.

I got the impression that "Hawking radiation" was treated as coming off everywhere of the sphere's horizon. It may be the same as what I'm talking about in essence but my opinion (speculation?) is that it comes out at the poles of a black hole. We see residual radiation from them but most of it is likely still 'invisible' and non-interfering (does not affect matter except as one source of 'gravity').

[I thought you were FOR a creative logic? Such are only due to accepting contradiction as a function within the system, versus stopping at contradiction. ]
Yes and no ;)

There's a saying in statistics: A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.
A theory of everything predicts everything. Oops.

But we didn't need physics to tell us this, right? We already have a theory of everything and it's being rejected left, right and center: God did it.

It's a double-edge sword. The very reason WHY science is useful is BECAUSE it is falsifiable ergo - because it's wrong.
And even more precisely - because it's incomplete. Every contradiction contains information. Every contradiction drives us towards completeness.
Which drives us to the theory of everything -EVERY thing has an opposite, (contradiction), in Equilibrium.

By the way the theory of everything you provided above has NOT been completely rejected, yet.
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:37 pm
Logic is not empiricism. Logic is the narration of empiricism. Language - is all.
As our knowledge becomes more complete - we require new languages. New logics.

At this point in the Human Understanding we have only one complete logic. Turing-completeness.
That might be the only one that "YOU" know of.
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:37 pm
When we narrate everything in that language and we discover new knowledge, we may have to invent somethign better than Turing-complete logics. May not be in our life-time.


It probably has already been invented, just not expressly shared yet.
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:37 pm
Consistency and completeness are simply our epistemic ideals. As a human I quite enjoy incompleteness and inconsistency. Especially on weekends :)

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:55 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:27 pm
logik, Although I appreciate discussions about Turing with you, let's keep this on specific topic and leave that for us to debate elsewhere. The point of this topic is about whether we can or cannot determine the appearance of the singularity AS a literal beginning.
IF you accept a 'literal beginning' you are necessarily arguing FOR finitism. A First Cause. An Uncaused Cause.

In the other thread you argued for infinitism.

You can't keep riding that fence. Make a choice.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:27 pm
The logic here is that you cannot have a claim about ANY origins, whether they are the particular singularity or the state of a fixed and finite quantity 'material singularity' without KNOWING something exists beyond those points based upon the limitations of the form of reasoning you choose....without becoming hypocritical.
Top
You have missed the forrest for the trees.

"God did it" is an origin story. A beginning of The Universe.

It is complete. It explains absolutely EVERYTHING about the universe while it explains NOTHING about God.

All you are doing is looking for a carpet to sweep your uncertainty under. It's a silly silly game.

Just say "I don't know. Hypotheses non fingo!

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm

This is a link back to my thread to contain my arguments in one place, from Dilemma of beginning of time

Thank you, logik for coming here to discuss in this thread.

To continue from there logik's last response is:
Logik wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:00 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:28 am
And so you STILL concluded with closure something universal about reality. Thus you cannot deny that some map (a logic) can determine A universal theory/theorem about reality itself.
No I fucking didn't! It's just language. We are just talking. What I concluded is NOT EVEN TESTABLE.

Because infinities do not allow for empiricism.

I will say it in the clearest way possible.

Theorems are NOT about reality.
Theorems are about logic.
Logic is NOT about reality.
Logic is about human thought.

Logic is just language!

To claim that I am making claims about reality is you abusing logic/language beyond the domain of the discussion and for purposes that it may or may not be suitable for.

You are committing the Ludic fallacy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy
The fallacy is a central argument in the book and a rebuttal of the predictive mathematical models used to predict the future – as well as an attack on the idea of applying naïve and simplified statistical models in complex domains. According to Taleb, statistics is applicable only in some domains, for instance casinos in which the odds are visible and defined. Taleb's argument centers on the idea that predictive models are based on platonified forms, gravitating towards mathematical purity and failing to take various aspects into account:[citation needed]

It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information.
Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. Taleb differentiates his idea from that of mathematical notions in chaos theory (e.g., the butterfly effect).
Theories or models based on empirical data are claimed to be flawed as they may not be able to predict events which are previously unobserved, but have tremendous impact (e.g., the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the invention of the automobile), a.k.a. black swan theory.
The realm of Cosmology AND philosophy can be described in one phrase: It is easier to macrobullshit than to microbullshit.

Precision matters.
Your claim of my "fallacy" is not applicable nor one that isn't relayed prior to that "ludic" version for Statistics.

I certainly did not claim, "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information."

I claim specifically that you CAN know a GENERAL truth about all systems of logic AND all of reality BUT that you cannot determine all SPECIFIC theorems nor theories within a bounded but infinite world.
logik wrote: Theorems are NOT about reality.
Theorems are about logic.
Logic is NOT about reality.
Logic is about human thought.
I know the distinction between theories and theorems. My 'theory' is that a "theorem" CAN discuss reality and that a "theorem" can be found to explain certain general truths about reality with a minimal of inputs.

I don't know if you are religious or not. But I am not. As such, I can't accept a SPECIAL ESSENCE of nature that predesignates 'laws'. Reality must depend upon itself or it reduces to a religious belief. This means that reality has to be derivable FROM itself with some reasoning of some sort. The least possible 'reason' would require one without a reason but is not an 'essence' like some God.

This requires showing how logic using reality as relative input cannot determine a singularity exists to our specific universe. At one point you seemed to agree that we cannot know beyond the boundaries of where we are. Our mind or the universe interpreted through the mind is limited to knowing local sensations within the mind, can use this 'data' as inputs to some REASON mechanism to infer either we have an infinite or finite particular universe. But because we cannot know beyond the boundaries, the APPARENT limit of our perception of a singularity we cannot infer that such a real singularity exists deductively (ie, empirically) but we CAN deduce that if we can't know anything specific beyond any apparent singularity, we cannot infer a real singularity exists. This is because both time and space can only be inferred to start there if we assume it as a beginning.

The paradox of Zeno's, known as the Dichotomy explains where the problem lies.

The paradox is not real in our space because the wall in the imagined paradox is certainly assumed to exist. But we know that such real walls actually have space behind it and that time still persists should we hit the wall. We also should know that in our particular universe we never see something come out of the wall from nothing. Therefore the theories that presume a REAL origin is UNSOUND by ANY logic extended to measure the validity and truth about our reality.

If this is too much for you, then tell me this one thing you believe: Do you believe that there is a real origin to our universe, ....a real singularity OR, as I am saying, only the appearance of one?


Response of the above post is partially answered already here but I'll answer it in now to be sure:
logik wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: logik, Although I appreciate discussions about Turing with you, let's keep this on specific topic and leave that for us to debate elsewhere. The point of this topic is about whether we can or cannot determine the appearance of the singularity AS a literal beginning.
IF you accept a 'literal beginning' you are necessarily arguing FOR finitism. A First Cause. An Uncaused Cause.

In the other thread you argued for infinitism.

You can't keep riding that fence. Make a choice.
I don't argue FOR "finitism". I'm holding to "infinitism" but am trying to point out that this doesn't nor can outrule a possible finite beginning because it is included within what is 'infinite'.

"infinity" == "all infinities" AND "all finites", just as


0 == 0 and 1


1 == 1 and NOT-0 This is your position, which is true but, just as you argued elsewhere against the consistency law that this represents, it cannot alone DO anything in the same way you may not think something can come from nothing. But the above shows that the zero, representing nothing, is at least INCLUSIVE of being both real and not-real (a '1' and '0'). This makes it able to CONSTRUCT which is not what beginning with something UNIQUE alone without nothing.

Nothing contains Something but Something can only contain nothing if a Nothing is included IN this Something. Something means nothing without nothing to contrast it. But Nothing can stand alone because it has no natural law giver (like some God) to tell it not to be true.

Using a computer analogy, if we let a memory space represent Totality, where the content or meaning of it is unknown, the container can hole either something (1) or nothing (0). If you think of '0' as the "back-ground", it can stand alone or have something with it simultaneously in that matter, as something, is defined as "that which occupies space". "Space" can stand alone OR have content but to assume matter without space undefines itself as "that which occupies space".

I argue against a real singularity on logical grounds and is my purpose here to express this.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
I claim specifically that you CAN know a GENERAL truth about all systems of logic AND all of reality BUT that you cannot determine all SPECIFIC theorems nor theories within a bounded but infinite world.
If you can't use it to generate testable hypotheses it's not knowledge. It's just a logical truism - a tautology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
I know the distinction between theories and theorems. My 'theory' is that a "theorem" CAN discuss reality and that a "theorem" can be found to explain certain general truths about reality with a minimal of inputs.
Only within a specific framework of prior beliefs. e.g epistemic coherentism required here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism ).

As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions. It also attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument that plagues correspondence theory. In an epistemological sense, it is a theory about how belief can be proof-theoretically justified.

Noether's theorem is THE fundamental theorem about symmetry. Noether's theorem mandates dualism/relativism.
There is no such thing as free lunch...
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
I don't know if you are religious or not. But I am not. As such, I can't accept a SPECIAL ESSENCE of nature that predesignates 'laws'. Reality must depend upon itself or it reduces to a religious belief. This means that reality has to be derivable FROM itself with some reasoning of some sort. The least possible 'reason' would require one without a reason but is not an 'essence' like some God.
You are missing the forest for the trees again. I am not using "God" to refer to any specific deity or religion. When I say 'God' I mean it in the most universal, non-specific and non-descript meaning possible.

Any Uncaused Cause you contrive is a God. ANY theory of origin you contrive is a God.
ALL axioms (ASSUMED TRUTHS) are Gods.

Every. Single. One.

ALL epistemic foundationalism is dogmatic, and therefore - a religion.

I reject all dogma, and YET. The human mind needs SOME foundation. SOME starting point.

Given that definition - I am religious. My God is information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
My religion is digital physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
And my mind is a Turing machine.

That's as far as I am willing to discuss ontology.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
This requires showing how logic using reality as relative input cannot determine a singularity exists to our specific universe. At one point you seemed to agree that we cannot know beyond the boundaries of where we are. Our mind or the universe interpreted through the mind is limited to knowing local sensations within the mind, can use this 'data' as inputs to some REASON mechanism to infer either we have an infinite or finite particular universe. But because we cannot know beyond the boundaries, the APPARENT limit of our perception of a singularity we cannot infer that such a real singularity exists deductively (ie, empirically) but we CAN deduce that if we can't know anything specific beyond any apparent singularity, we cannot infer a real singularity exists. This is because both time and space can only be inferred to start there if we assume it as a beginning.
There's an axiom (e.g a God) in your thinking and I can't care to find it.

Here is a counter-example. The scientific consensus at present is that the Universe will continue to expand forever and ever and evver.
What science can't answer is whether the universe is actually expanding, or whether we are falling into the singularity.

Simply: are we inside a black hole? Oops!


Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
If this is too much for you, then tell me this one thing you believe: Do you believe that there is a real origin to our universe, ....a real singularity OR, as I am saying, only the appearance of one?
I DON'T KNOW. Hypotheses non fingo!

Because I recognize the limits of my mind, I cannot determine which is which!

I cannot disambiguate the following possibilities:

* The universe has no beginning but it APPEARS that it does.
* The universe has a beginning and it APPEARS that it does.

Can you think of ANY experiment where we could distinguish the two?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
I don't argue FOR "finitism". I'm holding to "infinitism" but am trying to point out that this doesn't nor can outrule a possible finite beginning because it is included within what is 'infinite'.
1. The halting problem is unsolvable.

Translated in English: There are some yes/no questions which are unanswerable.

2. This is a halting problem: Does the universe have a beginning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem

I shall leave you with Feynman's thoughts on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about.

But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things. By being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.... It doesn't frighten me.
To the question of whether the universe has an origin or not - I don't have to know the answer!

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:07 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
"infinity" == "all infinities" AND "all finites", just as


0 == 0 and 1


1 == 1 and NOT-0 This is your position,
Huh?

This is a semantic error.

0 doesn't mean 'nothing'. You are violating Noether's theorem.

For every 1 there is a -1, thus 0 is the equilibrium state.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publicatio ... m-nothing/

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:01 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
I claim specifically that you CAN know a GENERAL truth about all systems of logic AND all of reality BUT that you cannot determine all SPECIFIC theorems nor theories within a bounded but infinite world.
If you can't use it to generate testable hypotheses it's not knowledge. It's just a logical truism - a tautology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
Who the fuck says I can't generate a testable hypothesis? You're begging that I can't by your own "apriorism". And given you don't think logic is real, then your apriorism of my incapacity here is also non-scientific because you are just asserting that something does not exist positively simply for not being able to point at it.

I know this is difficult for you to understand. But IF you think that reasoning is not a reality itself, you can't have a functioning brain. The conscious state of the brain, its activity is LOGIC IN ACTION. Otherwise you may as well have no brains as your senses can suffice to 'see', your ears to 'hear', etc, without requiring something to combine these inputs together. You cannot escape the fact that if you sense something, it has to be CONNECTED in some way. THAT connection IS a logic machine.

When discussing 'science' that is only about AGREEMENT between different subjective minds collectively. If I see X and you 'agree', then we can use that as input data to a REAL logic machine to determine or 'predict'. But if you can't believe that the logic machine that connects inputs together to output something novel, they even 'prediction', verification, or anything is moot.

A rock observes in the way you beg we can 'interpret' reality. But how do you think that the thoughts you have are not real in and of themselves as thought? We are bound to our brain's inputs as well as to the logic it uses. Should we throw our hands up in the air and give up?

If you want to remain ''practical", then just be the animals we are and eat, sleep, and copulate. I already know that we don't need even science if we could already get everything we want. We wouldn't even need to have consciousness. THAT's 'empirical' for you.

You may interpret our capacity to think with reason as not a 'real' thing but this reduces to a dualism of mind external to the brain. I say the mind IS the brain when it is dynamically operating its logic gates and trading information from senses to motors and back to sensors again ONLY to feed the collective sack of cells we are made up of. That's it. To me the mechanism of reasoning is as much 'empirically' true as is the data.
logik wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
I don't know if you are religious or not. But I am not. As such, I can't accept a SPECIAL ESSENCE of nature that predesignates 'laws'. Reality must depend upon itself or it reduces to a religious belief. This means that reality has to be derivable FROM itself with some reasoning of some sort. The least possible 'reason' would require one without a reason but is not an 'essence' like some God.
You are missing the forest for the trees again. I am not using "God" to refer to any specific deity or religion. When I say 'God' I mean it in the most universal and non-specific meaning possible.

Any Uncaused Cause you contrive is a God. ANY theory of origin you contrive is a God.
ALL axioms (ASSUMED TRUTHS) are Gods.

Every. Single. One.

ALL epistemic foundationalism is religion.

Given that definition - I am religious. My God is information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
My religion is digital physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
I disagree with you. You are merely using the label, "God" as a convenient label of something unknown but asserting it has literal unique properties that obey laws. Where do the laws come from? Why would a special set of laws pre-exist but have no meaning?

My question is to ask that even if there were some "God", what did that come from? If it comes from a 'something' then what does that something come from, etc? You have to assume NOTHING before you can impose something to exist. And if EVERYTHING exists, why would you caveat it with an exception to contain this nothing as a state or reality itself?

I need to separate to another thread because I ended up developing a complete proof of "if there is an origin, then only absolutely nothing is all it could be." So jumpting to the bottom of your post, you asserted,
logik wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:48 pm
If this is too much for you, then tell me this one thing you believe: Do you believe that there is a real origin to our universe, ....a real singularity OR, as I am saying, only the appearance of one?
I DON'T KNOW. Hypotheses non fingo!

Because I recognize the limits of my mind, I cannot determine which is which!

I cannot disambiguate the following possibilities:

* The universe has no beginning but it APPEARS that it does.
* The universe has a beginning and it APPEARS that it does.

Can you think of ANY experiment where we could distinguish the two?
You cheated in the wording it looks like. It should be,

"The universe appears that it has a beginning but you cannot determine that it does."

How COULD you determine with any certainty of exclusion, that the point at which no time and no thing exists, is either real or not? So no, I don't believe you could find an empirical proof of it one way or the other. But this is why we are left with a logical one only. The options to the singularity to be real or not would require empirical evidence of at least something on the other side of that point existing. If you cannot find it, then that would just prove that there are more points beyond the apparent wall (singularity) but not whether there is never any possible origin by continuing. AND, If you could find it, how did you get there to discover that information without jumping over or through that singularity? Either options lead you to only confirm an infinite possibility is possible but not be able to exclude it for the finite one at some other point beyond it. You COULD interpret is as just another point inside but then we only repeat the thought experiment over again.

Thus you can't determine THAT there is an "origin" or not regardless. So the only POSSIBLE remaining option is to 'test' whether something can be derived from nothing. I say you still can't prove it empirically, but you CAN prove it logically.

If there is a singularity (origin) that actually existed but we didn't know, AND if it were 'something', it would beg what that something is caused by similar to it being caused by nothing. If it is an uncaused something, it is indifferent to being nothing OR at best both nothing and something.
If it is still a something, we repeat the question of its cause and still lead back to it being either Nothing OR (Nothing and Something).

Thus, IF there is an 'origin', it can ONLY be Nothing by itself uniquely or both. That Totality (the real thing) could possibly be Nothing would make it both and where I think that contradiction is the 'prime motivator' and then would become infinite. To me it is as if reality would 'want' (sorry for the anthropomorphism) to return to nothing but has no choice due to that state being contradictory.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
Who the fuck says I can't generate a testable hypothesis? You're begging that I can't by your own "apriorism". And given you don't think logic is real, then your apriorism of my incapacity here is also non-scientific because you are just asserting that something does not exist positively simply for not being able to point at it.
Uh. Yeah!!!! Do you have a hypothesis or not?

Maybe you do - maybe you don't. I am at 0 decibels of belief. 50/50. I don't have an opinion either way.
The longer you keep not-presenting a theory the more I will lean towards "you don't have a theory"

It is really that simple.

Also, when did I ever claim that logic is real or not real?
Logic is logic. It stands on its own theoretical feet.

I keep repeating this metaphor: Logic is LEGO for your mind. You use logic to construct models of the world.
Some models work better than others.
Some models are so bad you are better off flipping a coin to get the right answer.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
I know this is difficult for you to understand. But IF you think that reasoning is not a reality itself, you can't have a functioning brain. The conscious state of the brain, its activity is LOGIC IN ACTION. Otherwise you may as well have no brains as your senses can suffice to 'see', your ears to 'hear', etc, without requiring something to combine these inputs together. You cannot escape the fact that if you sense something, it has to be CONNECTED in some way. THAT connection IS a logic machine.
Yes! That's what I have been saying. It's a Turing machine. I will happily adopt a better model when you provide one.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
When discussing 'science' that is only about AGREEMENT between different subjective minds collectively. If I see X and you 'agree', then we can use that as input data to a REAL logic machine to determine or 'predict'. But if you can't believe that the logic machine that connects inputs together to output something novel, they even 'prediction', verification, or anything is moot.
On its own? Yes it's moot. if it has no contact with the actual ground (empiricism) it's just a castle in the sky.

That is why most Mathematics is sterile and has no practical value.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
A rock observes in the way you beg we can 'interpret' reality. But how do you think that the thoughts you have are not real in and of themselves as thought? We are bound to our brain's inputs as well as to the logic it uses. Should we throw our hands up in the air and give up?
Gosh. the Real vs not real distinction again. It serves absolutely no purpose in phenomenology.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
If you want to remain ''practical", then just be the animals we are and eat, sleep, and copulate. I already know that we don't need even science if we could already get everything we want. We wouldn't even need to have consciousness. THAT's 'empirical' for you.
Gosh. Is that the best strawman you have?

Pragmatism is practical problem solving!

How many problems do we have? A LOT.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
You may interpret our capacity to think with reason as not a 'real' thing but this reduces to a dualism of mind external to the brain. I say the mind IS the brain when it is dynamically operating its logic gates and trading information from senses to motors and back to sensors again ONLY to feed the collective sack of cells we are made up of. That's it. To me the mechanism of reasoning is as much 'empirically' true as is the data.
Don't know what truth is - don't care.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
I disagree with you. You are merely using the label, "God" as a convenient label of something unknown
No, I am not? I stated clearly and precisely what I mean by 'God'. ASSUMED TRUTH.

Most axioms fit that description.

We yield ground to axioms which are useful, because utility matters first and foremost. To what end?

Prediction is married to ethics! If I can predict <BAD THINGS> I can avoid <BAD THINGS>.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
My question is to ask that even if there were some "God", what did that come from? If it comes from a 'something' then what does that something come from, etc? You have to assume NOTHING before you can impose something to exist. And if EVERYTHING exists, why would you caveat it with an exception to contain this nothing as a state or reality itself?
I don't fucking know. You are the one seeking an 'origin' story. All 'origin' stories are broken in exactly the same way!

What caused the origin? What caused the origin's origin? What caused the origin's origin's origin?

Don't call it 'God' (if that label offends you) - call it a quantum fluctuation. Where did the quantum fluctuation come from?

Infinite regress!
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
You cheated in the wording it looks like. It should be,

"The universe appears that it has a beginning but you cannot determine that it does."
Nonsense. That's not how science works. What's your alternative/null hypothesis?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
How COULD you determine with any certainty of exclusion, that the point at which no time and no thing exists, is either real or not?
Look! That stupid word 'real' again! Define it. I don't fucking know what you mean.

Draw me a distinction between 'real' vs 'not real'.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
So no, I don't believe you could find an empirical proof of it one way or the other. But this is why we are left with a logical one only.
What? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Probability theory a.k.a Bayesian inference IS LOGIC!
By drawing a distinction between empiricism and logic you are most definitely making an error.
At the very least - your conception of 'logic' and my conception of logic are so far apart that we are definitely talking different languages and therefore right past each other.

You REALLY need to read this book now. Like REALLY REALLY because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall:

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

It is literally called Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

Some nice people even put it on the Internet for free: http://www.med.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/h ... Theory.pdf

Like even reading Chapters 1 and 5 will put is on more common understanding than we are now.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:22 pm

Logic wrote:
Draw me a distinction between real vs not real
From a scientific perspective I would say real is what is observable and not real is what is not observable
This may not be a very precise definition but hopefully the distinction is sufficient to satisfy the question

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:35 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:22 pm
From a scientific perspective I would say real is what is observable and not real is what is not observable
This may not be a very precise definition but hopefully the distinction is sufficient to satisfy the question
No. It's not. Draw me a distinction between "observable" and "non-observable"

Observe how you are moving further away from the mark, not closer.

That's what happens when you equivocate.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:39 pm

Logic wrote:
I reject all dogma and YET The human mind needs SOME foundation
Axioms dont have to be dogmatic they can be flexible and subject to revision when required
But they should nonetheless be supported by evidence or logic that is as rigorous as possible

Nothing in science should be treated as absolute truth because of the problem of induction
Math is different because it is deductive and so therefore deals with what is definitely true

But even there one should simply accept something without treating it dogmatically

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:44 pm

Logic wrote:
Draw me a distinction between observable and non observable
We cannot refuse to learn just because our definitions are not rigorous enough
We come up with the best approximations that we can and proceed from there

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests