Mind or minds

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:06 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
Modeling.
So we are on the same page. Lets just skip the red herrings here again and any arguments over "how precise should a model be" and go for gold.

Every "thing" has a wave equation. Complex or simple.

There's also the down-side to it. Every model is subject to the "space-time trade-off" (google will help you).
Ok, I did that. I was aware of the idea though.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I am not ok with that. I am trying my best to have a comprehensive understanding of the reality.
You are appealing to "comprehension" whatever that means. Accurate prediction, I imagine? How accurate?

You are a physicist.
You understand that there are certain limits to certain things - because physics (not to mention that theoretical limits are far beyond our practical abilities most of the time)
You are made of the same stuff that you are trying to understand.
So those limits apply to you.

Those limits apply to your understanding/comprehension.

If what you mean by "comprehensive understanding" is theoretically, but not practically possible then it is impossible.
Say - if the wave equation you've come up with will take 10 universe lifetimes to solve with current computational power - you are shit out of luck.
We don't need to solve the equation for the whole universe to understand how the chair that I am sitting on it is functioning. Why? Because the wave function of electrons of the chair drop off exponentially as we get farther from the chair. So basically we are dealing with a negligible contribution if we try to find exact whole wave function. The very fact that we could identify separate objects in reality confirm this, otherwise everything was connected and we have only one object.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
This is question is not sort of that.
How did you determine that?
Because it is comprehensible.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I believe that reality is structured so we can understand it. It is unbounded though.
I am getting a glimpse that we have similar thinking, but the above sentence strikes me as contradictory.

If reality is structured, but unbounded - then it's hypothetically possible for us to reduce reality to a wave equation, but it would be impossible to solve such an equation because it will have infinite inputs which would make it infinitely complex. If we can't solve the equation, then would you say that we "understand" reality?

Understanding requires a computable model. e.g a model from which I can get useful consequences which align with my experiences.
Colloquially we call those predictions.

If you can't compute the equation - you can't make any predictions. Therefore you don't understand.
There is no problem to have a unbound reality since objects are separate and we can find wave function for each object separately and have a good understanding of subject.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I am not aware of that. Could you please elaborate? We are not machine though.
If the world is quantum, then it's necessarily computational. Everything is a state machine.

I mentioned "space-time trade-offs" earlier, now I am going to refer to "spacetime complexity".
Google it also and you will end up at an intersection between Mathematics' category theory and computer science's complexity theory.

Which is along the lines of "We live in a computer simulation!" but far more boring and theoretical than the media hype would have you believe.

Now that I have introduced the new concepts on which my argument rests:
* The universe may well have a precise and exact wave equation - A Theory of Everything.
* The equation will be subjected to space-time trade offs if it is to be calculated in a human lifetime.

Because space-time trade-off and because you want a prediction you can't trade off time - you must necessarily trade-off space.

So - to solve the universe's wave equation in any reasonable amount of time you need more space (memory) than the size of the current universe. Oops :)

P.S I over-simplified this a little by ignoring the Margolus–Levitin theorem which imposes another limit on the amount of energy required to perform the computation.

But suffice to say that computation is a function of space, time and energy.

This page has a plethora of limits to be accounted for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of ... cal_limits
I already argue that we don't need to solve the wave equation of the whole. There are systematical method which allows us to find the wave function of large system such as a piece of metal too.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:07 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:02 pm
No. Did it appear that way?
In logic there is the law of excluded middle.

Either a proposition is true or its negation is true.

Either "my conclusion is wrong" is true; or "my conclusion is not wrong" is true.

If the opposite of wrong is right, and the opposite of right is wrong, then the law of excluded middle applies.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:02 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:35 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:32 pm
But I have NOT yet even implied that I draw NO distinction.
Are you The Universe?
No.
So you are not the universe.
You have a notion of "self".

I guess I was right in saying that you draw a distinction between "self" and "universe" then.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:02 pm
But once again this type of question is NOT really getting you much closer to WHAT it is that you are LOOKING FOR.
I asked the question that would address my exact uncertainty.

Whether I asked "Are you the universe?", or "Do you have a notion of self?". I arrived at the exact same conclusion: You draw a distinction between "self" and "universe".

Age
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:14 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:53 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:52 pm
When absolutely EVERY thing is in agreement. Because you will NOT get much more.
I am happy to accept that you can't put it into words,


But I CAN and DID put it into words. Did you MISS IT.

When absolutely EVERY thing is in agreement.

How could you NOT see those words?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:53 pm
but I do not accept that you yourself can't determine when you agree or disagree with some thing.
But I have NEVER even remotely suggested that I can NOT determine when I agree or disagree with some thing.

In fact I thought I was making it quite clear that the opposite IS the case.

Have you really misinterpreted My words by so much?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:53 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:52 pm
In regards to WHAT exactly?
Everything.
You are NOT really being to clear here in what you are asking for.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:53 pm
You said that if your beliefs are "true" and "real" then EVERY thing will agree.
I have NEVER EVER even remotely alluded to such a ridiculous thing.

IF this is what YOU are getting out of the My actual WRITTEN WORDS HERE, for ALL to SEE, then that just SHOWS how quickly and easily even what is CLEARLY WRITTEN in front of person MY WORDS can be distorted.

I have already explained HOW and WHY the human brain distorts the Truth so much.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:53 pm
Do you agree with Saturn?
The thinking coming from that brain now is so far OFF TRACK that this is becoming obviously to ridiculous to respond to.

Are you aware that you have to ask specific questions to obtain specific answers.

What would your answer be if some one asked you; Do you agree with neptune?

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:06 pm
Because it is comprehensible.
You are still appealing to "comprehension". Any and all binary classification requires a classification rule. Statistics 101 stuff.
What are your objective criteria for sorting theories into "comprehensible" and "incomprehensible"?

Unless you are saying "I know comprehension when I see it".
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
There is no problem to have a unbound reality since objects are separate and we can find wave function for each object separately and have a good understanding of subject.
If objects were separate gravity would not have infinite reach. Separation e.g categorization necessarily implies a cut-off point at which you deem the margin of error acceptable. If that's the case QM and GR are doing a fine job at predicting stuff within their domains of applicability. Is their error-margin unacceptable to you? Why?

Would you care to state your binomial classification rule for "acceptable" and "unacceptable" margin of error?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I already argue that we don't need to solve the wave equation of the whole. There are systematical method which allows us to find the wave function of large system such as a piece of metal too.
Can you state your objective criteria for "large" vs "small" systems? Can you solve the planet? The solar system? Galaxy?

I am willing to make a prediction a $100 bet that you are just going to keep drawing arbitrary "I will know it when I see it" dichotomies ;)
Last edited by Logik on Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Age
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:24 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:07 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:02 pm
No. Did it appear that way?
In logic there is the law of excluded middle.

Either a proposition is true or its negation is true.

Either "my conclusion is wrong" is true; or "my conclusion is not wrong" is true.

If the opposite of wrong is right, and the opposite of right is wrong, then the law of excluded middle applies.
But I have NOT said any thing either way.

I am just SHOWING the readers how often and how much the human brain makes ASSUMPTIONS, and jumps to conclusions, without first gaining clarification. I did this by NOT pointing out any thing in particular but just allowing you to respond, to what i wrote, which really was NOT saying any thing but just asking clarifying questions.

Human beings had this tendency to just to a conclusion when all that was being done was just proposing a question for clarity.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:07 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:02 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:35 pm
Are you The Universe?
No.
So you are not the universe.
You have a notion of "self".

I guess I was right in saying that you draw a distinction between "self" and "universe" then.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:02 pm
But once again this type of question is NOT really getting you much closer to WHAT it is that you are LOOKING FOR.
I asked the question that would address my exact uncertainty.
If the Truth be KNOWN you are still very far from gaining certainty.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:07 pm
Whether I asked "Are you the universe?", or "Do you have a notion of self?". I arrived at the exact same conclusion: You draw a distinction between "self" and "universe".
Who/what IS the 'self' that 'you' are referring to here?

This 'self' may or may NOT be the one that you are thinking of.

You will NEED to KNOW, become certain, of a lot more things before you could successfully say that you have arrived at the RIGHT conclusion.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:24 pm
I am just SHOWING the readers how often and how much the human brain makes ASSUMPTIONS, and jumps to conclusions, without first gaining clarification.
But if I got to the right conclusion, it should be obvious that I didn't need further clarification?

Perhaps you are uncertain of my methods, even though it's is obvious that they work?
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:24 pm
Who/what IS the 'self' that 'you' are referring to here?

This 'self' may or may NOT be the one that you are thinking of.

You will NEED to KNOW, become certain, of a lot more things before you could successfully say that you have arrived at the RIGHT conclusion.
The thing that you agreed to having a notion of.

It doesn't matter what it is, or how it looks like or what it looks like. So long as in your head it is a separate notion from the notion of "the universe".

You agreed that it is and so I am not uncertain when I say this: you draw distinction between "self" and "universe".

I will call it True Knowledge until evidence to the contrary.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:06 pm
Because it is comprehensible.
You are still appealing to "comprehension". Any and all binary classification requires a classification rule. Statistics 101 stuff.
What are your objective criteria for sorting theories into "comprehensible" and "incomprehensible"?

Unless you are saying "I know comprehension when I see it".
To have ability to imagine it.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
There is no problem to have a unbound reality since objects are separate and we can find wave function for each object separately and have a good understanding of subject.
If objects were separate gravity would not have infinite reach. Separation e.g categorization necessarily implies a cut-off point at which you deem the margin of error acceptable. If that's the case QM and GR are doing a fine job at predicting stuff within their domains of applicability. Is their error-margin unacceptable to you? Why?
Yes, gravity could be a problem if it was larger in magnitude. Basically, we can understand the behavior of an object like chair only through electromagnetic forces.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
Would you care to state your binomial classification rule for "acceptable" and "unacceptable" margin of error?
Are you looking for a criteria that makes such a approximation valid?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:37 pm
I already argue that we don't need to solve the wave equation of the whole. There are systematical method which allows us to find the wave function of large system such as a piece of metal too.
Can you state your objective criteria for "large" vs "small" systems? Can you solve the planet? The solar system? Galaxy?

I am willing to make a prediction a $100 bet that you are just going to keep drawing arbitrary "I will know it when I see it" dichotomies ;)
The largest simulation is for 51 atoms. There are however methods which allows us to understand the behavior of larger system, if for example the system is periodic.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:26 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
To have ability to imagine it.
To imagine comprehension? Doesn't really help me much to understand what it is that you expect/seek/anticipate in your pursuit.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
Yes, gravity could be a problem if it was larger in magnitude. Basically, we can understand the behavior of an object like chair only through electromagnetic forces.
What is it about the behaviour of a chair that you think we don't understand presently, yet we should?
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Are you looking for a criteria that makes such a approximation valid?
No, I am looking for a communicable criterion by which you hold yourself accountable for having drawn a valid distinction.

Think of it as a way of me helping you avoid the temptation of shifting the goal posts later.

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
The largest simulation is for 51 atoms.
That's a long way to go from a chair.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
There are however methods which allows us to understand the behavior of larger system, if for example the system is periodic.
That is definitely not the same use of the word "understanding" you meant when you said "understand the behaviour of a chair".

Yes. We can predict some aspects of some systems. But not all aspects of all systems.

I am insisting on completeness here. Since we have not yet agreed on what is an "acceptable error margin".

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:02 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:26 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
To have ability to imagine it.
To imagine comprehension? Doesn't really help me much to understand what it is that you expect/seek/anticipate in your pursuit.
No. Comprehension to me is ability to imagine something.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Yes, gravity could be a problem if it was larger in magnitude. Basically, we can understand the behavior of an object like chair only through electromagnetic forces.
What is it about the behaviour of a chair that you think we don't understand presently, yet we should?
It depends what material is used in chair. Why it has specific color? Why it could persist a specific tension? Etc.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Are you looking for a criteria that makes such a approximation valid?
No, I am looking for a communicable criterion by which you hold yourself accountable for having drawn a valid distinction.

Think of it as a way of me helping you avoid the temptation of shifting the goal posts later.
Valid distinction in what?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:21 pm
The largest simulation is for 51 atoms.
That's a long way to go from a chair.
Yes, but they simulate each atoms with all details.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:08 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:02 pm
No. Comprehension to me is ability to imagine something.
Then I do not understand what you mean by a "boundless" universe. For I can't imagine infinities.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
It depends what material is used in chair. Why it has specific color? Why it could persist a specific tension? Etc.
All answerable in the classic realm.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
Valid distinction in what?
Well. When you are doing science - you are actually making two predictions.

What your model will/won't predict.
What your model is supposed and not supposed to be used for. Domain of applicability.

The promise of complete models. The promise of the Theory of Everything is that it can be used to predict ..... everything.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:17 pm
Yes, but they simulate each atoms with all details.
Of course. I wouldn't expect anything less. Like I said - I insist on completeness.

But again, what prevents you from simulating the chair? Say it weighs about 1kg. 1 mole of carbon is what? 12 grams.
So why can't we simulate 8.3*10^23 atoms?

Also, I don't think I you can imagine that many atoms. Would you say that you don't understand the chair?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:02 pm
No. Comprehension to me is ability to imagine something.
Then I do not understand what you mean by a "boundless" universe. For I can't imagine infinities.
You don't need to imagine the whole boundless universe. You need to imagine a bounded universe. That is logically impossible unless the universe is bounded by something else, let's call it B. B however is either unbound or bounded. The whole system is unbound if B is unbound. We however have the same problem if B is bounded because it has to be bounded with something else. Etc.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:02 pm
Valid distinction in what?
Well. When you are doing science - you are actually making two predictions.

What your model will/won't predict.
What your model is supposed and not supposed to be used for. Domain of applicability.

The promise of complete models. The promise of the Theory of Everything is that it can be used to predict ..... everything.
The theory of everything is about how elementary particles behaves. We however have problem to find exact wave function of a system which has many particles. We were able to develop different methods to deal with this problem if the system allows us. This area of study is called condensed matter physics.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:02 pm
Yes, but they simulate each atoms with all details.
Of course. I wouldn't expect anything less. Like I said - I insist on completeness.

But again, what prevents you from simulating the chair? Say it weighs about 1kg. 1 mole of carbon is what? 12 grams.
So why can't we simulate 8.3*10^23 atoms?
Well, we don't have a computer strong enough to perform calculation for this number of atoms. We also have problem with memory too.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:08 pm
Also, I don't think I you can imagine that many atoms. Would you say that you don't understand the chair?
No.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
You don't need to imagine the whole boundless universe. You need to imagine a bounded universe. That is logically impossible unless the universe is bounded by something else, let's call it B. B however is either unbound or bounded. The whole system is unbound if B is unbound. We however have the same problem if B is bounded because it has to be bounded with something else. Etc.
Then you can never address model incompleteness. If the universe is unbounded, but my imagination is bounded I am necessarily leaving parts out.

There are 10^125 particles in the observable universe (estimated).

∞ - 10^125 = ∞

Probability theory doesn't work with infinities.

And you also contradict yourself. If you are imagining a bounded universe, then you aren't trying to understand the unbounded whole. You are trying to understand part of the whole. Which part?

The distinction between closed and open systems in systems theory is huuuuge...
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The theory of everything is about how elementary particles behaves. We however have problem to find exact wave function of a system which has many particles. We were able to develop different methods to deal with this problem if the system allows us. This area of study is called condensed matter physics.
Yes. And from having complete understanding of how elementary particles behave you can deduce how anything in the universe behaves.
You claim that there is no such thing as "emergence" right? So everything is causal?

With complete understanding any and all superpositional phenomena disappear.
Emergent phenomena disappear.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
Well, we don't have a computer strong enough to perform calculation for this number of atoms. We also have problem with memory too.
Why do you need a computer and memory if you can just imagine the system and all of its components?
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
No.
Why not? You said that comprehension/understanding means you can imagine something.

Can you or can you not imagine a system with 10^23 atoms?

If you are comfortable admitting that all of our theories/models are incomplete, then you also need to admit we are working with heuristics.
For complete models lead to perfect deduction.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:26 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
You don't need to imagine the whole boundless universe. You need to imagine a bounded universe. That is logically impossible unless the universe is bounded by something else, let's call it B. B however is either unbound or bounded. The whole system is unbound if B is unbound. We however have the same problem if B is bounded because it has to be bounded with something else. Etc.
Then you can never address model incompleteness. If the universe is unbounded, but my imagination is bounded I am necessarily leaving parts out.

There are 10^125 particles in the observable universe (estimated).

∞ - 10^125 = ∞

Probability theory doesn't work with infinities.
Which theory? Theory of everything?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
And you also contradict yourself. If you are imagining a bounded universe, then you aren't trying to understand the unbounded whole. You are trying to understand part of the whole. Which part?
I didn't contradicted myself. You cannot imagine a bounded thing which is not bounded by something else.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
The distinction between closed and open systems in systems theory is huuuuge...
Yes.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The theory of everything is about how elementary particles behaves. We however have problem to find exact wave function of a system which has many particles. We were able to develop different methods to deal with this problem if the system allows us. This area of study is called condensed matter physics.
Yes. And from having complete understanding of how elementary particles behave you can deduce how anything in the universe behaves.
You claim that there is no such thing as "emergence" right? So everything is causal?
Yes, everything is causal.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
With complete understanding any and all superpositional phenomena disappear.
Emergent phenomena disappear.
Yes.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
Well, we don't have a computer strong enough to perform calculation for this number of atoms. We also have problem with memory too.
Why do you need a computer and memory if you can just imagine the system and all of its components?
You need to quantify different variables, like energy, charge distribution, etc. and for that you need to solve a wave equation. We have exact analytical solution only for Hydrogen which consists of two particles. There is no exact analytical solution for most of interesting systems which has more than three particles. Therefore we have to solve the wave equation numerically.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:39 pm
No.
Why not? You said that comprehension/understanding means you can imagine something.

Can you or can you not imagine a system with 10^23 atoms?

If you are comfortable admitting that all of our theories/models are incomplete, then you also need to admit we are working with heuristics.
For complete models lead to perfect deduction.
Sorry, I should be more specific. I can imagine 10^23 particles by thinking that it is a lot of particles. I however cannot make a image of 10^23 particles in my mind.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:35 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:26 pm
Which theory? Theory of everything?
Probability theory itself.
If probability theory falls - so does decision theory.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:26 pm
Yes, everything is causal.
Except the first cause - which is a mystery.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
Sorry, I should be more specific. I can imagine 10^23 particles by thinking that it is a lot of particles. I however cannot make a image of 10^23 particles in my mind.
So heuristics and emergence it is...

When we start tackling Lorentz systems and chaos we can't even imagine all causal and feedback loops in the system...

But that begs the question: what does it mean "to understand"; or even "to imagine".

What conception of "10^23 particles" is sufficient representation/reduction of their complexity?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:53 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:35 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:26 pm
Which theory? Theory of everything?
Probability theory itself.
If probability theory falls - so does decision theory.
The probability theory is exact in the limit when number of particles is infinite, otherwise you always have noise in your system. There are tricks to deal with infinite number of particles.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:35 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:26 pm
Yes, everything is causal.
Except the first cause - which is a mystery.
Either there was a Mind who caused everything or nothingness (absence of physical forms) was unstable in presence of many minds.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:35 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 pm
Sorry, I should be more specific. I can imagine 10^23 particles by thinking that it is a lot of particles. I however cannot make a image of 10^23 particles in my mind.
So heuristics and emergence it is...

When we start tackling Lorentz systems and chaos we can't even imagine all causal and feedback loops in the system...

But that begs the question: what does it mean "to understand"; or even "to imagine".

What conception of "10^23 particles" is sufficient representation/reduction of their complexity?
Imagination or understanding are mental states experienced by mind. How are we able to produce such a state? That is the result of how minds are interacting with each other. We gain this power through evolution which this is the result of random mutation in the gene and survival capacity of new gene.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest