Nothing wrong with it, but if it can't be tested, it ain't science. It's something else. — T Clark

But you can test if it is true and confirm it.

Perhaps I am not a (real) thinker, but all the excitement about paradoxes goes over my head. I just can't see how they have any practical meaning. — T Clark

Why should they have practical meaning in the first place? But to give a practical example, the twin paradox has significant practical impact to future generations taking a retour trip to Proxima Centauri.

In science, 'fact' can only mean — Stephen Jay Gould

If this is claimed, I already smell something... Why is it bad to be sure of what you hold to be there? Is it false humility?

I don't wanna waste other people's time. You get bogged down by replies when there are too many of 'em. — Agent Smith

:up:

Eugenics is not science. It's engineering, i.e. using science to implement actions. — T Clark

The genetics is very real. Not falsified. Then there is the unproven central dogma in biology.

Thomas Malthus, eugenics, are alive and kicking... :scream:

Ok, same as AI. — Jackson

No. In AI, everything is programmed by a program you can point to. Where is the program in our brain?

Just as humans cannot fly, teleport, or calculate the distance to the moon by looking at it. Programmed — Jackson

That's not programmed. That's part of the free process.

You really think a dog is conscious about the fact she's conscious? It would impair the playful character.

Because there is a split between the process and the program directing it. Of course the program evolves freely when set in motion, but the process it directs is programmed and thus not free. It depends on the program inserted by us.

If AI is part of the evolution of the universe then it can understood as part of nature — Jackson

Of course. But its nit a freely evolving process.

A capacity for infinite self-reflecting loops. It need to be conscious of itself but also be conscious of the world and of being at the world, and conscious also of what it means (roughly) to be conscious, i.e. be consciously conscious. And be conscious of being consciously conscious. And conscious that others around it (them humans) are conscious, etc. etc. — Olivier5

Does this apply to the conscious life of animals,?

Computation as we know it or as we presently define it -- the mechanical stacking of 0's and 1's — Olivier5

Every computation has the property of not being able to wear conscious life. Conscious life can appear only in a freely evolving process,, without a program forcing the process. Be it quantum computed, or however computed.

Dio disse: "Non sono mica Mandrake!"

Just curious: sometimes there is a direct quote to posts, sometimes not. You use two computers?

evil part of universe?? — SpaceDweller

Of what else?

Quick, you have a 2 minute window before he does his disappearing act! — Agent Smith

:lol:

Shit! Too late! Gotta wait for his second coming...

But my question was why do you think pure undiluted evil could be defeated by torturing it?
— universeness
I told you, because it would scare sh**t out of potential future evil doers. — SpaceDweller

Dear mother of gods...

Pheromones, perfume, cologne...what do they do? — Agent Smith

Don't get me started, brother Agent! :starstruck:

because nobody wants evil. — SpaceDweller

But it exists in the very basics of the universe. To get rid of it means to get rid of the universe and humanity. The evil is part of all of us. That's why science is scary.

Yes agree, evil is unique to humans, ex. saying that a Lion or Tiger are evil because they eat other animals is nonsense because animals are driven by survival instincts and animals also do not know good and evil unlike humans. — SpaceDweller

Animals can be good and bad too. They defend their children or fellows from bad forces. Like the lion saving his pall from the evil group of sharky biting hyenas.

Yes because punishment for evil in earlier times was more adequate than it is today.
1h — SpaceDweller

Why should evil be punished or prevented in the first place?

Could evil exist as a quantum field or as a consequence of subatomic interactions or as opposite magnetic poles such as positive and negative attractions, as proposed by Hillary? — universeness

Panpsychism!

The infinitesimal sequesters the in-between. Squeezes it to death, zeroeing it, annihilates it it by endless compression, an endless go, without a reach, unbounded while bounding. The zero and the infinite meet, get this, for a meeting that never happens.

"A paraconsistent logic is a way to reason about inconsistent information without lapsing into absurdity. In a non-paraconsistent logic, inconsistency explodes in the sense that if a contradiction obtains, then everything (everything!) else obtains, too."

You just went back to square one again — Banno

Back? I went forward! What is an infinitesimal?

He has some odd notions concerning instantaneous velocity you might find amusing — Banno

He's right about instantaneous velocity. It's a paradoxical concept. At the fundamental level, the minimum distance is the Planck length.

Shut up and calculate" - isn't that the physicist's advice? — Banno

Not mine. I like to know what is actually computed.

So it's a puzzle or perplexity rather than a logical paradox. Fair — Banno

It's just a logical paradox. It is thought that you can't have infinitesimal small intervals. And that you can't gather them all together to form a finite interval. But it can be done actuslly.

Why?

The maths works. What more is there — Banno

How you put infinite small pieces together to form a meter? How you know the size of your differentials is right, to not arrive at two meter?

But infinitesimals are established opinion. — Banno

Yes, but the majority of people think the opposite. That establishes the paradox. The twin paradox goes against established opinion (no time delay). Differentials idem dito.

There's nothing paradoxical in that. — Banno

A paradox goes against established opinion.

The very notion of laying infinite infinitely small intervals together is nonsensical. Like the other way round, zero infinite big intervals.

I have a basic understanding of the continuum. Get on with it. Where's the paradox? — Banno

The paradox lies in the break-up of the continuum in points. If you get on with it a little harder you might see it. The distance between two points gets smaller and smaller. But there will always remain space between them. You can say it's defined like that, but it's non-coherent.

It's the winter of human kind
What has become if us?
What made us blind?

Still not seeing it. — Banno

Consider two points. There is space between them. For the infinitesimal to exist the can never touch. However close they get.

Answer the question instead of beating around the bush. — Agent Smith

:lol:

Exactly, brother Agent!

How, exactly? — Banno

Approaching without being able to touch.

Like jgill I thank you too for the summary, I can just not make any constructive comments as I still do not know what it is about. — Tobias

No worries...

I am sure you can actually, in the whole post you did :smile: The funny thing is I have no idea whether it is correct or even what you are saying. — Tobias

Sometimes J forget that. If it seems so obvious, it's hard to get it's not for others. I remember encountering the first theoretical, mathematical formulations of fundamental physics. WTF...? So I thought. But its actually pretty simple once you see through it. And I remembered fantasizing about coming with a physical ToE of my own... And now I have! :grin:

that's called a definition — Banno

But the very definition is paradoxical..

...how can you create a non-zero interval out of length pieces that have zero length?
— Hillary

But infinitesimals do not have zero length — Banno

I wrote:

You might counter they don't have zero length and it merely approaches zero, but that begs the question — Hillary