But we've not picked one at random have we? We're talking about the one we're in, which, by definition is the one that's suitable for life. Where does the picking one at random come from? — Ciaran

If you think about hypothetical universes - all the possible universes we could of ended up with,
nearly all universes would lack cohesion; IE atoms and molecules (or similar complex structures) would not form. So the vast majority of hypothetical universes would not be life supporting.

The odds that our universe would be suitable for life are therefore probably millions to 1. So we have to answer the question why were we so lucky? The anthropic principle does not answer that question.

"All the universes are made of the same stuff and end up at a similar temperature/density
— Devans99

Are they? How on earth could you know what the temperature of an universe is? We don't even know if they exist yet? — Ciaran

Multiple universes, if they exist, must be generated by some mechanism. It seems very likely that the same creation mechanism would be used for all universes and the same material would be used to create all universes. The universes should all follow the same life cycle. So should they come out like ours.

The alternative of each universe coming out different I have yet to read any convincing explanation of how this could happen. In all the multiple universe models I've seen, each universe starts with an explosion of some sort (to account for our expanding universe) and then the universes expand and cool. All of the universes go through the same phase transitions and end up in a similar state. The fate of all expanding universes is identical.

"All life evolved from inanimate matter
— Devans99

That is not known, but assumed. I don’t think it is ever likely to be definitively proven but even so it is used to underwrite a whole set of attitudes to questions of the nature of life and mi — Wayfarer

The only realistic alternative is the panspermia hypotheses? And with that life still came from inanimate matter. Even if we were designed, we are still made from inanimate matter.

So I see no reason why a computer, also made from inanimate matter, should not be as intelligent or more intelligent than humans eventually.

OK I guess we just have to remain in disagreement on this one. Thanks for the discussion though.

Interesting to see how far we are away from achieving machine intelligence. It apparently takes 28 computers 10 hours to simulate a single cell division:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/

So we cannot model even a single cell in real time. Computer technology is very immature compared to life. 100 years Vs 4 billion years development.

This seems to be the very crux of the disagreement. I could phrase in terms of there being a pivotal difference between a) pulling the plug on a very complex machine and b) pulling the plug on some living being who’s on life support. It’s not the same thing — javra

If the machine was conscious though it would be immoral either way.

Well, a correction: I don't disagree with the contents of the quote save that intelligence is unique to life. — javra

Would you class a virus as intelligent? What about a single celled organism? What I'm getting at is there a point where a machine (biological or otherwise) becomes intelligent? All life evolved from inanimate matter and inanimate matter is not intelligent. Early forms of life (pre single cell creatures) must have been simple machines without DNA, RNA. Would they qualify as intelligent? At what point of complexity of matter does intelligence first manifest?

I however question the ontological verity of real, rather than faux, intelligence being applicable to givens devoid of animate agency. Which again resolves into issues of life v. non-life. — javra

I agree that AI today is mostly faux intelligence but that's just because AI is at a very primitive stage of development. Nature has made intelligent machines using matter and evolution; we have the same matter plus design so should be able to achieve the same results (and better eventually).

We, for example, understand that they strive and suffer in manners that are in some ways similar to us, which enables us to hold sympathy for them (in certain situations). — javra

Animals and humans are driven purely by physical/emotional pain/pleasure. We seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. It would be interesting if we could give a computer a nervous system and pain/pleasure drivers we have. As we saw in Bladerunner the result might be computers that are indistinguishable from us.

But these are all examples of negentropic beings. What we have today is not this. I take today's AI to be complex decoys of life and of intelligence proper. But not instances of real intelligence as it holds the potential to apply to life. — javra

I don't see anything particularly special about life: we are just complex machines. We and computers are both just driven by cause and effect: our outputs are determined solely by our inputs.

I think intelligence is a broad church encompassing everything from humans to very simple animals like single celled creatures; they are all machines of different levels of complexity and they all exhibit intelligence of some form. I don't think we can argue that life has to reach a certain level of complexity before it is intelligent; I think intelligence is a property that all life possesses in differing levels. And as life is just a form of machine, we can say that computers also possess intelligence (admittedly very limited at the moment).

There are aspects of intelligence (self-awareness, consciousness) that only the more advanced life possess but I think these aspects are outgrowths of the more simple intelligence rather than something unique to life that could not be achieved with computers.

See Cosmological Natural Selection — VoidDetector

Well I read it but it sounds like another atheist pipe dream attempt to explain fine-tuning:

Black holes typically have a mass of a few solar masses on average. Our universe is utterly huge. If universes are caused by black holes, we should expect small universes of a few solar masses rather than utterly huge universes like ours. So the theory runs contrary to the physical evidence.

You may want to check out Appeal to improbability fallacy, which you are committing to in your response above. — VoidDetector

No I am not. I am not saying the universe is definitely fine-tuned for live; I'm saying it appears fine-tuned for life and any scientific explanation of the universe needs to explain the apparent fine tuning. That's exactly what the atheist cosmologists have done; they created the multiple universe theories to explain the fine-tuning. I'm merely pointing out instead of jumping through infinite mathematical loops of multiple universes there is a much simpler explanation.

They all support life or they don't.
— Devans99

Could you explain what you mean here? As well as provide citations for your claim? — VoidDetector

I can't provide citations because these are my opinions.

We have knowledge of what universes are like. We live in one. There is no good reason to expect other universes, should they exist, to be much different from this one. So statistically they should all be live supporting.

If you look at the multiple universe theories, say Eternal Inflation, it is one common mechanism that spawns all the child universes. That mechanism is the same mechanism we see at work in our universe; briefly:

- Universes are all made of the same basic material
- Universes all start with inflation
- Slowing down to regular expansion after a while
- All universes cool down to a similar temperature
- All universes end up at a similar density

So why should we expect the properties of matter/forces to be radically different in other universes? It does not make any sense. If the matter (which is the same matter for all universes) is at the same temperature/density then it is in the same state in all universes. IE life supporting.

You guys want to say that we'll be making negentropic computers soon. OK. I can't argue with this issue of faith (other than by questioning what the benefits would be of so doing). But my point was that until its negentropic its not thinking, or understandings, or intelligent, etc — javra

I don't see why an entropic entity cannot display intelligence? For example, a software neural net is trained and learns a specific task. Software programs can in general modify their own logic and thus grow/learn.

Right, so how does that have any bearing on the necessity of God? The universe is suitable for life, I'm not seeing the need to explain that via a creator, it can either just be that way by chance or be the only one of billions that aren't that way. — Ciaran

The chances that a universe, picked at random, would be life supporting are very slim. So many things about our universe are 'just right' that it requires an explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

"They all go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density
— Devans99

Do they? How do you know this? — Ciaran

I'm using common sense (which cosmology could do with more of). All the universes are made of the same stuff and end up at a similar temperature/density so why on earth would anything be different about them. They all support life or they don't.

If time is circular, then travelling forward in time would eventually lead to retro-time travel.

But circular time probably requires a big crunch to proceed the big bang. So the would be retro-time traveller would not be able to make it through the big crunch to the past.

No, the fact that the universe appears fine tuned for life suggests that we wouldn't be in any other universes to be thinking about it. — Ciaran

The weak anthropic principle explains that the universe must be fined tuned for life; it does not explain why the universe is fined-tuned for life.

As is a god-created universe, so we're back to square one except that the maths by which physicists postulate these alternate universes has already proved itself to be reasonably necessary in explaining other phenomenon, God has not — Ciaran

There is no experimental evidence to support multiple universes. There is experimental evidence for the theory of Inflation but not for the extended theory of Eternal Inflation (multiple universes).

No, because it would involve postulating the existence of a force which does not seem to be necessary, hence it is simpler to try to explain the phenomena with forces we already have had to postulate — Ciaran

But that force is required to explain the fine tuning. Science can't just ignore the physical evidence.

The strong anthropic principle (multiple universes) just does not cut it IMO. Exactly how are all these universes meant to come out with different characteristics? They all go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all be life supporting. IE if there are multiple universes, they were all created, maybe by God.

I cannot think of a theory which would be so simple on its own that the addition of God doesn't automatically make it monumentally complex — Ciaran

The theories we have on the origin of the universe are more complex because they deliberately exclude the possibility of God.

The fact that the universe appears fine-tuned for life suggests the universe was created. Science has gone to extraordinary lengths to work around this rather awkward fact (for atheists). The cosmologists have invented models with an infinite number of randomly configured universes to try to explain fine-tuning. These models are complex and untestable.

The simpler Occam's Razor approach is to have a single universe that was fine-tuned for life by a creator. But it means excepting the possibility of God. Science needs to be open to this possibility if it's to continue to make progress IMO.

As such any existing and new theories should not include God if they can be developed using only phenomenon we have already theorised to be necessary. Hence atheistic (literally without God). — Ciaran

What would you choose given two theories of equal predicability:

- A complex theory with no God
- A simple theory with God

I suspect we aren't intelligent enough to grasp what machine intelligence will be capable of. — Jake

Maybe we will need cybernetically enhanced brains just to understand and operate with future generations of computers; they should outperform biologicals in every way eventually. Biologicals are the product of 4 billion years of a random, very inefficient process (evolution). Given 4 billion years of design imagine what our computers will be like.

What seems to set life apart from computers at the moment?

Adaptability is one aspect I think. Animals and humans seem to have the ability to cross domain map knowledge and strategies. Computers don't seem to have this ability at present. A computer program can be written to play chess yet the same program cannot fight a war even though the strategies of chess are applicable to warfare. Humans on the other hand have no difficulty in taking strategies learned in one domain and applying them to another.

We also have the ability to reason with incomplete data. We interpolate and extrapolate. We induce. Computers struggle without a precise and complete data model. We mix normal and fuzzy logic naturally. I think the software side has a long way to go.

The computers we have today, regardless of how complex, do not restructure their hardware — javra

Humans don't grow new organs dynamically; all we do is maintain and grow the size of existing organs and bodily structures. A computer should be able to achieve this. On mainframe, there is the concept of user updatable hardware microcode. It's been around for years, it allows updating of low level hardware operations. BIOS update on a PC is similar.

It's quite easy to imagine extending this to a computer self-restructuring its own microcode allowing hardware level change, growth, learning to the same degree a human does eventually. Evolution has developed the neural circuitry for intelligence over billions of years; we've had computers for less than 100 years; our software is somewhat lacking compared to nature's.

Computers are all entropic, algorithms, memory, and all. Life, regardless of how simple, is negentropic—and, quite arguably, always awareness-endowed, for it must survive in an ever changing environment it must be to some measure aware of. — javra

Both us and humans turn fuel (food for us, electricity for computers) into heat energy. I assume you mean the way animals assimilate part of what they consume whereas computers do not? Does this directly impact on intelligence?

Ants with just 250,000 neurons are self-aware in that they will scratch a paint spot of themselves when placed in front of a mirror:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Animals

I wonder if a worm with 200 neurons is self-aware? It's in no danger of eating itself so maybe there is no evolutionary driver for self-awareness in worms and perhaps they have not developed the neural circuitry to implement it? A robot with sensors could perhaps be made self-aware. Sensors and positional awareness of those sensors and some simple correlation would do it.

As to survival, that is an animal's primary goal. I'm not sure that primary goal is particularly intelligence inducing compared to other primary goals that could be set for a computer. Find the meaning of life or the world's funniest joke would foster intelligence just as well?

To refer to a machine as being intelligent is a blunder of intelligence — Anthony

But we are just machines. We have inputs and outputs, memory and a CPU. It's just we are so much more complex than current computers that we class ourselves apart when we are basically the same.

I wonder what point in the the size/complexity of animal's brains does intelligence first manifest itself? Some animals have very small brains:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons

So a worm with 200 neutrons, could it be said to manifest intelligence? I would say yes in a limited way and that intelligence should be possible to emulate with a computer... eventually.

Found this article with a great quote:

"At the present time, our most advanced robots, some of which are built in Japan and also at MIT, have the collective intelligence and wisdom of a cockroach; a mentally challenged cockroach; a lobotomized, mentally challenged cockroach."

https://bigthink.com/mike-colagrossi/what-animals-is-ai-currently-smarter-than

But they are better progress on the worm.

So even the most powerful computers of the current generation struggle to emulate a worm's behaviour. I think computers have 'intelligence'; it's just very limited at the moment.

I was arguing that just because we can't empirically observe an infinite thing doesn't mean that it's always unreasonable to assume the existence of an infinite thing. — Fuzzball Baggins

Science makes a rule: naturalistic solutions only allowed. No magic. Why do we make an exception to this rule for infinity? If I said I had a ruler longer than any other thing it would be a magic ruler would it not? Infinity is supernatural and it should not be allowed in science.

Infinity meant to be (say) larger than anything else; but 'larger' is a property of quantities and infinity is demonstrably not a quantity; it's a concept and a logically flawed one at that.

Really the burden of proof should be on those who believe in infinity - its an irrational belief and it requires evidence to back up its existence. But there is no such evidence and plenty of evidence that infinity does not exist.

Science allows only naturalistic explanations which excludes traditional definition of God (as supernatural). I see a problem though: what about a naturalistic, non-supernatural God? Science seems to tar this with the same brush as a supernatural God.

The atheist cosmologists have created what might well be a gigantic fairy tale - Eternal Inflation and its multiple universes all with different configurations; just to get around the need for God. Seems to me they are jumping through hoops just to avoid God. Not very objective or scientific IMO.

But the road from a logical model to reality requires observation — tim wood

The question of whether there was a start of time or not may be unanswerable by observation. We are at least 14 billion years too late to observe any start of time. Unless we invent time travel, a metaphysical answer to the question maybe the only answer we will ever get.

I think it's a good axiom. The only logical alternatives to the 'material ordered collections have a first member' axiom are:

1. 'material ordered collections do not a first member'
2. 'material ordered collections sometimes a first member'

1 is easy to dismiss with reference to real life examples. For instance, a stamp collection has a first member.

2 is equivalent to 'there exists a material ordered collection with no first member'. This is a strange thing to belief in IMO. Certainly there are no examples of such from nature.

All I'm saying is that if you agree with the axiom, then you agree there must have been a first motion. It argues against time extending back indefinitely as follows:

What was the cause of the first motion? There must of been a cause, and time extending back indefinitely before the first motion contain no cause. So time can't extend back indefinitely; there must be a start of time.

The axiom 'material ordered collections have a first member' I made up. Combined with another axiom ‘motion exists’, this gives the first point in my argument that there must be a first motion. You disagree with the reasoning?

Well, then time wouldn't have a beginning — Terrapin Station

The beginning/end point on a circle is arbitrary. The Big Bang / Big Crunch seems like the most natural choice.

Time is not change; time governs change through the speed of light (speed=distance/time) law.

Do you agree with the axiom 'material ordered collections have a first member'? If yes then you should agree with my argument and time has a start follows.

I'm not at all fond of talk that has more than one universe. — Terrapin Station

There is just one universe, just one big bang and one big crunch. No need for multiple universe, it's the same universe in an eternal circle of time.

I don't see how the universe can impose the speed of light speed (=time/distance) unless there is something real about time. Time having a start would reenforce the argument that time is real. Believing that time is real and being a finitist means I believe time has an end too. If each moment needs another moment before it, then circular time is the only allowable configuration.

This argument-as-bridge won't carry any weight. For example, if the big bang is the first motion and the start of time, what would "then trigger" the big bang? — tim wood

The start of time could be coincidental withe the end of time, with the big bang triggered by the big crunch. The big crunch after all is the only place in the universe to get enough matter/energy for the big bang.

Start with,"there must have been a first motion in the universe." Why must there have been? — tim wood

I'm using an axiom equivalent to 'material ordered collections have a first member'. I think it's a self evident axiom. The collection of negative integers is not a valid counter example as it is not fully defined so can't exist in the material world (in our minds only).

of course you can't treat natural numbers as a finite set, because it is not a finite set. — Ikolos

But maths tries too do this. The set concept encompasses two different object types:

- finite sets. Fully defined. Have cardinality
- infinite sets. Partially defined. No cardinality.

Maths tries to treat these two different object type the same which is an error. They even invent magic numbers for cardinality - thats all nonsense IMO.

That's false. The first axiom of modal logic (axiom by Alfred Tarski) is: p→◇ p which means: if p is given, than it is possible that p. — Ikolos

Just because it exists in our minds does not mean it exists in reality. Talking trees existing my mind for example.

That's false. Computer science is based on set theory. Classical mathematics is based on set theory after the development of mathematical logic. And, since you yourself(as anybody who is not insane) admit that classical math brought many results to as, especially in physics, for physics without math is a mythological novel, and since calculus is part of classical maths, it follows that Set theory brought as much as classical maths does, inasmuch this latter is based on the former — Ikolos

Computer science may use set theory but it is finite set theory. Maths could do just fine without infinite set theory because infinite sets do not exist. For example, the set of naturals:

{1, 2, 3, 4, ... }

is partially undefined (the ... bit); IE it is not defined so it can never have a cardinality and you can't treat it like a finite set. Set theory tries to treat finite and 'infinite' sets the same, an obviously inappropriate polymorphism. Set theory is broken IMO.

I think you keep confusing the RELATION which infinity is and the RESULTS of an operation, which are not infinite, but indefinite — Ikolos

What operation with an indefinite result do you refer to?

It is irrelevant whether or not a computation rely on limited faculties, for an abstract method of compute infinitely many proposition there is: compute each single one. The problem is how to DECIDE among those INFINITE proposition those which are tautologies(entscheindigung problem). — Ikolos

Just because there exists an 'infinite' number of something in our minds, does not imply an 'infinite' number of something is possible. Our minds are simply in error. The concept/relation of actual infinity does not translate to reality.

Very true, but it is pathologic to deny that the application of transfinite reasoning brought to you ACTUALLY EXISTENT machines, and procured great advances in a large variety of fields in technology. — Ikolos

Potential infinity (calculus) has brought us much. Actual infinity (set theory) has not. The first reflects nature, the second does not.

You keep intending infinity as a quantity and not as a relation. Infinity is the REASON why, for some operation, it is true that there will never be a result which would be THE BIGGEST/HIGHEST. It is not that one highest, insofar as unreachable, nor it is this (reificated) impossibility. — Ikolos

Relations don't exist in the real world, quantities do. If infinity is a relation it is not part of the real world.

because we can not compute effectively all the tautologies in first order predicative logic — Ikolos

That's a potential infinity. Anything related to computers is potential rather than actual. Computers compute over time and have a finite memory capacity so cannot by definition deal with actual infinity.

Actual Infinity was introduced into set theory for spiritual not logical reasons. Cantor was very devout and believed God was infinite. He thought the whole trans-finite nonsense was dictated to him by God!

From: numbers reflect reality and numbers exclude infinity you cannot conclude that reality excludes infinity — Ikolos

Real life parameters like the size/age of the universe are quantities. Infinity is not a quantity. Hence the universe is finite.

You say infinity is a concept; I agree. Quantities cannot take on the value of a concept. The size of the universe is 'love' makes no sense.

Claiming to be magic the «existence of actual infinity» it's just rethoric — Ikolos

It is not rhetoric. Something that goes on forever is more magical than say pulling a rabbit from a hat.

explain CANTOR'S Hierarchy of infinities — Ikolos

There is no hierarchy of infinities. The definition of infinity as the larger than anything else precludes more than one infinity.


I maintain I have offered plenty of proof for non existence of actual infinity and you have offered no proof that actual infinity exists.

From the above we can see that an instant/moment of time is meaningless or, at least, leads to unsolvable paradoxes. I suggest therefore that we give up the notion of an instant of time and always consider time to be an interval - a distance, so to speak, between two points of a clock — TheMadFool

Here is an argument that time is discrete. Consider:
- 1 second of time
- 1 year of time
According to the definition of continuous, both intervals must be graduated to the same precision and thus have the same information content. But 1 year has more information than 1 second - contradiction, so time must be made of discrete moments.

Continuous leads to paradoxes like Zeno's. Discrete is not paradoxical. In the Arrow Paradox, the arrow always has a velocity associated with it and so is never at rest so I don't see that as paradoxical.

1. So we agree it's not a number. All physical quantities including time as space can be represented by numbers. Numbers reflect reality and they do not include infinity. So reality is not likely to include infinity.
2. It's meant to represent physical quantities so it should be physically constructible. If it's not constructible, it's probably impossible.
3. It would be pure magic if actual infinity exists so that's why it's not found in nature. You can't actually believe that space goes on 'forever' can you? How is that possible? That's just believe in magic.
4. What about all the paradoxes of infinity? Hilbert's Hotel for example. Utter madness. You can't really claim such a hotel could exist?
5. You are the one with the irrational belief here. Infinity is magic. Burden of prove that it exists is on you

it seems like you're not reading (or understanding) the mathematics and/or definitions. — jorndoe

The point is I do not agree with some of the definitions. How exactly is the axiom of infinity from set theory logical? I just disproved the existence of actual infinity twice above (I note you passed on both arguments).

Actual Infinity is just magic and plain impossible/illogical.

(reposted from lounge)
Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

Further, actual infinity does not follow common sense or mathematical rules:

oo + 1 = oo implies
1 = 0

Nothing in the real world can you add to whilst it remains unchanged. This logical absurdity implies infinity is not a mathematical quantity.

No. The lim, as defined, is zero. — jorndoe

Then it's defined wrong. There is no value of x for which 1/x = 0. Perhaps you are thinking of Actual Infinity?

Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

Further, actual infinity does not follow common sense or mathematical rules:

oo + 1 = oo implies
1 = 0

Nothing in the real world can you add to whilst it remains unchanged. This logical absurdity implies infinity is not a mathematical quantity.

No. The premise was "the universe was temporally infinite", "no 1st moment". — jorndoe

That's impossible I'm afraid. Actual Infinity does not exist so negative Actual Infinity does not exist so past eternity does not exist (same structure).

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there was no 1st moment, but just some moment, t1 — jorndoe

Then t1 is the first moment and the universe is temporally finite.

There is no doubt whatever that all our cognition begins with experi­ ence; — Ikolos

We had a recent discussion on the premise of you OP and I/we are in agreement with you I think:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4562/we-dont-create-we-synthesize/p1

If our cognitive faculty is awakened, then it is so by the object of senses or otherwise — Ikolos

I would have said 'senses or memory'. All thoughts trace a heritage back to senses or memory.

I shall point out here, that time is neither a mathematical succession, because mathematical succession as no definite o r i e n t a t i o n; nor a mere ordered succession, because not only is time ordered(in regards to symmetry, and, in this regards, actually this is not true at every scale of natural phenomena), but it as a VERSE(irreversibility): eggs break but do not unbreak(while in general it may be the opposite for other being). — Ikolos

I'm afraid I do not agree with you concept of time (see the other thread).

Still we can not ASSERT actual infinity — Ikolos

1. I proved twice it does not exist in maths. What was wrong with those proofs?
2. It's impossible to construct, geometrically or otherwise.
3. It's not found in nature.
4. It's deeply illogical.
5. Actual Infinity does not exist.