magine that we manage to put two fundamental particles in an isolated system we know everything about, and that we're sure nothing else influences the system, would it be possible that we still could not predict their behavior? We would have all the data we need, but it just wouldn't make sense to us, it would appear random. — Skalidris
To me, that scenario is possible because our mind is limited by its building blocks. For example, logic connectors like "and" cannot be broken down into something else. — Skalidris
in my thought experiment, we have everything: there is no noise, all the information is relevant because it's an isolated system and the particles are the most fundamental.
In my opinion, that's an impossible situation, but I thought about this because I think even then, we still might not be able to find a solution because our logic is limited. — Skalidris
The basic wrong assumption here is that knowledge is information accumulation rather than information discard. The world is complex. And so the mind seeks to simplify.
That is how science works. It extracts the measurement minimising laws of nature. General equations that can make good enough predictions employing the fewest data points. — apokrisis
But in my thought experiment, we have everything: there is no noise, all the information is relevant because it's an isolated system and the particles are the most fundamental. — Skalidris
The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible. But its function is also historically evolved and in this respect not a priori. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror
the tools we can create with it — Skalidris
conceptually, why would people think that our mind happens to have the right tools to understand the universe? — Skalidris
Any other examples or expansions on this or other rationales of how/why reality is perceived/perceiveable in a particular way, in Lorenz's book? — kazan
keeping with the speculative part of this OP, is: Might living things have extra senses that are currently not recognized but influence the experience of everything? — kazan
Will take your advise re: "...you to look at them" — kazan
People often seem to think that even if the human mind is limited, the tools we can create with it (AI for example) can overcome any limitations if we have enough time. And therefore they reach the conclusion that we could understand the whole universe. — Skalidris
Imagine that we manage to put two fundamental particles in an isolated system we know everything about, and that we're sure nothing else influences the system, would it be possible that we still could not predict their behavior? — Skalidris
We would have all the data we need, but it just wouldn't make sense to us, it would appear random. — Skalidris
However we try to twist our notion of space, time, etc, even when we try it with math and AI, it still wouldn't be enough to predict the behavior of the particles with 100% certainty. — Skalidris
For example, logic connectors like "and" cannot be broken down into something else. We could build an alternative version of "and" that also includes an "or" possibility like with the states of particles in quantum physics, but even that new notion is built with our building blocks "and" and "or". There's no escaping it, we can't imagine a logic that's made without these notions. — Skalidris
But what's the probability that these notions that were developed through evolution are a good match for the understanding of the whole universe? They're a good adaptation to understand the environment on earth that we have access to, but that's just a tiny fraction of the universe, so what are the odds that these structures in our brain would happen to be a good tool to understand a completely different environment? — Skalidris
I think it's arrogant for humans to think that somehow, the universe follows the same logic as the logic in our mind. — Skalidris
And I also find it ridiculous that people think anything can happen thanks to AI, that whatever we can't build, AI can with enough time, as if it was magical. — Skalidris
In the end it's all about combinaisons: AI can make combinations of things, but it cannot invent something that isn't a combination of the data it gathered. It's like with our imagination, we can't invent something totally new that isn't a combination of known things. — Skalidris
Well, it is apparent to me that we have already begun to understand our universe with the brains we currently have now, and i don't see any reason why this trajectory will not continue. — punos
Every tiny fraction of the universe partakes from the same fundamental logic that everything else does or it doesn't exist. I would say that the probability is 100%. — punos
It's not arrogant because it's the other way around. It is our minds that follow the logic of the universe. — punos
What trajectory? The one where we’ll keep on understanding the universe better and better? Sure, I agree, our knowledge will most likely keep on extending. But that doesn’t mean we’ll able to reach perfect knowledge. — Skalidris
the fact that water boils at a 100 degrees is not a certainty: it’s not 100.0000000 degrees, the decimals are uncertain, also, it’s impossible to make perfect assessment of the conditions in the environment studied (pressure,…), there are uncertainties on every measure we take. — Skalidris
Why would it not exist if it doesn’t follow the same fundamental logic?
Is it 100% because of the trajectory? Because that’s not mathematically true, as I explained with the log curve, there can be a limit, even if our knowledge keeps on increasing. — Skalidris
It aims to follow the “logic” of the universe through trials and errors (evolution), huge difference.
Evolution is far from perfect, and just because concepts in our mind were “kept” because they allowed for an understanding of our environment and gave us an advantage for survival doesn’t mean they are the best tools we could have. — Skalidris
it seems ridiculous to assume that we could predict such huge things that are happening far from our bubble when we “got created” through evolution from what was happening inside the bubble. — Skalidris
the basic tools these species would have would most likely be drastically different from each other (like we would use our logic, tiny humans would use some type of quantum logic, etc), which would make communication impossible… — Skalidris
it still wouldn't be enough to predict the behavior of the particles with 100% certainty — Skalidris
To me, that scenario is possible because our mind is limited by its building blocks. — Skalidris
I think it's arrogant for humans to think that somehow, the universe follows the same logic as the logic in our mind. — Skalidris
The basic wrong assumption here is that knowledge is information accumulation rather than information discard. — apokrisis
We have all the information we need to find the value of the nth digit of pi, and it can be discovered with complete certainty. But since it is an infinite series, there is no limit to the information we can extract from the running of the algorithm and tomorrow we will find more than we have today. — unenlightened
Are they not just an extension of mind, and therefore, within its limitations? If the AI communicates in anything other than a human language, then I think, we can start talking beyond the limitations of human mind. — ENOAH
I agree that doing so is the only way for the 'end product' to stand any chance of being anything but an extension of human Mind.my idea is to let computers develop their own "language" or "representation code". — Carlo Roosen
Unless 'we' / 'it' evolves a 'way' to feel; tge way we do organically; it will not be authentically friendly. It will only act in ways which function best for purpose. Friendliness may be conditioned for, say, an AI functioning as a house mate, but it would lack the organic bond humans presumably feelwill not having this animal brain make an AI naturally friendly or not? — Carlo Roosen
or would it go after its own interest — Carlo Roosen
in principle, the whole of the universe can be understood to an almost god-like degree. Mankind, now in its present stage of evolution, is not yet capable of this feat. — punos
Have you considered that all of understanding is actually constructing, and that there is no end to make-beleve? I'm not denying the functional success, what we'd point to as accuracy, even empirical certainty in some of our more daring constructions. But at the end of the day there is no understanding the universe. We are only constructing a [model of the] universe. — ENOAH
The only way to access infinity is all at once, as if by holding it in the palm of your hands. You cannot do that by the slow and arduous process of building a comprehensive understanding. — ENOAH
You can only do that by being that organic particular of the whole universe, like each cell carries the genome. — ENOAH
place your bet. — punos
you and I are not getting at the substance of the universe — ENOAH
just playing with ideas about it; if one is skillful, the ideas function and we believe them to be reality; but they were structured by ideas, and remain ideas. — ENOAH
It's quite easy in most cases to determine the substance of an emergent layer of reality. For example, the substance of a cell is the molecule. — punos
But only seeing Mona Lisa's naked face with my naked eyes will have given me any access go her face which is real. — ENOAH
Even when you look at the naked face of Mona Lisa with your very own eyes — punos
I'm not done sculpting — punos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.