27-12-2003 23:57									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael Actually, there is an argument against the possibility of omniscience. It's the fact that you simply can't fit the knowledge of all that is the universe into something that is not the universe.

That is the killer argument, and an important one. As everything that exists is in the universe, and only detectable things exist (if you can't detect it AT ALL, i.e. it has no effect on the universe, then Occam's razor cuts it out), the total data storage capacity of the universe is exactly enough to store the most memory-efficient representation of the universe. For example, the fact that particle A has X velocity is stored inside particle A (not literally, you understand what I mean).

	27-12-2003 23:58									#62
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Sky: What you're doing is looking at the possibility of other logical systems within the confines of your own. In effect, viewing it with tinted glasses, thus reaching your conclusion. Logic A says logic B cannot exist. I believe you can use logic A to prove logic B, but thats is beyond me, hence I posted the question on Ektopos:

I haven't proved it, of course (you can't), but I'm confident that any other logical system, viewed from within itself, would be internally inconsistent and thus would come to the conclusion that the logic system we use is the only internally consistent one, and thus the correct one.

	28-12-2003 00:16									#63
	Support Apolyton

quote: I haven't proved it, of course (you can't), but I'm confident that any other logical system, viewed from within itself, would be internally inconsistent and thus would come to the conclusion that the logic system we use is the only internally consistent one, and thus the correct one.

Understood. However, you need to provide evidence for this, a philosophical or logical proof. Those who are opposed to your position need only provide one, or the premise for one, that is different.

	28-12-2003 00:25									#64
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Quite true. However, attempting this feat would be difficult for ONE logical system (so hard to wrap your mind around it), let alone an infinite number of them

	28-12-2003 01:01									#65
	Support Apolyton

quote: I haven't proved it, of course (you can't), but I'm confident that any other logical system, viewed from within itself, would be internally inconsistent and thus would come to the conclusion that the logic system we use is the only internally consistent one, and thus the correct one.

Wrong. A true/false/maybe logic works and is NOT the locig math are based upon.
A logic where you can't prove things by contraposition works too, although it's very limitating.
Both logics have strong ties with ours, as they are a superset and a subset, but both are different and still consistent.

	28-12-2003 01:24									#66
	Tired of ads?

Any "subset" of our logical system is not its own logic system relative to ours. Also, wrt fuzzy logic, it's part of our logic system, isn't it?

	28-12-2003 02:08									#67
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael Actually, there is an argument against the possibility of omniscience. It's the fact that you simply can't fit the knowledge of all that is the universe into something that is not the universe.

That sounds spuriously metaphysical.

quote: Your argument up there stated that an individual - someone distcint and separate from other individuals, and thus not omnipresent - was omniscient, and that doesn't really hold. An individual that is not omnipresent is necessarily finite, and so cannot hold the data set of the universe.

There is no logical connection between being omniscient and omnipresent. You could water it down a bit and still have a good argument - an interpreter who knows everything it is possible for a human being to know, for example.

The omniscient interpreter is just a device to show us that most of our beliefs must be true, belief being what it is.

	28-12-2003 02:14									#68
	Tired of ads?

Ok so there are lots of theoretical possibilites for the state of our existence, either real and material or not - but has anyone actualy experienced anything weird, that might explain further.......for example i'm thinking that 'God' is part of our human condition that stems from an important source.
Either as some kind of leftover residue as 'Programmer' of our universe/experiment(like he left comments in some peoples/things code), or as a more organic structure as in the formal construct of the ancestor memmory of our tribal cheif.

For example i dont realy subscribe to any of the main religions as we have interpreted them, but i do have a feeling for something(with intelligence) that is beyond our physical reality. And I dont know why. Is it part of my human/simian ancestor memmories, buried deep within my brain or is it that i've been left with a 'comment' in my code that makes we wonder about it?
Or am i just crazy?

I think studying the imperfections in life are the places where we will find most of the interesting answers(in science as well as in myth).

	28-12-2003 02:18									#69
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon That sounds spuriously metaphysical. There is no logical connection between being omniscient and omnipresent. You could water it down a bit and still have a good argument - an interpreter who knows everything it is possible for a human being to know, for example. The omniscient interpreter is just a device to show us that most of our beliefs must be true, belief being what it is.

When you get right down to it, we are only aware of objects within the universe indirectly. We sense the effect that objects/particles/waves and all sorts of things have on other things, and we measure the effects of these actions to determine what it is that we are sensing.

Seeing is not believing. Our brain interprets the electrical signals sents from our eyes that are generated by contact with photons that emanate from an object that is attempting to bring its electrons to a lower energy level after having been bombarded by other photons.

Information about the universe must be stored in a part of the universe, or else there is no place for it. Now, if we want to know everything there is to know about the universe, then every object within the universe must act on another object so that its properties can be witnessed and interpreted in some way.

As such, the only way that you can know everything about the universe is if you are in direct contact with everything in the universe, so that you have the opportunity to be aware of every action and reaction.

Omniscience, without going into supernatural things, requires omnipresence.

	28-12-2003 02:49									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Actually, omniscience requires BEING the universe, which is slightly more than omnipresence

	28-12-2003 02:49									#71
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Actually, omniscience requires BEING the universe, which is slightly more than omnipresence

	28-12-2003 04:17									#72
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Omniscience doesn't require being the universe. If you are outside the universe, in a bigger thing, you may very well be omniscient with regards to the universe.

	28-12-2003 04:50									#73
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael When you get right down to it, we are only aware of objects within the universe indirectly. We sense the effect that objects/particles/waves and all sorts of things have on other things, and we measure the effects of these actions to determine what it is that we are sensing.

I don't think this has much to do with justifying our beliefs. The objects of my beliefs are real things like trees and people, not private sensory states. In fact, no one has been able to detect such things. There are causal states of our sense organs and the like, but these have no place in justifying our knowledge of the external world (although they explain how it is possible). They are the object of science, not philosophy.

quote: Seeing is not believing. Our brain interprets the electrical signals sents from our eyes that are generated by contact with photons that emanate from an object that is attempting to bring its electrons to a lower energy level after having been bombarded by other photons.

Yes, this is how our cognitive equipment works (as far as we know). That is a causal account, not a justificatory account. You can't infer from that to some kind of phenomalism.

quote: Information about the universe must be stored in a part of the universe, or else there is no place for it. Now, if we want to know everything there is to know about the universe, then every object within the universe must act on another object so that its properties can be witnessed and interpreted in some way.

I believe this is an error. Knowledge is knowledge of propositions, not of things. The notion that our mind has some special relationship to things has been a cause of many philosophical difficulties, because people didn't examine this picture sufficiently.

quote: As such, the only way that you can know everything about the universe is if you are in direct contact with everything in the universe, so that you have the opportunity to be aware of every action and reaction.

I find that absurd. I can know what the specific atomic weight of hydrogen is without being in touch with hydrogen. I can know that 2+2=4 without being in touch with some strange abstract object.

	28-12-2003 04:52									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Omniscience doesn't require being the universe. If you are outside the universe, in a bigger thing, you may very well be omniscient with regards to the universe.

Again, how can you be "outside the universe"? Unless we are using the "region of spacetime" definition, in which case yes, my statement is false. However, in that case, knowledge of the "universe" would also be useless.

	28-12-2003 05:45									#75
	Suffering from ads?

All three premises seem pretty spurios to me.

1. Is there an objective universe? I'll suppose it means that there is only one "true" interpretation for a universe. That is to say, every aspect of the universe has one "true" state. I'll provide a refutation of this premise in non-abstract terms - physical ideas:

The only time you can absolutely know a physical quantity (position, momentum, energy, etc.) of a physical object is if its wavefunction is an eigenfunction of the operator you're trying to measure (i.e. if A|x> = a|x>, where A is the operator, |x> is the wave function, and a is a real number). For most of the time, this isn't the case, so you can't find a definite result for what you're trying to measure as there simply isn't one. So the logical conclusion is that there is no objective universe.

As for whether a meaningful philosophy can be built on the idea that there is not objective universe, I don't see any good reason why not.

2. I the universe deterministic? No, it isn't (assuming of course physical measurements have largely been correct this past century). Rather, the universe is probabilistic. For the reason stated above.

3. Can a non-self-aware entity come up with the idea of self-awareness? Well, what is self-awareness, exactly?

4. Seems valid, although it shouldn't have anything to do with deterministic physics. As long as self-awareness is not a super-natural property (i.e. having to do with things not affected by physical laws - say "God"), that should be a natural conclusion.

5. Like 4 I don't see how it has anything to do with the rest. There's no reason why it shouldn't be true.

Really, the only premise you need for 4 and 5 (which are pretty much independent) is that the physical laws determine sentience. Which you can't prove since we know very little about sentience.

	29-12-2003 04:04									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Do we define the universe as the region directly affected by big bang, or anything less than infinity?

*Whaleboy reaches for Skywalkers balls*

	29-12-2003 06:41									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Do we define the universe as the region directly affected by big bang, or anything less than infinity? *Whaleboy reaches for Skywalkers balls*

"The region directly affected by the big bang" is pretty meaningless - how do you determine whether or not it is "direct" or "indirect"? If you remove the "directly", it becomes slightly more meaningful - but only slightly. You are basically grasping at "everything within all regions of spacetime contiguous with the one we occupy". However, there are no special properties associated with that - it is not inherently different from any other region of spacetime. The second statement is completely meaningless even at the semantic level. Infinity is not a number - it exists only in the limit. Therefore, nothing can be "less" than infinity. Plus, even excusing that, does that mean you are describing the universe as the set of all real numbers U negative infinity?

	29-12-2003 15:04									#78
	Support Apolyton

Physics seems to have assumed all along its history that objectivity is entirely primary to subjectivity; indeed the latter has to be ignored.

Yet do we have any evidence for an objective universe?

	29-12-2003 18:01									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: You are basically grasping at "everything within all regions of spacetime contiguous with the one we occupy".

No, I'm grasping at your balls...

You are correct though.

quote: However, there are no special properties associated with that - it is not inherently different from any other region of spacetime.

Incorrect. By definition our "universe" (see above definition) is the region where the fourth dimension is a time. Outside, it becomes a vector as shown by superstring theory.

quote: The second statement is completely meaningless even at the semantic level. Infinity is not a number - it exists only in the limit. Therefore, nothing can be "less" than infinity. Plus, even excusing that, does that mean you are describing the universe as the set of all real numbers U negative infinity?

I am attempting to ascertain whether or not you mean that the universe is that region 28 billion light years in diameter, or as the word would seem to imply, all objectively less than infinity. Naturally, within our logical framework defined by this universe, all outside it is infinity, hence my use of the word objective. Hang on a second.... internally consistent logical systems... HAH!

quote: Physics seems to have assumed all along its history that objectivity is entirely primary to subjectivity; indeed the latter has to be ignored. Yet do we have any evidence for an objective universe?

You confuse objective ultimately (where physics and uncertainty principle would prove the existence of god), or objective to a given context. For example, to the small picture, the bigger takes precidence, until quantum physics (which leads to the biggest we have at the moment of course). Physics does not attempt to understand an ultimate objective infinity, but the infinity within the given number of dimensions within which it works. Call it cosmological subjectivity, with pseudo-objectives, it justifies the state of physics and stems from the notion of subjectivity. Your point is false.

Heavens.. its amazing what you can do with graph paper

	29-12-2003 20:36									#80
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Physics seems to have assumed all along its history that objectivity is entirely primary to subjectivity; indeed the latter has to be ignored. Yet do we have any evidence for an objective universe?

I already explained the necessity of assuming an objective universe. There is no EVIDENCE for it (by definition, there can be none), but it is a necessary assumption (without it, philosophy becomes rather pointless).

	29-12-2003 20:41									#81
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Incorrect. By definition our "universe" (see above definition) is the region where the fourth dimension is a time. Outside, it becomes a vector as shown by superstring theory.

Huh? So if I took this region of spacetime (which, believe it or not, I DO understand includes time ) and removed an itty-bitty slice of it, it would suddenly have vastly different properties?

quote: am attempting to ascertain whether or not you mean that the universe is that region 28 billion light years in diameter, or as the word would seem to imply, all objectively less than infinity. Naturally, within our logical framework defined by this universe, all outside it is infinity, hence my use of the word objective. Hang on a second.... internally consistent logical systems... HAH!

You keep misusing the term infinity, and I'm not sure how you mean to use it. Infinity only has meaning in the context of a limit (i.e., as x tends towards infinity 1/x tends towards zero, or as x tends towards zero from the positive side 1/x tends towards infinity). You can't say that something "is" infinity.

	29-12-2003 23:27									#82
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Huh? So if I took this region of spacetime (which, believe it or not, I DO understand includes time ) and removed an itty-bitty slice of it, it would suddenly have vastly different properties?

What do you mean by removed? You mean change the coefficient of spacetime density, or perhaps go back in time and change something? If so, then yes. The uncertainty principle and sum over histories shows this rather clearly.

quote: You keep misusing the term infinity, and I'm not sure how you mean to use it. Infinity only has meaning in the context of a limit (i.e., as x tends towards infinity 1/x tends towards zero, or as x tends towards zero from the positive side 1/x tends towards infinity). You can't say that something "is" infinity.

On the contrary. You have a graph, axes from 1 to 10. You have the number 11. As far as the graph is concerned, 11 is infinity, due to its limited scope. Also consider a 2D graph with 3D coordinates. For every limited set of dimensions, there is an unreachable infinity. We are only able to perceive otherwise in those examples because of our greater dimensional scope. Consider the "trampoline and collapsing cricket ball" analogy of general relativity and black hole formation. The ball drops through the rubber mat, and we can perceive what has happened, but if your plane of existence was that mat, it would appear as though a black hole had been formed. The cosmological definition of infinity is quite different from the oblique definition provided by mathematics. Put another way, the mathematical definition only holds for four dimensions, part of the problem you have of holding variables to be constants. Nonetheless, you have specified that to be an assumption of your argument, thus I accept we shaln't agree. However, it is interesting that the logical conclusion of this theory is a proof that there is no ultimate objective, a cosmological Hadrians Wall does not exist.

quote: but it is a necessary assumption (without it, philosophy becomes rather pointless).

You have explained that you assume the premise for that, but how do you infer that. It is entirely possible to have a meaningful philosophy based upon that, for example, consider the numerous interpretations of existentialism and the plethora of Eastern philosophies. How do you define "meaningful". Do you aim to deride philosophies that oppose yours because in your view, their metaphysical foundation appears meaningless? If so, I must contend that it is a false refutation.