This is a continuation of my previous post on quantum consciousness (or not), also inspired by Ben Goertzel’s “AGI, Consciousness, Life, the Universe and Everything” on H+ Magazine. In a comment, I wrote: “I am often thinking of a meta-[Theory of Everything]ToE (actually an anti-ToE) that we may call “The [BIG] Infinite Fractal Onion Universe” or something like that.” Here are some thoughts on something like that.
“Gödel demonstrated that our understanding of even the simple world of natural numbers is and will remain incomplete, because there are truths that cannot be demonstrated from the axioms. We can extend the axioms to capture more and more truths, but Gödel’s theorem says that we cannot capture all truths with a finite set of axioms.”
Gödel’s theorem tells us for any consistent formal system powerful to do a certain form of arithmetic, there will be a true sentence—the system’s Gödel’s sentence—that the system cannot prove… —Applications, Strong Artificial Intelligence
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/06 at 11:57 AM
“And then what? Perhaps we live in a quantum multiverse and we cannot describe a single branch without describing all other branches as well. Maybe there are extra dimensions besides three spatial dimensions and a single time dimension, and we cannot fully understand reality without understanding what goes on in these extra dimensions… but then we may find out that even five or six dimensions is not enough and we need to extend our reality model to ten, eleven… all the way up to infinite dimensions.”
How can time be a dimension? This is simply a classical analogy, and relativity has dispelled with a classical countdown clock?
The measure of time is a human construct, and is merely the “measure of rate of change of motion”. As the entire Cosmos/Universe is in a constant state of motion, more precisely time is a “measure of rate of change”, (anicca)?
Although time is classed as a dimension in string theory so I believe. String theory proposes ten dimensions doesn’t it?
Without change there is no measure of time - something to think about? A quantum state of non-change, where there is no reason or motive for wave collapse. Perhaps this describes the heat death of the Universe, a timeless era of stagnant and static potential? (Although I do not believe myself that any particle/string will be that disassociated from it’s surroundings as not to be aware of it’s nearest neighbour, and therefore interact - However, the Universe may be very chilly and very still none-the-less?)
A funda-mental truth is that you cannot separate any scientific experiment, or physical interaction, from Consciousness or “awareness”. So as those wise Hindu’s would profess, we are all an integral part of the “sea of Consciousness”, subjectivity is an illusion, and in the same manner as the Buddha professed also.
The dual slit experiment is a “mystery”. How does the particle entity react according to your observations of it? How does an observer collapse the wave function alone? Answer must be, it takes “two to tango”? Fundamental attribute is…. (place your answer here)
You may rationalize also, that there are no rule(s) of mathematics for the Universe/Cosmos, thus no ToE to be found. It just so happens that Humans favour base 10, but you should be able to mathematically propose a model for creation from any number base, even a prime? (I wonder if Feynman contemplated that? I bet he did?) This would suggest that creation is infinitely complex, and that complexity is the “miracle” that provides for all possibilities.
The “potential” for creation exists, and always will exist. Maya is transformed, created, destroyed in the eternal dance of impermanence and change, (anicca).
Posted by SHaGGGz on 12/08 at 02:52 AM
Per Godel’s theorem, no formal system can represent all knowledge. However, could we combine distinct systems, each covering partially overlapping domains (like we currently do with science as a whole) to eventually represent all knowledge? Or would this intersystemic coherence itself be considered one big metasystem and thus subject to the same Godelian limitation?
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/08 at 03:06 PM
Alternatively.. Do we really want to know “everything”? Like Feynman & Giulio intimate, without further “mystery” the Universe/Cosmos will be a “cold and sterile” place?
It’s miraculous and awesome that Humans can manipulate forms and matter, and now life itself, without really understanding any ToE? Such like Victorians utilising electricity before any sound theory was understood?
The Universe has evolved emergent “mind” to not only ask questions of it-Self, but to enable the manipulation of forms and energy?
God was made in the image of man? Past, present and future are unavoidable, entangled?
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/09 at 12:34 AM
“God was made in the image of man?”
That’s the problem: if God had been made in the image of woman, it wouldn’t be quite so bad.
@SHaGGGz re “could we combine distinct systems, each covering partially overlapping domains (like we currently do with science as a whole) to eventually represent all knowledge? Or would this intersystemic coherence itself be considered one big metasystem and thus subject to the same Godelian limitation?”
As you say, this is what we do in practice with science as a whole, and I guess we will continue to do so, because it is an approach that works.
Of course, there is no waterproof way to ensure the consistency of different models in overlapping domains. I guess if we had a way to make different models always consistent, we would fall back into the Godelian trap.
I see nothing wrong with having different models. I don’t think science is about finding The Truth, whatever that is, but rather about finding models that work, and I don’t see why there must be only one model. A good worker has many tools in his toolbox, and knows how to choose the best one for the task at hand.
@Intomorrow re “if God had been made in the image of woman, it wouldn’t be quite so bad”
Oh my god, PC feminist nonsense again. Look, the 70s are over, or at least they should be.
There are great/smart men and great/smart women, there are bad/stupid men and bad/stupid women, there are saints and assholes in both genders, and no gender is intrinsically better than the other.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/09 at 02:21 PM
“Look, the 70s are over, or at least they should be.”
If one can remember the ‘70s, one wasn’t there!
“There are great/smart men and great/smart women, there are bad/stupid men and bad/stupid women, there are saints and assholes in both genders, and no gender is intrinsically better than the other.”
The veracity of this is, as you well know, a matter of opinion. We two are about the same age; my experience in those decades led me to conclude women are slightly superior to men: say 10 percent to throw out a number. For argument’s sake a wonk might say more feminised Scandinavia—the only place in Europe I’ve explored—is also about 10 percent ‘superior’ in the progressive sociological sense. But who says sociology is a hard science? Men treat women (IMO of course) worse than vice versa and women need an outlet for the pressure; and that isn’t a hydraulic theory of gender pressure, you can see it all around you if you pay close attention. Giulio, it doesn’t take much to see the writing on the wall.
Now you attempt to falsify what I’ve written in this comment and we’ll see where it goes…
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/09 at 02:38 PM
...wait, it’s far off-topic. Best thing to do is if you have the time write a piece on fallacious ‘70s gender hypotheses.
@Intomorrow re “Now you attempt to falsify what I’ve written in this comment and we’ll see where it goes…”
As you say, it is a matter of opinion, and my opinion is different from yours.
Also, I still believe in the old-fashioned idea of the fundamental equality of all persons.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/09 at 03:41 PM
Yes, or to re-phrase Lincoln,
“all men (we presume women as well) are not actually created equal yet we work towards equality because we are dedicated to a proposition”
Re consciousness, I do not grasp it as it eventually becomes too metaphysical—eventually leading to the origins of the cosmos and then to God; at least that is the direction it tends to move towards in my mind. And what of String Theory?: is there much to it? Can it be related to your discussion of consciousness? I like the hypothesis of ghostly remnants of previous universes which might still exist in our present universe; it may possibly be linked to consciousness.