Wow. Pages of blather to arrive at a half-baked version of a Star Trek hologram episode. Let’s see: computers can model anything, including God, therefore I can simulate anything (in Java, or Apple II Basic, or English if I want), therefore I am God. What I don’t know doesn’t exist. Therefore I know everything about GIT and quantum mechanics and computers. My God-like insights entitle me to indulge my Narcissistic Personality Disorder – I am an angel, I am the mind of God, I am a medieval monk! You fools!
But there’s no fundamental difference between levels, man. So hop in.
FranticMad, get a life.
Squink: By definition I can’t make the computer simulate itself, except by being itself, which it is anyway.
erislover: No problem. I’ll just make a virtual copy of myself.
I don’t think you understand what I mean when I say that there is no fundamental difference between the levels.
We know what you mean.
And we all know what ‘consistency’ means when Spiritus Mundi uses it, right?
The distinction between ‘real’ things and ‘simulated’ things is ultimately arbitrary. I can’t eat an apple that I’m simulating on a computer, but I can eat one simulated by the same system that simulates me.
Libertarian’s criticism would be more effective if my word use wasn’t generally consistent with standard denotation. If you all want to turn this completely into a semantics war, the online dictionaries are available…
And we all know what ‘consistency’ means when Spiritus Mundi uses it, right?
The distinction between ‘real’ things and ‘simulated’ things is ultimately arbitrary. I can’t eat an apple that I’m simulating on a computer, but I can eat one simulated by the same system that simulates me.
Libertarian’s criticism would be more effective if my word use wasn’t generally consistent with standard denotation. If you all want to turn this completely into a semantics war, the online dictionaries are available…
A teapot on the stove with steam coming out has water boiling inside of it. Does a painting of a teapot with steam coming out of it also picture boiling water?
Yes. I thought it was perfectly clear, given the context.
A semantic war? TVAA, I love the subject of semantics. It completely fascinates me. But I wouldn’t even know where to begin here. And we’ve tried it before already anyway.
No, but a painting of a teapot doesn’t simulate a teapot any more than a photograph captures your soul.
Now, a computer model that duplicates the laws of physics – that would have boiling water. What’s your point?
Which context? What he was talking about, or what I was talking about? GIT doesn’t say anything about systems that aren’t consistent. It demonstrates that something can’t be (“simple”) consistent and complete.
Then we’ll just have to return to the dictionary, won’t we?
Do me a favor, eris.
Let’s consider the system that contains all possible statements except A.
Tell me: what does GIT imply about the properties of this system?
Don’t you know it represents a teapot? If we are only considering the aspect of “thing that appears as a teapot and in fact makes me want tea” doesn’t it simulate it as well?
That’s what you want us to consider, of course: only the “important” aspects where to things are similar, and disregard the rest.
That’s what consistent means in a mathematical context. Under the Godel statement that TVAA uses the most general formula for A that w can use is: all wffs in a certain infinite series are theorems while the negation of the summarizing quantified statement is a theorem.
Thus, TVAA is talking about omega-consistency. Of course, TVAA wants to talk about simple consistency or negation consistency, but he has yet to understand that he needs a better Godel statement to invoke those properties.
For myself, I was initially more interested in talking about TVAA’s mistaken assertion that GIT implies that some G-statements must be true in any system bound by GIT. Then I got PITted by a moron and spent many pages responding to inaccurate claims and empty challenges. Now, I have no interest in TVAA at all.
But it doesn’t appear as a teapot, it appears as a painting of a teapot.
** Incorrect. That’s what “consistent in regards to a formula” means in a mathematical context. The system cannot be said to be consistent (without qualifiers) unless it is consistent in regards to ALL formulas.
I think you might have some problems distinguishing the converse of a statement with its contrapositive, Spiritus.
** A system is omega-consistent if and only if there’s no well-formed statement with one free variable that is a theorem for every natural number but its negation is a theorem for any number. A system is simply consistent iff there’s no well-formed statement A such that A and ~A are both theorems.
“This statement cannot be proven in system S” has been shown to be a well-formed statement by plenty of competent mathematicians. It’s not difficult to show that this statement has no proof in the system, regardless of what that system is. It’s also not difficult to show that extending the system allows us to demonstrate that the statement is true… and that it was true in the original system as well.
The statement is just fine. You’re simply not willing to debate the implications of GIT rationally.
It’s not GIT that shows some statements will necessarily be true: basic logic allows us to do that. Any system sufficiently powerful enough will include a Godel statement equivalent to “this statement cannot be proven in this system”; that statement is necessarily true, although it takes metalogic to demonstrate that it’s true.
Additional:
If the simulation is truly accurate, then what aspects aren’t similar?
Saying “one is in a simulation, and the other is not” isn’t sufficient. Since you’re trying to suggest that there’s a difference between the ‘simulation’ and the ‘real thing’, you can’t take it for granted.
If I construct a mathematical model of the behavior of electrons that accurately describes them, then make a simulation that models the behavior of trillions of electrons in a configuration that we’d recognize as a boiling teapot – what’s the difference between the ‘real’ teapot and the ‘virtual’ one?
It’s the same basic argument as the one in favor of uploading: a program that can reproduce the behavior of the brain is that person in the same way that the organic computer called the brain is that person.
It doesn’t matter if we posit a “special something” not resulting from the brain itself that affects the way it acts – all we’ve said is that the program must be able to mimic the brain’s behavior, regardless of the ultimate source of its behavior.
Sheesh, this is the basic idea behind the Turing Test.
At the very least: spatial-temporal identity, interaction with other particles and states of affairs, our knowledge of the system in question, its causes. Shall I go on or do we really need a philosophical discussion about why different things are different?
Please, continue.
Where is the universe located?
What are its causes?
What interactions does it have with other particles and states of affairs?
Let’s put in this way: what distinguishes between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ things if their behavior can’t? How can you then determine what is ‘real’ and what isn’t?
So in a simulation of the observable universe, where do you keep the information about the ‘real thing’, off in some noninteracting dimension that “by definition” doesn’t exist ? Doesn’t that sort of preclude your ability to simulate ? If the simulation must contain bits, that by definition, can’t be in the original, how can the two things be the same ? That’s just inconsistant.
Idiot.
“Consistent in regards to ALL formulas” would mean that “ALL formulas” cannot be derived in the system. In other wors, you would say that a system can only be called “consistent” if it cannot prove anything.
:wally
:rolleyes:
Yes it has. It is a well-formed statement that is sufficient to invoke GIT in any system that is omega-consistent. I have posted numerous cites to that effect, none of which have penetrated your armor of ignorance. That’s okay. It has long since become obvious that you have no inteest in actually exploring GIT.
As I have shown that in your heart of hearts you know yourself to be a liar and a fool. Many things are “not difficult to show” if we abandon the constraints of logical rigor.
Godel himself noted that a rigorous demonstration of his theorem would have to replace his argument from “truth” with a weaker property that could be rigorously defended. But, of course, TVAA, is so enraptured with his ignorance that he feels no need to actually read or understand any information to the contrary.
:wally
:rolleyes:
I have shown, repeatedly, why this approach fails. You have failed, repeatedly, to address those objections. You sinmply repeat the same statement as if the repetition proved anything other than your own fanatical devotion to your delusions.
:rolleyes:
Is the axiom of choice “true” in ZF set theory?
Add “the Turing Test” to teh subjects about which TVAA is ignorant.
That’s a tautology. Look it up. Perhaps “tautology” is what the “T” in TVAA stands for.
We’re back to your lack of comprehension of “similarity”. You have not defined how one can know that a simulation is truly accurate. It is a problem that Spiritus and I posed to you in the original thread, but you failed to understand it, failed to define how one knows a simulation (model) is accurate, and in your grandiose self-important arrogance you think your personal opinion is sufficient proof.
Recycling your previous failed arguments to support your mystical quasi-religious solipsism will not lead to victory. You merely demonstrate that you are egotistic beyond your intelligence.
Spiritus has won.