We weren’t talking about the universe, we were talking about simulations of objects. Secondly, even if we were, the question “Where is the universe located” is unanswerable, while “Where is my simulation of the universe located” has a clear answer that can be done by pointing, largely, to discrete objects. Like hardware.
Again, the answer is “We cannot know.” But we can know the cause of the simulation: us.
Hopefully you’re starting to see why a simulation and a thing are different. The set of answerable questions is different. If this doesn’t scream DIFFERENT PROPERTIES FOR DIFFERENT THINGS then I don’t know what will.
Nice of you to switch back to “things” again. Don’t you tire of dishonesty?
** Fair enough; I didn’t phrase that carefully enough.
A system can only be called consistent if it’s “consistent in regards to A but not ~A for all possible statements A”.
Using the word otherwise would require that no system could ever be said to be consistent: it would only be consistent “in regards to formula”. Or, we could just do the intelligent thing and use “consistent” to refer to a system where there are no contradictions like any dictionary will indicate.
** It’s enough for general consistency as well.
You certainly have a high opinion of your demonstrative abilities. Where have you shown this again?
And many things become very difficult to show if we abandon reasoning for cant and misdirection.
** So you’re disputing the concept of ‘truth’, then? Do you deny that the statement in question is in fact true?
** No, you’ve simply repeated your conclusion – at which point I went through the argument again.
One parroted argument deserves another, after all.
** I have no idea.
I assuredly know more about it than you do; if I am ignorant about it, you’re almost certainly even more so.
** It’s the same thing. What do you think the objects exist in?
The location of anything in the universe is defined only in terms of other things within the universe.
There is no hardware; or more accurately, the concept of ‘hardware’ is arbitrary. Any ‘discrete object’ you’re capable of perceiving isn’t truly discrete when considered on a more basic level.
** Our ultimate cause is the ultimate cause of the simulation.
More to the point, it’s not the case that any simulation must necessarily be created by us. Haven’t you read Greg Egan’s Wang’s Carpets?
** No, the set isn’t different at all. The set of things you think you know are indeed different, but that proves nothing about what we’re talking about: it just proves something about you.
My usage is perfectly consistent. Don’t you tire of misunderstanding?
But you keep saying all the levels aren’t fundamentally different. Apparently they are different enough for simulations to work differently, unless the question is “Do they work differently?” in which case the answer is “no.”
** It’s not personal opinion, you dolt. How can you claim I fail to understand it when you don’t even understand what “similarity” means?
Spiritus couldn’t clearly reason about a simple example in Conway’s Game of Life. I don’t recall you making any particularly intelligent observations about that example either, Frantic.
** Only your utter lack of intelligence leads you to believe my position is mystical, solipisistic, or quasi-religious.
Are all parts of the universe fundamentally the same? Yes. The same elemental principles underlie everything. The rules that cause things to be are identical; different things are just different cases.
If I make a computer simulation of an atom that duplicates the forces and internal mechanics of an actual atom somewhere, then the simulation will behave the same way the atom does.
Which atom? I have no idea. How do I know if the simulation matches a particular atom? I can’t – that would require that I have knowledge about the entire universe. If there’s some atom whose properties match the properties of the simulation, it’s behavior will match.
What’s your point?
Next you’ll be arguing that a copy of a person on an atomic level won’t “really” be the person because they’re different on the quantum level.
I’d love to see you use Merriam Webster to parse this for me. Please.
No I won’t. Thanks, though.
With other simulated things, maybe. MAYBE. That’s assuming perfect knowledge of both real atoms and the functioning of the simulation, along with explicit mapping so that simulated effects unquestionably imply what a real effect would be.
Need I point out that in the history of science and philosophy, you don’t get much support for that perspective. You’ll have to try harder than “it is obvious” and “different things are fundamentally the same” repetition.
** Ah. I think the problem here must be with the word ‘fundamental’. Am I right?
** No it doesn’t. Perfect knowledge is required only if I have specific atoms in mind and wish to make 100% accurate simulations of them. If the simulated system acts in accordance with the laws of physics, then whatever we simulate will act as that physical configuration will act.
The limitation is on our powers of observation, not the power of the simulated system.
The simulation has the properties it has regardless of whether we’re aware of them. Helium-3 didn’t become a superfluid at sufficiently low temperatures the first time we saw it behaving that way. We observed solitons long before we understood the principles causing them. They happened anyway, because human perceptions don’t matter to the way the world works.
Fair enough. I’m having a hard time thinking of a way to phrase this that you’ll accept, though.
Next you’ll be arguing that a copy of a person on an atomic level won’t “really” be the person because they’re different on the quantum level.
[quote]
No, they won’t be that person because they’re a bitwise (molecule-wise?) copy of them. They will have exactly the same behaviors (until differences in the bits of the universe that they are percieving start adding up, but one will be the copy, and one will be the original.
Don’t ask me to prove your mystical theories for you. If you can’t provide a definition of how two observers will agree that a simulation is “accurate”, or shares similar properties (whatever), then you have conceded that you have no answer to my question. For that reason alone you have lost your argument. When you resort to asking your opponent (me) to provide evidence for your own case, you have really lost it.
That’s a non-trivial problem. A person isn’t the same from instant to instant, and the changes take place on a level we can’t even perceive with our senses.
We can easily imagine some trivial event in our lives going differently (regardless of whether that alternate event is truly “possible” or not). For certain kinds of small changes, though, the resulting people would still be ‘us’ – the behavior of the system is within certain parameters. It’s those parameters that determine who a person is perceived to be – and the bitwise model preserves those parameters.
Or even worse: let’s ignore quantum uncertainty for a moment and pretend that truly accurate copies of people can be made. The resulting people will behave differently as they’ll have different experiences – but at what point should they be considered to be different people as opposed to different systems?
Or, if we really want to think weirdly: imagine that God destroys the entire universe at a specific moment in time, then creates a new universe with exactly the same properties. Are the people and things in the first universe actually different from the second? Are there even ‘first’ and ‘second’ universes?
I don’t need your justification. I’m pointing out that you can’t actually offer a counterpoint – because there truly is no difference.
As I kept stating in the other thread: the beliefs of observers are irrelevant. What matters is the degree to which different systems share properties. Systems that share ALL of their properties are by definition the same system.
Most of the systems we consider to be ‘real’ are defined according to a rather limited number of properties. A system that preserves those properties is ALSO that thing.
Or do you think that everyone exists for only an instant and is replaced by an almost-identical doppleganger the next moment?
Then why are you here trying to get others to understand things as you do? Obviously, you think our beliefs are important enough to use up 16 pages of bandwidth. But, because you cannot define your statements, no other observer will ever agree with you.
You merely have a religious belief in the truth of your own fantasies. Which means you have decided not to argue with anyone here, but merely to mindlessly chatter about your latest personal epiphany from science fiction and pop physics. Hence, you have conceded defeat in an argument of ideas in favor of preaching and thumping your shrivelled chest. You are a champion among tautologists.
Because the properties of things are objective and not dependent on the opinions of observers, there’s no reason to convince people of anything. Right.
I do believe that is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on these boards. Congratulations.
[sigh]
You’re missing the point. There’s clear nothing to be gained by once again showing the error of the first parts of this diatribe, so I’ll focus on that last part:
Yes, it is a tautology. That’s the whole point. If you’ll think back, this entire segment of the discussion began when Spiritus and friends claimed that GIT applied only to human conceptions of the reality, not the world itself. It it tautological that a system that accurately models some part of the real world will behave as it does. The question then is: how accurate are our models?
Very. We might not yet know the ultimate Theory of Everything, but our understanding of the high-level behavior of the physical world is excellent. For example, that’s why electronic computers work so well, thank you very much: they don’t just work in theory, but it’s known that their behavior matches the predictions of theory to a high degree. They’re so reliable that our ability to make them well has far outstripped our ability to efficiently program them.
There’s no question that the behavior of the physical world is sufficiently powerful to represent arithmetic. That’s why we developed arithmetic in the first place: to represent the physical world. The equations might not be quite right, but the equations that more-or-less describe the world rely on mathematics that takes arithmetic for granted. If the world weren’t powerful enough for arithmetic, it wouldn’t be powerful enough for us, either, or anything we would consider ‘reality’.
Thus, the system of the actual world (whatever it may be) is subject to GIT.
Despite your constant objections to the contrary, this is obvious. I am amazed that so much debate has taken place over such a small point of reasoning.
Shall we continue from here, or do you want to pick up your mindless shrilling where you took off?
Unless, of course, one wants to make a true statement about mathematical consistency. But for liars and idiots your statement is perfectly fine.
You are wrong, of course, but lack the necessary elements of character to admint it. So, why don’t we just settle this once and for all:
Prove it.
In this very thread, as you might know if you were able to read with comprehension.
Idiot.
I have made many statements about truth in this thread. None of them can be accurately described as “disputing ther concept of truth.” As I said some time ago, your egregious misrepresentations of what others say makes productive conversation with you neaarly impossible. I will no longer answer any “summary” you make of my position that is not accompanied by a direct reference to my own words. Maybe, over time, you will actually learn how to read.
In fact? I thought that you were arguing that it was true within the system that generates it.
This is a lie.
You have made no argument. You have simply declared that it must be so.
What else is new. :rolleyes:
Goodness, then perhaps you had better figure it out. Having no certain answer rather seriously undermines your argument that “true in system A” can be proven by “‘true in system A’ in system B”.
Of course, that would assume that you actually had an argument to that effect, rather than just a conviction that it must be so.
:rolleyes:
Right. That’s why you invoked it in an argument where you claim that a simulation must be accurate to the most minute level.
:rolleyes:
[ul][li]Steam = external signs of intellignece [/li][li]boiling water = mechanism for intelligence[/li][li]Turing Test == DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER IT’S BOILING WATER OR DRY ICE.[/ul][/li]The amazing thing is that you actually summarize the test fairly well right in the midst of an argument saying that an accurate simulation needs to mimic the behavior of a thing down to the individual particles.
** Huh. I actually admit to a mistake, but Spiritus ignores this completely. Fine.
The system can only be said to be consistent if it’s “simply consistent”, to use your terminology. If it merely lacks a specific theorem, then it’s “consistent with regards to that theorem”. Many words used together in a phrase = one concept.
** I confess, I lack the character necessary to admint the statement that I am wrong. It all goes back to my parenting, I suppose: while all the other children were forced to admint for their own good, I was allowed to run free reading One, Two, Three… Infinity and The Trials and Tribulations of Hinkney Whitherbottom. (Just to keep the tone of the thread from rising…)
** I can only conclude you have utterly no understanding of what ‘proof’ is.
It’s one thing if you simply disputed whether I succeeded in proving my point, but… [shakes head]
It is true… repeat a lie often enough, and you start to believe it. You do, at least…
You’ve done nothing but misrepresent my statements in these threads. (Well, you did point out an actual error above… got to give you credit for that.)
** No, not within the system that generates it. (Well, that too.) It’s true that that statement is true relative to the original system.
** No, you predictably repeat your initial statements that various claims of mine are wrong without offering adequate argument (as opposed to verbiage) in support.
Explain to us all again why the version of GIT I reference relies on omega-consistency and not simple consistency. Explain to us all why the common-language definiton of ‘consistency’, which you were well aware I was using, specifically excludes contradicton.
No, I’ve pointed out the data necessary for the conclusion. I admittedly didn’t expect that so many people would be so stubborn in their refusal to think.
** The linked example gives a method of showing that the statement is necessarily true. That method can be extended for any sufficiently powerful system.
It can be done, therefore it is possible.
** No, I’m saying that there is no difference between an utterly accurate simulation and the reality it purports to simulate. Any simulation is a real thing: it’s just what it contains that varies.
[quote]
**[ul][li]Steam = external signs of intellignece [/li][li]boiling water = mechanism for intelligence[/li][li]Turing Test == DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER IT’S BOILING WATER OR DRY ICE.[/ul][/li][/quote]
** No. The Turing Test concerns itself with human interaction and the presumption of mind. All people need to consider a system intelligent is for it to communicate like a person. Therefore the Test checks to see if the system can do that.
In order to be a specific person, the simulation would have to perfectly mimic the data structures of a human mind. That’s because ‘personality’ is a feature of that level of behavior. To be indistinguishable from the person itself, it would have to reproduce every element of the brain and body (and ultimately the entire universe, but that’s a bit beyond your mental grasp).
** A completely accurate simulation. Of course, all that needs to be done to duplicate a mind is fulfill much looser criteria than complete accuracy. That’s what uploading is all about!
I didn’t ignore it. I quoted it. What? You want a pat on the head because this one time that you said something stupid you actually acknowledged it after I pointed it out? Try pulling your head out of your anus long enough to read the OP and remember why we are on the PIT.
:wally
Right–because the only way to use a word is the way TVAA wants it. To hell with number theorists and mathematical philosophers, TVAA has spoken.
:wally
Probably. Mine includes actually presenting a formal demonstration, not just saying: “here’s the data. It’s obvious.”
So, the challenge was: Prove that your version of the godel statement invokes both syntactic incompleteness and omega incompleteness for all simply (negation) consistent systems of sufficient power. (For the record, the one you really want is omega-incompleteness, since that is the one that allows GIT to reformulate for each extended axiom set. Without that, you only have a mildly interesting result for whichever specific system you examine.) So, can you do it, or would you like to admit that you’re a delusional little chickenshit who only likes logic in small, easy to digest generalities?
BTW, if you have any capacity for rational examination of your own beliefs you might ask yourself why Godel himself formulated omega-consistency in order to demonstrate the method of his proof. Here are some hints:
[ol][li]He wanted something more powerful than the semantic arguments (dependent upon “truth”) that you often see in “GIT for Idiots” presentations.[/li][li]He was looking for a syntactic proof, since he wanted the result to be as basice, far-reaching, and uncontestable as possible.[/li][li]Demonstrating ~|- (~G) “(not G) is not a theorem” is pretty hard to do syntactically. So hard, in fact, that Godel could not do it.[/ol][/li]But I’m sure that TVAA will be able to do what Godel could not . . .
:wally
Another challenge, then. Provide the exact quotation in which I stated something that justifies your summary: you’re disputing the concept of ‘truth’.
Can you do it, or will this just pass by as another example of your dishonesty.
:wally
Really? Yet I habitually include direct quotations of your words and address them in detail.
You, of course, are incapable of responding in a like manner. The record in this thread is clear. I have on more than one occassion provided specific examples of your distortions and misrepresentations. You have provided none. That doesn;t stop you from making, and repeating, the empty charge, of course.
:wally
Yes, in exactly the same manner that it is true that TVAA knows in his heart of hearts that he is a liar and a fool.
:wally
I have presented both argument and references for why it is not correct to conclude a specific truth value must be present for Godel statements. You have lacked:
[ul][li]the intelligence to refute the arguments[/li][li]the common courtesy to acknowledge and challenge the references[/li][li]the intellectual honesty to face up to an argument for which you have no refutation.[/ul][/li]In short, you have stayed in perfect character.
I said you have made no argument. You said the above, as if you’re failure to present a case for your position was necessarily a fault in your audience.
:wally
Are you referring to the linked example that uses a Tarskian truth condition? Gosh – remember when I said that it was obvious you knew next to nothing about Tarski’s work, too?
Oh, and was this little evasion supposed to make us think that you really had considered how your method of “truth” applies to the Axiom of Choice?
:wally
Really? So if I have an accurate enough TVAA voodoo doll and I somehow manage to extract it’s head from it’s anal cavity . . . you would also be affected?
Well, that’s as reasonable as any of the other psuedo-metaphysical bullshit you have been spreading around.
:wally
“Completely”. Now there’s a word I don’t recall seeing in your argument for “similarity” before. Goodness, “completely” does shift the standard a bit toward teh impossible, doesn’t it, what with the requirement for spatio-temporal equivalence and all. It would have been much easier if you had specified intially that you were arguing about the TVAA-fantasy world.