Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical proof for the existence of God

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 12:41:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oops, this got cut off:

The burden of proof becomes the burden of proving the "convergence", to an exact correspondence, between the mental construct[infinite number of axioms] and reality

At the limit

[MIND]<--->[REALITY]

M = R

[axiomatic method]--->[exact correspondence]<---[scientific method]
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 12:41:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's the same semantic popped-balloon you're always blowing air out of like it'll come back to life, so... all the ones you've already dismissed out of hand and/or failed to understand.

Change the record.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 12:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 12:41:24 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
It's the same semantic popped-balloon you're always blowing air out of like it'll come back to life, so... all the ones you've already dismissed out of hand and/or failed to understand.

Change the record.

How about you put your money where your giant mouth is and backup your claims with evidence. I'm getting tired of your contentless drive-bys.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 12:55:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd get tired of making the same delusional claims re: other people not having done what everyone with functioning eyes can very well see for them self that person in fact has done, too. Which is why I don't.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:05:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"1) An omniscient being must have a model of all reality.

2) If an omniscient being exists, it is part of reality.

3) An omniscient being must have a perfect model of itself.

4) The model, being perfect, must have a complete model of all reality, including a self-model with the same knowlege. This goes on infinitely.

So we have a paradox... No perfect model can ever contain the whole of reality, because it will always have to contain itself. If it doesn't contain the whole of reality it is not perfect.

Interesting, eh?"

An omniscient being would know that what it knows is what it knows, thereby saving itself the need of engaging in an unnecessary infinite regress...its self-model would be isomophic to itself.

"Another paradox:

If you define something as "omniscient", then it doesnt exist. The reasoning behind this is the fact to be omniscient, you must know everything, including that which you do not know: And a fatal error, a logical contradiction."

With respect to an omniscient being, "that which you do not know" doesn't exist, and is therefore not "something" which you do not know.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:22:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd urge you to check the definition of an isomorphism in the hope it might give you an idea of why 'self-isomorphic' is a nonsensical phrase, but for some reason I feel it'd be a wasted effort.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:32:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:22:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd urge you to check the definition of an isomorphism in the hope it might give you an idea of why 'self-isomorphic' is a nonsensical phrase, but for some reason I feel it'd be a wasted effort.

I'd urge you to actually read what you criticize. I said an omniscient being's self-description is isomorphic to itself. How is that redundant?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?

Also just ignore Graincruncher, he's just been the biggest troll this past week.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unless, of course, you mean automorphism. But then if you meant that, why not say it unless you don't understand the subject?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:32:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:22:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd urge you to check the definition of an isomorphism in the hope it might give you an idea of why 'self-isomorphic' is a nonsensical phrase, but for some reason I feel it'd be a wasted effort.

I'd urge you to actually read what you criticize. I said an omniscient being's self-description is isomorphic to itself. How is that redundant?

*facepalm*

http://dictionary.reference.com...

i"so"mor"phism [ahy-suh-mawr-fiz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state or property of being isomorphous or isomorphic.
2.
Mathematics . a one-to-one relation onto the map between two sets, which preserves the relations existing between elements in its domain.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

2. Mathematics A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.

3. (Mathematics) maths a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two or more sets, such as those of Arabic and Roman numerals, and between the sums or products of the elements of one of these sets and those of the equivalent elements of the other set or sets

2. Math. a one-to-one relation onto the map between two sets, which preserves the relations existing between elements in its domain.

2. A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?

Also just ignore Graincruncher, he's just been the biggest troll this past week.

Yes, clearly Dylan ignoring ALL my points and then demanding I make points in EVERY thread he posts in is me being a troll. Don't confuse my telling Neutral and Fatihah that they're mental (they are) for my being a troll. Feel free to check some of the other threads I post in. Also feel free to check the posts I make that have content. I mean, Dylan doesn't so you might not want to exclude him by doing so yourself, but it'd certainly help.

Or you could listen to Mr Langan here and learn all about his widely derided TOE that's based on semantic games and a profound failure to understand the fields he claims to have mastered.

Up to you.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:54:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

I'm not sure I follow, but one could critique this premise. A potential description can exist even though one isn't around to describe it. Before the 1900s a description of the photoeletric effect existed, but we didn't have it yet. It was a potential description. The same could be said about this limit. Don't know if I'm making a fool of myself with this response or not.

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 1:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:53:16 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?

Also just ignore Graincruncher, he's just been the biggest troll this past week.

Yes, clearly Dylan ignoring ALL my points and then demanding I make points in EVERY thread he posts in is me being a troll. Don't confuse my telling Neutral and Fatihah that they're mental (they are) for my being a troll. Feel free to check some of the other threads I post in. Also feel free to check the posts I make that have content. I mean, Dylan doesn't so you might not want to exclude him by doing so yourself, but it'd certainly help.

Or you could listen to Mr Langan here and learn all about his widely derided TOE that's based on semantic games and a profound failure to understand the fields he claims to have mastered.

Up to you.

It's just bad manners. If you think the other party is being an idiot then sinking to their level and throwing poo at each other isn't going to be very productive. If you feel you are wasting your time you can just ignore them, too.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 2:01:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:56:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
It's just bad manners. If you think the other party is being an idiot then sinking to their level and throwing poo at each other isn't going to be very productive. If you feel you are wasting your time you can just ignore them, too.

Yes, it is bad manners. But it's far more entertaining doing things my way and very occasionally it gets people to stop and think. When all other approaches have failed, it's one I'm happy to adopt.

That's a very long stone's throw from trolling.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 2:02:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 2:01:06 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:56:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
It's just bad manners. If you think the other party is being an idiot then sinking to their level and throwing poo at each other isn't going to be very productive. If you feel you are wasting your time you can just ignore them, too.

Yes, it is bad manners. But it's far more entertaining doing things my way and very occasionally it gets people to stop and think. When all other approaches have failed, it's one I'm happy to adopt.

That's a very long stone's throw from trolling.

I beg to differ, it only takes a little extra sarcasm and less care to get that far.

Anyway...
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 2:13:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
None of which is helping Dylan understand why he's failing to make any sense by suggesting that a single thing can be isomorphic with itself. I've tried dictionary definitions with him before and they don't tend to break through the defence mechanisms, but I do like to post them lest anyone be fooled into thinking he's doing anything other than talk utter nonsense.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:10:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:49:25 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:32:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:22:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd urge you to check the definition of an isomorphism in the hope it might give you an idea of why 'self-isomorphic' is a nonsensical phrase, but for some reason I feel it'd be a wasted effort.

I'd urge you to actually read what you criticize. I said an omniscient being's self-description is isomorphic to itself. How is that redundant?

*facepalm*

http://dictionary.reference.com...

i"so"mor"phism [ahy-suh-mawr-fiz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state or property of being isomorphous or isomorphic.
2.
Mathematics . a one-to-one relation onto the map between two sets, which preserves the relations existing between elements in its domain.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

2. Mathematics A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.

3. (Mathematics) maths a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two or more sets, such as those of Arabic and Roman numerals, and between the sums or products of the elements of one of these sets and those of the equivalent elements of the other set or sets

2. Math. a one-to-one relation onto the map between two sets, which preserves the relations existing between elements in its domain.

2. A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.

Why did you dump these definitions on me exactly?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:13:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 2:13:00 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
None of which is helping Dylan understand why he's failing to make any sense by suggesting that a single thing can be isomorphic with itself. I've tried dictionary definitions with him before and they don't tend to break through the defence mechanisms, but I do like to post them lest anyone be fooled into thinking he's doing anything other than talk utter nonsense.

I said an omniscient being's self-description is isomorphic to itself, not that an omniscient being is isomorphic to itself. This is now the third time I've said this.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:19:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?


No, the argument is claiming that a model which perfectly MODELS reality would require an omniscient being. For logical reasons, mind and reality reduce to perfect correspondence, which is the limit to which the argument refers.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:36:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 4:19:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?


No, the argument is claiming that a model which perfectly MODELS reality would require an omniscient being. For logical reasons, mind and reality reduce to perfect correspondence, which is the limit to which the argument refers.

... In which case I do not see why it is required to be a super-intelligence. Because it seems plausible that reality can be perfectly modelled if one understands all the underlying principles (if they are finite), such as those depicted by a TOE.

By that definition Humans could become Gods, lol.

Also is the ' convergent description' homologous to how we can compute Pi by perturbing ever smaller fractions to get an ever more accurate answer? Your argument is that Pi exists as a real number, and therefore needs a descriptor for this, right?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:36:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 1:53:16 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?

Also just ignore Graincruncher, he's just been the biggest troll this past week.

Yes, clearly Dylan ignoring ALL my points and then demanding I make points in EVERY thread he posts in is me being a troll. Don't confuse my telling Neutral and Fatihah that they're mental (they are) for my being a troll. Feel free to check some of the other threads I post in. Also feel free to check the posts I make that have content. I mean, Dylan doesn't so you might not want to exclude him by doing so yourself, but it'd certainly help.

Or you could listen to Mr Langan here and learn all about his widely derided TOE that's based on semantic games and a profound failure to understand the fields he claims to have mastered.

Up to you.

Even in your defense against the notion that you make no points, you make no points. You're ridiculous.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:47:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 4:36:21 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:19:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?


No, the argument is claiming that a model which perfectly MODELS reality would require an omniscient being. For logical reasons, mind and reality reduce to perfect correspondence, which is the limit to which the argument refers.

... In which case I do not see why it is required to be a super-intelligence. Because it seems plausible that reality can be perfectly modelled if one understands all the underlying principles (if they are finite), such as those depicted by a TOE.

No, you misunderstood. In order to perfectly model reality, one would need to hold the whole world in one's mind, not just a comprehensive outline of it.

By that definition Humans could become Gods, lol.

Humans are not Gods, but parts therefore.

Also is the ' convergent description' homologous to how we can compute Pi by perturbing ever smaller fractions to get an ever more accurate answer? Your argument is that Pi exists as a real number, and therefore needs a descriptor for this, right?

Yes, it has a descriptor. But we can only approach the limit of Pi, we never reach it. Pi has an abstract existence only, since it can never be precisely computed (it does not refer to any real point on a number line).
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:54:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 4:47:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:36:21 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:19:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?


No, the argument is claiming that a model which perfectly MODELS reality would require an omniscient being. For logical reasons, mind and reality reduce to perfect correspondence, which is the limit to which the argument refers.

... In which case I do not see why it is required to be a super-intelligence. Because it seems plausible that reality can be perfectly modelled if one understands all the underlying principles (if they are finite), such as those depicted by a TOE.


No, you misunderstood. In order to perfectly model reality, one would need to hold the whole world in one's mind, not just a comprehensive outline of it.

By that definition Humans could become Gods, lol.

Humans are not Gods, but parts therefore.

Also is the ' convergent description' homologous to how we can compute Pi by perturbing ever smaller fractions to get an ever more accurate answer? Your argument is that Pi exists as a real number, and therefore needs a descriptor for this, right?

Yes, it has a descriptor. But we can only approach the limit of Pi, we never reach it. Pi has an abstract existence only, since it can never be precisely computed (it does not refer to any real point on a number line).

Then this argument seems to just be a statement 'The Universe is a Description of Itself, therefore a Describer is needed'.

I seriously don't see how there being a real answer to Pi means it is a description which necessitates a descriptor.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:03:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 4:54:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:47:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:36:21 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:19:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?


No, the argument is claiming that a model which perfectly MODELS reality would require an omniscient being. For logical reasons, mind and reality reduce to perfect correspondence, which is the limit to which the argument refers.

... In which case I do not see why it is required to be a super-intelligence. Because it seems plausible that reality can be perfectly modelled if one understands all the underlying principles (if they are finite), such as those depicted by a TOE.


No, you misunderstood. In order to perfectly model reality, one would need to hold the whole world in one's mind, not just a comprehensive outline of it.

By that definition Humans could become Gods, lol.

Humans are not Gods, but parts therefore.

Also is the ' convergent description' homologous to how we can compute Pi by perturbing ever smaller fractions to get an ever more accurate answer? Your argument is that Pi exists as a real number, and therefore needs a descriptor for this, right?

Yes, it has a descriptor. But we can only approach the limit of Pi, we never reach it. Pi has an abstract existence only, since it can never be precisely computed (it does not refer to any real point on a number line).

Then this argument seems to just be a statement 'The Universe is a Description of Itself, therefore a Describer is needed'.

Not exactly. It's saying that the universe is self-descriptive, which means it's also its own describer (it describes itself).

I seriously don't see how there being a real answer to Pi means it is a description which necessitates a descriptor.

The point is that since we can approach the limit of pi, the limit exists. Since the limit exists, a description exists (of what the limit is). Since the description is isomorphic to the described (at the level of perfect correspondence), a descriptor exists, because it amounts to "reality describing itself", which means reality is both that which describes and that which is described.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:03:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:54:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:47:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:36:21 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:19:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?


No, the argument is claiming that a model which perfectly MODELS reality would require an omniscient being. For logical reasons, mind and reality reduce to perfect correspondence, which is the limit to which the argument refers.

... In which case I do not see why it is required to be a super-intelligence. Because it seems plausible that reality can be perfectly modelled if one understands all the underlying principles (if they are finite), such as those depicted by a TOE.


No, you misunderstood. In order to perfectly model reality, one would need to hold the whole world in one's mind, not just a comprehensive outline of it.

By that definition Humans could become Gods, lol.

Humans are not Gods, but parts therefore.

Also is the ' convergent description' homologous to how we can compute Pi by perturbing ever smaller fractions to get an ever more accurate answer? Your argument is that Pi exists as a real number, and therefore needs a descriptor for this, right?

Yes, it has a descriptor. But we can only approach the limit of Pi, we never reach it. Pi has an abstract existence only, since it can never be precisely computed (it does not refer to any real point on a number line).

Then this argument seems to just be a statement 'The Universe is a Description of Itself, therefore a Describer is needed'.

Not exactly. It's saying that the universe is self-descriptive, which means it's also its own describer (it describes itself).

I seriously don't see how there being a real answer to Pi means it is a description which necessitates a descriptor.

The point is that since we can approach the limit of pi, the limit exists. Since the limit exists, a description exists (of what the limit is). Since the description is isomorphic to the described (at the level of perfect correspondence), a descriptor exists, because it amounts to "reality describing itself", which means reality is both that which describes and that which is described.

Huh? The description exists, so a descriptor exists? You have lost me there.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you haven't already noticed, this argument is basically asserting that the universe is the mind of God. Thus, omnipotence and omnipresence are implied as well. Omnipotence is implied because reality would therefore be self-configuring and self-reading (for lack of any external constraint), and omnipresence would be implied because "everywhere God exists" (in his mind).
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:16:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:10:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If you haven't already noticed, this argument is basically asserting that the universe is the mind of God. Thus, omnipotence and omnipresence are implied as well. Omnipotence is implied because reality would therefore be self-configuring and self-reading (for lack of any external constraint), and omnipresence would be implied because "everywhere God exists" (in his mind).

So the universe is God's mind? Then at best this is just defining God into existence.

Come back to my previous point, why does a description necessitate a descriptor, and furthermore, why does the descriptor need to be intelligence. The paper with the number 3 written on it is a 'descripter' in itself which is not intelligence.

I think I just don't understand the argument.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:19:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:10:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:03:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:54:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:47:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:36:21 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:19:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/3/2014 1:44:01 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:32:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic [reality describing reality]

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

Asserting that it is impossible for the mind to model reality implies an absolute distinction between the two, which would only be possible if they reduced to a common medium providing the metric of separation (a contradiction). Moreover, in order to make such a claim, one must reference reality with one's mind, which would be self-refuting.

I'm not sure if this argument is sound by the way. I'm posting it to see if anyone has good objections.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

My head hurts, so in plain English. You are arguing that a model that perfectly corresponds to reality is possible to exist (such as a successful TOE). And if it does exist, only an omniscient being can describe it?


No, the argument is claiming that a model which perfectly MODELS reality would require an omniscient being. For logical reasons, mind and reality reduce to perfect correspondence, which is the limit to which the argument refers.

... In which case I do not see why it is required to be a super-intelligence. Because it seems plausible that reality can be perfectly modelled if one understands all the underlying principles (if they are finite), such as those depicted by a TOE.


No, you misunderstood. In order to perfectly model reality, one would need to hold the whole world in one's mind, not just a comprehensive outline of it.

By that definition Humans could become Gods, lol.

Humans are not Gods, but parts therefore.

Also is the ' convergent description' homologous to how we can compute Pi by perturbing ever smaller fractions to get an ever more accurate answer? Your argument is that Pi exists as a real number, and therefore needs a descriptor for this, right?

Yes, it has a descriptor. But we can only approach the limit of Pi, we never reach it. Pi has an abstract existence only, since it can never be precisely computed (it does not refer to any real point on a number line).

Then this argument seems to just be a statement 'The Universe is a Description of Itself, therefore a Describer is needed'.

Not exactly. It's saying that the universe is self-descriptive, which means it's also its own describer (it describes itself).

I seriously don't see how there being a real answer to Pi means it is a description which necessitates a descriptor.

The point is that since we can approach the limit of pi, the limit exists. Since the limit exists, a description exists (of what the limit is). Since the description is isomorphic to the described (at the level of perfect correspondence), a descriptor exists, because it amounts to "reality describing itself", which means reality is both that which describes and that which is described.

Huh? The description exists, so a descriptor exists? You have lost me there.

Since we can model reality with our minds, mind and reality reduce to a common medium relating them both. At this level, description and described are brought into perfect coincidence (which is why a descriptor exists, since reality is describing itself).