ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Lawrence Detweiler) (01/21/91)
- - - Let's start a new thread for those who think that humans are inherently `inconsistent'. To be more specific, in this context let `consistent' mean that humans are so in that they function at the physical level in a completely deterministic way. We derive this from the axioms of our system that i. physics is completely deterministic (`consistent'), ii. physics = reality, iii. reality is transitory, and iv. humans are entirely physical. Already we reach a contradiction. How then can any human be inconsistent? Let's elaborate our theory by extending the concept of consistency from physics to thought, so that there are now separate and distinct categories. With this distinction we now have no contradiction in the assertion (the one we wish to prove) that humans are inherently *thoughtfully* inconsistent while maintaining *physical* consistency. That is, they have different thoughts at different times (where a thought is some characterization of the physical state of the body, including but not limited to the brain) but these thoughts are not generated in any physically inconsistent way. Since `physics' is equivalent to `reality' it is by definition transitory and the phenomena within it, here thoughts. Now let us make another fundamental distinction. Let there be a special subclass of humans called `mathematicians'. Let some special subclass of their thoughts be called `awareness of proof'. Clearly, since awareness of proof is a thought, such an entity has only temporary existence. More exactly, within a human, all awareness of proof is transitory. Hence, any assertion that assumes that `awareness of proof' is absolute and unchanging is FALSE within our system. Let us prove the next important statement: machines can simulate, including and limited to, any consistent phenomena, where `simulate' means that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between some physical states of the machine and that of the object being simulated. Since a machine is entirely physical, and thereby comprised of physical states, the statement is true if there exist one-to-one correspondences between physical entities in reality. By Newton's property of reality that ``For every physical state there exists an exact subsequent one'' (also called the `Continuity of Reality', the definition of `transition' in the third axiom above) these entities exist for all phenomena (physical states). Since machines themselves are physical, they are limited by physical constraints, namely that they be deterministic, and hence cannot simulate anything physically inconsistent. Then not every physical state would have a subsequent one. Finally: machines can simulate humans. The existence of the human shows that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the states of a machine and those of a human, namely those of the human itself. But other machines not limited to these must exist as well because humans are physically consistent and by above, machines, not limited to themselves, can simulate them. Hence, even though humans are `thoughtfully inconsistent', computers can simulate them because they are `physically consistent'. P.S. If you don't like my axioms, don't knock 'em. Start your own thread. ``God doesn't play dice with the universe.'' --Einstein ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU
jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, CFC User) (01/23/91)
In <12190@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Lawrence Detweiler) writes: >Let's start a new thread for those who think that humans are inherently >`inconsistent'. >To be more specific, in this context let `consistent' mean that humans are so >in that they function at the physical level in a completely deterministic way. >We derive this from the axioms of our system that >i. physics is completely deterministic (`consistent'), Not true. Look at event horizons (if you dare! :)) >ii. physics = reality, Now here's a slippery slope. There's lots of reasons why this might not be true. The results of quantum observations are known to be modified by the observation of them. In addition it hasn't yet been determined what kind of impact cultural world view has on seeing the world around us. It could be we could discover much more about the universe, or that the universe is much different than what we suppose, if we have a significantly different way of looking at the world. >iii. reality is transitory, and Yes?? How so? We're not even sure what reality is, much less whether it's transitory. >iv. humans are entirely physical. I've had enough arguments with theists that I'm not going to touch this with a 10 foot pole. >Already we reach a contradiction. How then can any human be inconsistent? I'm not sure your contradictions are significant. I'd question the found- ation that you use. >P.S. If you don't like my axioms, don't knock 'em. Start your own thread. Oh. I guess you just want to have discussions with people who agree with you. If you want to try some different axioms I'd like to take a look at them and maybe we'll arrive at an interesting definition to start from. - Jim Ruehlin