The Threshold of Knowledge

[Lysergication]

Look at how far science advanced during humanity's history. Where is it taking us? Obviously we don't know the answer to that, but my question is this.

Do you think that there is some sort of limit as to how far we can advance our theories? Can we make new discoveries indefinetely or is there a point that we will reach where there is a concrete limitation science? A sort of barrier that prevents us from predicting the behavior of a natural process.

If there is a threshold like that, do you think that its biological? Due to the limitations of our brain, that could possibly be broken through evolution of a more advanced brain? Or could that threshold be absolute, in other words no matter how much an organism evolves, it will not be able to make predict some systems in nature?

[Xenophon]

I think that science has a fundamental limitation in that it is tied to objectively observable data. For example, even if they found some way to make a perfect picture of my brain at some time, they could never actually observe my personal experience. The only way that subjective experience can be communicated is through me describing it.

I don't think that this subjective nature is limited to conscious beings either, I think that everything has a certain subjective element that cannot be accessed through physical observation.

[Prozac]

Look at how far science advanced during humanity's history. Where is it taking us? Obviously we don't know the answer to that, but my question is this.

Do you think that there is some sort of limit as to how far we can advance our theories? Can we make new discoveries indefinetely or is there a point that we will reach where there is a concrete limitation science? A sort of barrier that prevents us from predicting the behavior of a natural process.

If there is a threshold like that, do you think that its biological? Due to the limitations of our brain, that could possibly be broken through evolution of a more advanced brain? Or could that threshold be absolute, in other words no matter how much an organism evolves, it will not be able to make predict some systems in nature?

interesting question

maybe its not so much a scientific advancement per se, as it might be a sort of very slowly "big picture clarification"...

my opinion is that since science constitutes theories, there is no concrete limitation of science.. i'd go so far to suggest that most of what is measured, observed, etc are in some form adaptations and modifications to previous theories, proofs and so forth so advancement might better be termed as evolutions though I see you use that word

as long as we are somewhat conscious (this might even be a house of infinite resource) there will be potential for new ideas and recipes for discovery

if there is a barrier, i think we could blame psychology.. like self or group condemnation for the complexities of questions that continue to go unanswered - this is ruthless entertainment though

[purple13]

I don't know, but I think it would be a very long time before we reach such a threshold, if there is any. Think of how many things we don't know today. How many diseases and disabilities we have yet to understand, possibly cure or correct. Will the blind ever be able to see or the deaf, hear? A cure for cancer, lukemia, etc. Alternate means of travel, safer cheeper energy. Cool to think about the possibilities, but it seems pretty far in the future.

[TelecomClone]

Do you think that there is some sort of limit as to how far we can advance our theories? Can we make new discoveries indefinetely or is there a point that we will reach where there is a concrete limitation science? A sort of barrier that prevents us from predicting the behavior of a natural process.
No.

Technology allows us to directly and immediately apply our intellect to the physical systems of our bodies. Mind becomes, literally, dominant over matter in every regard - thereby moving beyond what would otherwise be the 'limitations' of a mundane material system. Human biological, intellectual and technological evolution is potentially exponential, with no logical termination of ability on the horizon; all evidence suggests that our evolution is openended, and so I see no reason to assume that we have intrinsic cogitative limits. With a comprehensive knowledge of our own biology, which is something that is decidedly within our grasp, we will be able to specifically and thoroughly identify the parts and processes of our brain that control intelligence and perception of all sorts. Then, without even necessarily understanding how they function, just that they do function, we will be enabled to use biotechnological science to toggle and modify these areas in test subjects and simulations, learning from the results. This is, for all intents and purposes, a process of directed mutation.

It is inevitable that mutative science of such a vein would ultimately yield a return that modifies or serves to modify human cognition in ways that we were previously incapable of quantifying. Once such a breakthrough is made, no matter how minor, it broadens the limits of our perception and the process can begin anew - from that expanded cogitative platform - and thus likely in directions that we never could have undertaken previously. It's a process that is omnidynamic and boundless by definition.

The only barrier to our knowing is the totality of that which there is to know, or, in other words, omniscience.

[distraction tactics]

Look at how far science advanced during humanity's history. Where is it taking us? Obviously we don't know the answer to that, but my question is this.

Do you think that there is some sort of limit as to how far we can advance our theories? Can we make new discoveries indefinetely or is there a point that we will reach where there is a concrete limitation science? A sort of barrier that prevents us from predicting the behavior of a natural process.

If there is a threshold like that, do you think that its biological? Due to the limitations of our brain, that could possibly be broken through evolution of a more advanced brain? Or could that threshold be absolute, in other words no matter how much an organism evolves, it will not be able to make predict some systems in nature?

The limit, in my view, is what truly exists in the natural world.

There may be processes we will never be able to observe real time, however, this doesn't mean we won't eventually be able to predict the outcome almost all (if not all) the time.

[TelecomClone]

For example, even if they found some way to make a perfect picture of my brain at some time, they could never actually observe my personal experience. The only way that subjective experience can be communicated is through me describing it.
I disagree. For instance (to use a purposely far-fetched sci-fi answer in illustration): through some thorough mastery of the physical human mind, perhaps a future scientist could load an 'image' of your entire consciousness into a sort of visual/spatial/audio simulation, enabling individuals who directly interface with this simulation (through some kind of neural implants, maybe) to experience exactly what you experience for a period of time. In effect, to temporarily become you and then have the memory of that experience relayed to their normal brain afterwards? As I mentioned, this is quite deliberately sci-fi of a stripe that is thoroughly beyond us - but I really don't see what would preclude us from accomplishing something of the essential sort. I mean, I can think of dozens of different scenarios off the top of my head that could temporarily or permanently allow another person to experience exactly what you experience. From something as simple as downloading one of your complete memories, to some kind of active collective-consciousness, to scenarios involving the discard of the physical human body altogether, to a new form of hyperaccurate and physically evocative spoken language, etc etc etc. Given serious thought, I could probably come up with hundreds or thousands of approaches to the problem - and it's not like I'm special. So what's stopping the future scientist from doing the same, except amongst the technology that he really has and with the knowledge that he really has? How do we sit here and say 'no, it can never happen because it is beyond our capability'? Didn't people said that to Jules Verne, once upon a time? And haven't some brilliant minds made a few of his then far-fetched ideas reality? And what evidence do we have to suggest that this process is not continuous?

[tinribz]

No.

--------

The only barrier to our knowing is the totality of that which there is to know, or, in other words, omniscience.
I've contemplated this before, and it is almost impossible for anyone to answer, its like trying to remember what you have forgotten, conceive the inconceivable.

I believe the answer is yes there are limits.

Imagine trying to explain to my dog how a TV works.

[distraction tactics]

I've contemplated this before, and it is almost impossible for anyone to answer, its like trying to remember what you have forgotten, conceive the inconceivable.

I believe the answer is yes there are limits.

Imagine trying to explain to my dog how a TV works.

Analogy works great for effect, but is a poor comparison to the real deal.

[TelecomClone]

've contemplated this before, and it is almost impossible for anyone to answer, its like trying to remember what you have forgotten, conceive the inconceivable.
It seems to me that to say 'yes, we've definitely got limits', one would first have to cite an intellectual limitation that we've got now and then present a theory as to why it will endure forever. But beyond the fact that I don't see evidence supporting such a hypothesis (meaning in this case something from which the theory can be logically extrapolated), when confronted with the nature of science-driven technological development over the last two hundred years - the problems that it has solved, the possibilities that it has created, the fiction that it has made fact - I see a general trend that inclines me to doubt that any such 'ultimate limit' exists or will exist. In technology, humankind has the means to apply his imagination physically to his person. In doing so, man can alter his perspective and apply his new imagination to dynamically new possibilities; those possiblities in turn yield new perspectives, and thus the whole process is like a factorial of thought.

Whilst, yes, the argument is going to be entirely speculative, where is the reason to err on the side of limits? What I'd like to know is what, exactly, makes it likely in your opinion.



Imagine trying to explain to my dog how a TV works.
That is basically just a rehash of Xenophon's "try to explain to x a currently incommunicable y," which I've already spoken to. I don't see the problem.

[Xenophon]

I disagree. For instance (to use a purposely far-fetched sci-fi answer in illustration): through some thorough mastery of the physical human mind, perhaps a future scientist could load an 'image' of your entire consciousness into a sort of visual/spatial/audio simulation, enabling individuals who directly interface with this simulation (through some kind of neural implants, maybe) to experience exactly what you experience for a period of time. In effect, to temporarily become you and then have the memory of that experience relayed to their normal brain afterwards? As I mentioned, this is quite deliberately sci-fi of a stripe that is thoroughly beyond us - but I really don't see what would preclude us from accomplishing something of the essential sort. I mean, I can think of dozens of different scenarios off the top of my head that could temporarily or permanently allow another person to experience exactly what you experience. From something as simple as downloading one of your complete memories, to some kind of active collective-consciousness, to scenarios involving the discard of the physical human body altogether, to a new form of hyperaccurate and physically evocative spoken language, etc etc etc. Given serious thought, I could probably come up with hundreds or thousands of approaches to the problem - and it's not like I'm special. So what's stopping the future scientist from doing the same, except amongst the technology that he really has and with the knowledge that he really has? How do we sit here and say 'no, it can never happen because it is beyond our capability'? Didn't people said that to Jules Verne, once upon a time? And haven't some brilliant minds made a few of his then far-fetched ideas reality? And what evidence do we have to suggest that this process is not continuous?
I wasn't talking about experience as in the sensory input to your consciousness, or even the sum of your sensory and intuitive inputs to your consciousness. It is the subjective totality of who I am. Without modifying your brain structure so that it was exactly the same as mine, there is no way that you could experience that. My proposition is that even if you could physically replicate my brain exactly, and you could feed it exactly the same inputs, then even if the experience of that newly completed brain was the same as mine, it would still be stuck inside that new brain.

I think that this is an example of the fact that there are things in the world that just cannot be measured. I think that quantum theory is the only science that has actually reached this threshold. When we get small enough, we have to start viewing the world as a bunch of fields. The wierd thing is, a field doesn't objectively exist. You can't measure a field, and as soon as you try, it stops being a field. This is a completely personal belief, and one that is obviously impossible for me to prove, but I believe that our consciousness is an extremely complicated field, and even if it could be recreated given powerful enough technology, it could never be measured.

[Edmond Zedo]

Look at how far science advanced during humanity's history. Where is it taking us? Obviously we don't know the answer to that, but my question is this.

Do you think that there is some sort of limit as to how far we can advance our theories? Can we make new discoveries indefinetely or is there a point that we will reach where there is a concrete limitation science? A sort of barrier that prevents us from predicting the behavior of a natural process.

If there is a threshold like that, do you think that its biological? Due to the limitations of our brain, that could possibly be broken through evolution of a more advanced brain? Or could that threshold be absolute, in other words no matter how much an organism evolves, it will not be able to make predict some systems in nature?
Read "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov, since it's just the answer you're looking for. It's a short story.

[Xenophon]

I just read the story (Xeno's neurotic tendancy to collect every possible e-book comes through again!) and it's quite fascinating. I'm not sure that really constitutes an answer to his question though. Entropy is more of a limit on what it is possible to accomplish with science, rather than what it is possible to know with scientific theories.

(You'll need Mobipocket reader to read the attachment.)

[Edmond Zedo]

I just read the story (Xeno's neurotic tendancy to collect every possible e-book comes through again!) and it's quite fascinating. I'm not sure that really constitutes an answer to his question though. Entropy is more of a limit on what it is possible to accomplish with science, rather than what it is possible to know with scientific theories.

(You'll need Mobipocket reader to read the attachment.)
You skipped the parts with the Universal AC etc? SPOILER: It knew everything except if entropy could be reversed, and then it figured that out.

[TelecomClone]

I wasn't talking about experience as in the sensory input to your consciousness, or even the sum of your sensory and intuitive inputs to your consciousness. It is the subjective totality of who I am.
You'll have to elaborate, then, because I was under the impression that what I said covered 'subjective totality'. What exactly is this 'totality' if not the entire functioning sum of all of your physical parts as modified throughout your lifetime? If you can experience something with your brain, why couldn't someone else in theory download what you've experienced into their brain? I'm just not seeing a logistical obstacle that would preclude such a thing. Also, is it possible that your subjective experience isn't as unique as you think it is?




I think that quantum theory is the only science that has actually reached this threshold. When we get small enough, we have to start viewing the world as a bunch of fields. The wierd thing is, a field doesn't objectively exist. You can't measure a field, and as soon as you try, it stops being a field. This is a completely personal belief, and one that is obviously impossible for me to prove, but I believe that our consciousness is an extremely complicated field, and even if it could be recreated given powerful enough technology, it could never be measured.
I don't know thing one about field theory, or quantum physics for that matter, aside from a very elementary understanding of why time is relativistically 'slower' between a stationary 'point of rest' and a moving 'point of rest'. I have heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which seems to be saying something similar involving measurement (or at least similarly odd to my ear) - but again, I'm not familiar with it. Can you elaborate? Otherwise I won't be able to mount a response (if there is a response). What, physically, is a field if it doesn't objectively exist? Is it just an arbitrary piece of quantification like a kilometer or a temperature Kelvin or an English word? Or if it is something more substantial than that, what exactly causes it to cease to exist when measured? For instance, is it because we're attempting to measure it by bombarding it with something? Does our measurement of it necessarily manipulate the space surrounding it and thus disrupt the field? Is it actually diminished upon measurement or does it become something else? Is there an energy-transfer involved in the measurement that would cause that measurement to effect the object? If so, must there be an energy transfer? In theory? If so, why? Also: would you say that an observer at a nanometer scale (some kind of nanotech 'camera robot'?) would have to view the world as fields or strings or what have you? I know that an intelligence operating at that scale could observe time much differently, for instance.


Asimov is wonderful, by the way.

[Pooja]

upon reaching the threshold of anything, you return back to it's most basic form. So the threshold of knowledge is stupidity.

[Xenophon]

You'll have to elaborate, then, because I was under the impression that what I said covered 'subjective totality'. What exactly is this 'totality' if not the entire functioning sum of all of your physical parts as modified throughout your lifetime? If you can experience something with your brain, why couldn't someone else in theory download what you've experienced into their brain? I'm just not seeing a logistical obstacle that would preclude such a thing. Also, is it possible that your subjective experience isn't as unique as you think it is?
I'm sure my subjective experience is not unique at all. However, it is still by nature subjective. Science deals with theories that can be validated through experiment. So, if I can predict exactly how someone will respond in every given situation, then I probably have a pretty good idea how the brain works. However, there is no way for me to experimentally validate whether my brain imager gives me an exact replica of a subjective experience, because it is not something that we can observe.


I don't know thing one about field theory, or quantum physics for that matter, aside from a very elementary understanding of why time is relativistically 'slower' between a stationary 'point of rest' and a moving 'point of rest'. I have heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which seems to be saying something similar involving measurement (or at least similarly odd to my ear) - but again, I'm not familiar with it. Can you elaborate? Otherwise I won't be able to mount a response (if there is a response). What, physically, is a field if it doesn't objectively exist? Is it just an arbitrary piece of quantification like a kilometer or a temperature Kelvin or an English word? Or if it is something more substantial than that, what exactly causes it to cease to exist when measured? For instance, is it because we're attempting to measure it by bombarding it with something? Does our measurement of it necessarily manipulate the space surrounding it and thus disrupt the field? Is it actually diminished upon measurement or does it become something else? Is there an energy-transfer involved in the measurement that would cause that measurement to effect the object? If so, must there be an energy transfer? In theory? If so, why? Also: would you say that an observer at a nanometer scale (some kind of nanotech 'camera robot'?) would have to view the world as fields or strings or what have you? I know that an intelligence operating at that scale could observe time much differently, for instance.
A field isn't actually a physical thing. It's a mathematical construct that describes how something physical will behave. Gravity is probably the best known field. Einstein came up with great theories that describe what causes gravity and how it will affect things, but even with our great understanding of how it works, we can't actually measure gravity, we can only measure its effect on other things.

The fundamental thing that they discovered with quantum mechanics is that particles and waves(fields) are the same thing. More specifically, particles are the manifestion of energy transfer between two waves. Before the energy transfer happens, no particle exists. Nothing can happen without energy transfer, information IS energy transfer.

[ApeTheDog]

There has to be - the limit to all that we can learn is all that exists. Unless you count us learning wrong things too - then that limit is a whole lot larger again.

We may of course never reach that limit, because it is by no means certain our brains are equipped to learn everything there is to learn - and we're no longer evolving them.

[TelecomClone]

A field isn't actually a physical thing. It's a mathematical construct that describes how something physical will behave. Gravity is probably the best known field. Einstein came up with great theories that describe what causes gravity and how it will affect things, but even with our great understanding of how it works, we can't actually measure gravity, we can only measure its effect on other things.
Hm. Gravity is a physical thing, though. As physical as space: according to Einstein it is a property of space, is it not? That in and of itself wouldn't be a mathematical construct even if we are currently forced to use one to work with it, would it? However, I do see now where it connects to your larger idea about consciousness being an array of complex fields. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I had previously been using the analogy of a tea kettle boiling: the body being a kettle in its specific shape, the brain as the water conformed to that shape, the environment acting as the heat, and consciousness being the whistling of steam evaporating through the spout.



I'm sure my subjective experience is not unique at all. However, it is still by nature subjective. Science deals with theories that can be validated through experiment.
It seems to me that while your interpretation of objective reality is a subjective experience, that subjective experience nonetheless physically occurs in an objectively physical manner; you experience your personal subjectivity - in its entirety - through x, y, and z physical processes which operate as a function q of your specific biology. Therefore, your entire experience would be in fact physically tangible. That said just to be clear, we come then to validating what we know about that mechanism as it applies to you:



I can predict exactly how someone will respond in every given situation, then I probably have a pretty good idea how the brain works. However, there is no way for me to experimentally validate whether my brain imager gives me an exact replica of a subjective experience, because it is not something that we can observe.
If consciousness is an undulating array of what we currently quantify as fields, consciousness would nevertheless seem to be an objectively physical thing; if consciousness is caused and defined in nature by an organ that generates it, it follows that replicating that organ in functional exactitude is likely to replicate the consciousness exactly. But to check the accuracy of our replication, first know that if the human brain is cut in half - that is if the connection between the two hemispheres is severed in a living person - experimentation shows that a person can act as two autonomous half-beings although remaining the same individual. (See experimentation and research performed by Roger Sperry and/or Michael Gazzaniga for detail) Meaning: if that person's right eye is covered, only the left hand can react to visual stimuli. If the left eye is covered, only the right hand can react to visual stimuli. The 'other side' of the brain literally doesn't know what its counterpart is doing, and yet we're still talking about a single individual with a single consciousness. Similarly, the right side of the brain can identify an object while the right eye is covered, but can not explain what the object is used for because that is a left brain process.

But when both eyes are uncovered, take note, both hands can react together. The right side of the brain can identify an object and the left side of the brain can report that object's function. Could not, in our far fetched hypothetical, two full brains then be loaded into the same 'mind' - each being entirely discrete in isolation and thus 'pure', but nevertheless being aspects of the same individual? If so, could you not compare the copy with your actual experience in every way through a centralized memory and thus verify the accuracy of the replication? It's analogous to a matter of checking the consistency of image between 'camera one' and 'camera two', except you're looking at four hemispheres instead of two. And once accuracy was pinned down, the process could be automated fully.

However, far simpler than that I suspect would be to somehow resolve issue of the measurement of fields. Perhaps we can't measure what they represent at the moment, due to the present mathematical limitations of our understanding of physical objects, but how can we say that we never will? Take gravity (as below). What is it that String Theory proposes about gravitons, for instance? Like photons and other virtual particles, those should theoretically be measurable en-masse should they not (I'm guessing)? And 'cognitons', or whatever we'll call the consciousness-field equivalent? These things physically exist albeit briefly and defiantly, right? And can be measured in theory? Step in at any time if my rudimentary understanding of the physics is way off. And at point, even if observing something is to affect it by way of energy transfer, why isn't that the case no matter what scale the observation? And if it is the case no matter the scale, wouldn't that 'uncertainty' already apply to everything that we know anyway? And at the quantum level, in a well outlined and specific field like a particular person's consciousness in our future example, could it be imaginable to somehow correct for the skewing caused by direct measurement of virtual 'cognitons' in a similar sense that it is possible to correct our telescopes for light being scattered in the Earth's atmosphere? Alternatively, do you suppose that there could be a systemic limit to the distortion of knowledge caused by such observation, just as Xeno's paradox illustrates a systemic limit to the division of half-distances, after which the distortion does not obstruct the truth at all?

I also think this might be on the verge of necessarily turning into an epistemological debate; you and I may be using somewhat variant definitions of what constitutes knowing something with certainty, in and of itself.



The fundamental thing that they discovered with quantum mechanics is that particles and waves(fields) are the same thing. More specifically, particles are the manifestion of energy transfer between two waves.
Okay. This next question is a bit off topic then, but do the waves have to be opposing, discrete waves, or can a wave somehow 'interact with itself' to produce these particles? I mean, what is a light wave interacting with to produce photons in open space? An electromagnetic wave, or another light wave, or itself?

[tinribz]

Like he dog analogy explained poorly, clearly there are physical limits to the brain. No matter how long you spend with a dog or even expand his life time he will never be able to absorb enough information or understand the workings of a TV or even comprehend the need for one.

Say he has an IQ of 10 and using some transcanineist techniques to bring him up to 100, there will still be concepts, associated knowledge that only a dog with an IQ of 300 will have the power to comprehend.

Knowledge is exponential and intelligence is linier. Turning up the brightness of the lamp allows you to see answers but with a finite intelligence you will always be subject to limits, regardless of whether the limits can be overcome and we will never be able to see all the questions till we actually pass it.

Unless you are saying knowledge is finite? Which is a little audacious.

Also you have already motioned you would need omnipotence / time travel to be sure of everything.

Our current perspective of knowledge, empirical science and understanding centered around the hunter / gatherer evolved brain and is unbelievably narrow and naive.

The first step on the path to wisdom is realising how little you know.

[dubbeltop]

I think science is no longer interested in getting us anywhere there only interested in making money and fame. Remember that south-korean scientist. Just like football everything is about making money getting money and spending money. Luckily there are those rare individuals who look beyond that and those people with their vision courage and superior intellect will achieve the much needed breaktroughs in the world of science. Anyway problems will be solved but in the end the humans race itself is the limiting factor....


I was looking at this thread about highest paying college degree/career and everybody was talking about the money until joft posted a career as a monk or nun. How refreshing!!!

[distraction tactics]

Like he dog analogy explained poorly, clearly there are physical limits to the brain. No matter how long you spend with a dog or even expand his life time he will never be able to absorb enough information or understand the workings of a TV or even comprehend the need for one.

Say he has an IQ of 10 and using some transcanineist techniques to bring him up to 100, there will still be concepts, associated knowledge that only a dog with an IQ of 300 will have the power to comprehend.

So if we have the techniques to raise a dog from an IQ of 10 to 100, why can we not raise it to 300 or any arbitrary number we so desire? The fact is that the canine condition is not the human condition. Like I said, nice analogy for effect, but that's about it. We're on the edge of discovering how the human brain works, to not think that several hundred years from now will we not see a highly-transformed human species is shortsighted.


Knowledge is exponential and intelligence is linier. Turning up the brightness of the lamp allows you to see answers but with a finite intelligence you will always be subject to limits, regardless of whether the limits can be overcome and we will never be able to see all the questions till we actually pass it.

Unless you are saying knowledge is finite? Which is a little audacious.

What makes you think it isn't? If we truly live in a natural world, there is only a certain amount of things to know. Just as ancient societies could only guess the nature of this planet, we know now there are limits to it.


Our current perspective of knowledge, empirical science and understanding centered around the hunter / gatherer evolved brain and is unbelievably narrow and naive.

In a sense, agreed.


The first step on the path to wisdom is realising how little you know.

It's also the first step to pretentious, religiously-themed cliches.

[TelecomClone]

Unless you are saying knowledge is finite? Which is a little audacious.
Knowledge must be 'finite' by definition, even if it is only 'finite' as an infinite whole; one can not even in theory know more than what exists to know, and therefore what exists composes the totality of potential knowledge. I'm not really sure if calling omniscience a 'limit' is a truly meaningful statement, but it nevertheless remains descriptive of the situation. There is no need to get hung up on the term.



intelligence is linier.
But how do you know that? You presume in saying so that our contemporary understanding of intelligence represents the only form of intelligence possible, which is another point that I've yet to see you support with any kind of imaginative reasoning (weak analogy is supplementary, not substantive). The quantificatory scale that we apply to human (or human-like) intelligence for the sake of argument here is most likely not comprehensive enough to reflect the full nature of "intelligence," as possible within reality. If for example there is intelligent alien life in the universe, having evolved in radically different environments and thus to radically different specifications, then it logically follows that at least some of it would be intelligent in ways that wouldn't make any sense to the present day person; not because we're less advanced or more advanced, not because they are less complex or more complex, but only because the fundamentals behind that intelligence are based in a completely different perception of reality. In that respect, there is no such thing as a universal "level" of intelligence that one could purport to apply broadly to all life, theoretically or otherwise. There is only a differing atunement to perceive aspects of reality.

Attempting to superimpose one over the other is like asking how a being existing in a nine-dimensional space lacking depth would 'walk'. It wouldn't. Well then how would it 'move'? It might not have to move, or it might move in a manner that we cannot traditionally quantify and, thus, wouldn't even recognize as movement. The concept of 'uniqueness' presupposes an object. An object presupposes discrete existence. The discreteness of a thing is a concept that we use to understand reality; we do this because we lack a broad enough perspective to understand everything as the simultaneous, continuous whole (just as infinities are wholes) that it objectively is. We therefore navigate and understand reality by regarding it in smaller pieces that we can focus upon. Perhaps an intelligence evolved within and attuned to a dramatically different environment would not have that problem?

Imagine that you're looking at a red ball. This red ball represents a universe. You can hold the red ball in the palm of your hand and manipulate it easily. Let's say that your position, holding the ball, is analogous to the position that our theoretical aliens enjoy. Now imagine that humanity is a microbe, dwelling on the surface of the ball. Because of its perspective, a human in our example can not perceive the entire ball at any given time. Not only does the curvature of the ball physically restrict his direct vision, but his microscopic perspective is such that it isn't even aware of entire aspects of the ball - such as its color. The ball, objectively, is a perfect sphere and it doesn't have 'pieces'. The human can nevertheless regard it in pieces; he can do so precisely because his perception is incomplete.

If you, the alien intelligence, want to see what the shape of the ball is, you simply have to look at it. You can see the entire shape of the ball at once. If you want to see the bottom of the ball, you simply roll it over and look at it. If the human, on the other hand, wants to see what's on the bottom of the ball, it must endeavor do so through its fragmented vision. It must isolate what it perceives as pieces of the ball and, by comparing their relationship to one another, extrapolate what a larger area of the ball must be like. The human can only come to know the shape of the ball by fitting the 'pieces' of its perception together through a process of logical abstraction. The more 'pieces' that the human learns of, the more complete his impression of the ball is. If the human met you one day, and it started talking about 'semicurve calculus' and 'features' that are the result of incomplete perception, you wouldn't know what the hell it was talking about. And similarly, you wouldn't be able to communicate to the human your impression of the ball. He'd have a hard time simply trying to understand what 'red' is, let alone how the ball can and does have that property. The beauty of human technology, however, lies in that as the human pieces knowledge of the ball together, he can physically incorporate those pieces into his intellect through biomedical and genetic technology - and thus gain the potential to deal with concepts that were previously alien and incomprehensible. And eventually, by these means, man inevitably comes to understand the alien's perspective as well as his own. It is an openended process.

[Xenophon]

I also think this might be on the verge of necessarily turning into an epistemological debate; you and I may be using somewhat variant definitions of what constitutes knowing something with certainty, in and of itself.
I'm pretty sure were over the edge. It's funny, but the discussions that I'm interested in are almost always epistemological debates, as I have a fundamentally different view of what constitutes reality than most people do.


Hm. Gravity is a physical thing, though. As physical as space: according to Einstein it is a property of space, is it not? That in and of itself wouldn't be a mathematical construct even if we are currently forced to use one to work with it, would it?...
Sure, it would be pretty stupid to argue that gravity doesn't exist, I am trying to say that we can't measure gravity itself, we can only measure its effect. Think about gravity being a property of space for a second. Space is nothing, there isn't anything there. How can something be a property of nothing. When I say that gravity is a mathematical construct, I mean that we can describe how it will effect something mathematically, but it doesn't actually physically exist until it manifests itself on something. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, this does not mean that there are no gravitons. Photons certainly exist, yet light is a field as well.


I mean, what is a light wave interacting with to produce photons in open space?
What I am trying to say is that a photon doesn't physically exist in open space, it only exists when it manifests in the form of energy transfer. This is a really wierd concept to get ones head around, I suggest reading the first ten pages of Feynman's Lectures on Physics (Volume III), as he gives a very good overview of the double-slit experiment. The incredible observation is that as long as there is no energy transfer, an electron can travel through two holes at the same time. But this is a bad way of describing it I think, it is more accurate to say: until an electron is forced to manifest itself through energy transfer, it does not exist as a particle at all, it exists as a field.


It seems to me that while your interpretation of objective reality is a subjective experience, that subjective experience nonetheless physically occurs in an objectively physical manner; you experience your personal subjectivity - in its entirety - through x, y, and z physical processes which operate as a function q of your specific biology. Therefore, your entire experience would be in fact physically tangible.
But this is exactly the point that I am trying to refute. Just like a field, I do not believe that the subjective experience is completely manifest in the physical world. If we could force it to manifest completely, I think that act alone would destroy the subjective experience.


However, far simpler than that I suspect would be to somehow resolve issue of the measurement of fields. Perhaps we can't measure what they represent at the moment, due to the present mathematical limitations of our understanding of physical objects, but how can we say that we never will?
Physicist, being strict empiricists, sort of understate the importance of the uncertainty principle. The statement you might have heard before is "we cannot measure both the position and momentum of a particle beyond a certain threshold" (Planck's constant). But it is actually more insightful to say "a particle doesn't have a position until a certain amount of energy(momentum) transfer has occured." Without this extremely wierd, but sort of simple concept, all of quantum mechanics falls apart.

[TelecomClone]

I'm pretty sure were over the edge. It's funny, but the discussions that I'm interested in are almost always epistemological debates, as I have a fundamentally different view of what constitutes reality than most people do.
Well, I don't think people in general pay enough attention to epistemology anyway. A great many arguments will use sound and thorough logic only to rationally fail on epistemological grounds, which of course serves to invalidate the entire logical structure... but the people making the arguments don't even know what epistemology is in the first place. And as one might imagine, this significantly lowers the value of problemsolving discussion.



Sure, it would be pretty stupid to argue that gravity doesn't exist, I am trying to say that we can't measure gravity itself, we can only measure its effect. Think about gravity being a property of space for a second. Space is nothing, there isn't anything there. How can something be a property of nothing.

[...]

but it doesn't actually physically exist until it manifests itself on something
I find myself at the moment inclined to doubt that space is nothing, although it might contain nothing at some given point or time. What of the argument that space must be 'something' because 'nothing' by definition does not exist, where as from what you've told me about fields, space carries an innate inclination to become specifically physical under certain circumstances? That inclination would nevertheless be a "physical" property of some kind, wouldn't it? Just not traditionally "physical." And as you say, something cannot be a property of nothing. Otherwise, if space really was nothing, then I would think that nothing would manifest under any circumstance - because there would be no inclination and thus nothing to collide with something and thus no way to generate the virtual particles. Is there an explanation for this problem somewhere in QM, or am I misunderstanding the uncertainty principle again?



but it doesn't actually physically exist until it manifests itself on something.
My first reaction to this idea, given the above paragraph, is to modify my definition of what is 'physical' and furthermore question my understanding of what is the 'existence' of a thing. I do not see how it can be resolved otherwise.



But it is actually more insightful to say "a particle doesn't have a position until a certain amount of energy(momentum) transfer has occured." Without this extremely wierd, but sort of simple concept, all of quantum mechanics falls apart.
I can tentatively accept that readily enough - the particle doesn't exist, or the particle potentially exists, or the particle indeterminately (indiscretely) exists. What I still haven't understood is what exactly the state of space is in lieu of the particle coming into existence.

[Xenophon]

I find myself at the moment inclined to doubt that space is nothing, although it might contain nothing at some given point or time. What of the argument that space must be 'something' because 'nothing' by definition does not exist, where as from what you've told me about fields, space carries an innate inclination to become specifically physical under certain circumstances? That inclination would nevertheless be a "physical" property of some kind, wouldn't it? Just not traditionally "physical." And as you say, something cannot be a property of nothing. Otherwise, if space really was nothing, then I would think that nothing would manifest under any circumstance - because there would be no inclination and thus nothing to collide with something and thus no way to generate the virtual particles. Is there an explanation for this problem somewhere in QM, or am I misunderstanding the uncertainty principle again?

My first reaction to this idea, given the above paragraph, is to modify my definition of what is 'physical' and furthermore question my understanding of what is the 'existence' of a thing. I do not see how it can be resolved otherwise.
I would agree that there must be something there (whatever it is that the equations describe). It seems to me the only reason we would need to redefine physical, is if we can't come to terms with the idea that things exist that aren't physical. Fields can have physical effects on an environment, but in essence I don't think that they have prerequisite properties to be called physical.


I can tentatively accept that readily enough - the particle doesn't exist, or the particle potentially exists, or the particle indeterminately (indiscretely) exists. What I still haven't understood is what exactly the state of space is in lieu of the particle coming into existence.
That is where I think we have a fundamental limitation. We can't possibly KNOW what exactly the state of space is in lieu of a particle coming into existance. They can create theories, but science relies on empirical evidence to validate those theories. Quantum mechanics has formulated a firm limitation on what it is possible to experimentally validate.

[Architectonic]

Do you think that there is some sort of limit as to how far we can advance our theories? Can we make new discoveries indefinetely or is there a point that we will reach where there is a concrete limitation science? A sort of barrier that prevents us from predicting the behavior of a natural process.

At the lowest level, this may be the case (quantum mechanics as mentioned). But at the highest level, I don't believe there is a fundamental limit, but more of a logistical one. Its difficult to predict everything about highly complex structures. (The formation of a galaxy for example, would be pretty difficult to predict to the atomic detail - but it is possible.)

There are hard limits to our understanding based on our intelligence - but we may easily enhance our intelligence in the future and we are already using many tools to augment our intelligence. Computers are a fine example and the use of computers in the future will only increase. For example, it is quite possible that an encyclopedia on a chip, installed in the brain may be more efficient/practical than trying to recreate the same thing biologically. (at least in the not too distant future).

[TelecomClone]

I would agree that there must be something there (whatever it is that the equations describe). It seems to me the only reason we would need to redefine physical, is if we can't come to terms with the idea that things exist that aren't physical. Fields can have physical effects on an environment, but in essence I don't think that they have prerequisite properties to be called physical.
The problem I'm inclined to have with the definition, in this context at least, is that seems to thoroughly violate the Law of Identity: A is A. As follows from Identity, A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense that it is A. So something either exists or it does not exist; it can't exist and not exist, but yet, under the current definition of what is physical and what isn't, a field would seem to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same manner and in the same space. And we simply can't have that, because it'll axiomatically invalidate the formal logic that gives rise to the mathematical logic that gives rise to field theory in the first place.



That is where I think we have a fundamental limitation. We can't possibly KNOW what exactly the state of space is in lieu of a particle coming into existance.
I still can't agree, because space is a physical thing. If a piece of space can't be measured directly because it isn't properly energetic, perhaps it can be measured by mapping the behaviour of energetic space surrounding it, much like the contour of the centre of a stretched sheet can be extrapolated from the surface tension around the edges. Of course in this case we'd probably be talking about some significantly complicated 'chaos geometry' (or somesuch) that is as of yet beyond us. In being able to specifically map that space, we'd be able to predict the energetic outcome (in terms of the virtual particles, perhaps) of bombarding it with energy - and therein is a means of empirically testing the truth or falsehood of said mapping, and thereby a means of knowing what exactly the state of that space is in lieu of a particle coming into existence there.



They can create theories, but science relies on empirical evidence to validate those theories. Quantum mechanics has formulated a firm limitation on what it is possible to experimentally validate.
That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that it has illustrated itself to be a limited theory; could fields be to modern physics as the Aether was to the old school? Something that appears 'necessarily true' but later is found by a more expansive model to be incomplete? That seems to be another historical trend in science.

[Xenophon]

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that it has illustrated itself to be a limited theory; could fields be to modern physics as the Aether was to the old school? Something that appears 'necessarily true' but later is found by a more expansive model to be incomplete? That seems to be another historical trend in science.
It's four in the morning, and I'm a little durnk so I'm not gonna respond to the whole post right now, but I want to write whats on my mind about this right now before I go to bed. I think that in the history of science, it is generally found that earlier theories are specific cases of more general theories that are found later on. Any further theories are likely to have the same features as QM and more. There are two premises that are beneath everything in QM: Really small things don't have precisely defined positions, and energy is transfered in quanta. I actually think that the whole notion of a photon is extremely misleading. There IS NO particle, it just behaves like a particle in that energy is transfered in discrete amounts.

The fact is that we are pretty much stuck in three dimensional space. If there are other dimensions (and in fact, I would say there have to be other dimensions in the general sense of the term), we cannot access them outside of theory.

I don't think it is fair to compare this to the concept of the aether, as that was not a theory based on the scientific method backed up with empirical data. It was people making a guess about what is going on in space based on their experience on earth. The ideas of QM are very different in that they are completely counter-intuitive at first, but they have held up against every single experiment ever designed to refute them.

I really encourage you to find Feynman's Lectures on Physics Vol III, and to put aside two hours to read the first ten pages and really ponder what the implications are. It is actually quite elegant when you get comfortable with the ideas.

[TelecomClone]

Were you going to respond to the rest of the post, or should I reply to that?

[Xenophon]

Yeah, I forgot about this thread. Lemme see.


The problem I'm inclined to have with the definition, in this context at least, is that seems to thoroughly violate the Law of Identity: A is A. As follows from Identity, A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense that it is A. So something either exists or it does not exist; it can't exist and not exist, but yet, under the current definition of what is physical and what isn't, a field would seem to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same manner and in the same space. And we simply can't have that, because it'll axiomatically invalidate the formal logic that gives rise to the mathematical logic that gives rise to field theory in the first place.
I think that this is only violated if we have the assumption physical existance is the only type of existance. My whole argument is that something can exist that isn't manifest in the physical realm. In fact, physical existance is dependant on energy transfer, and without energy transfer nothing manifests in the physical world.


I still can't agree, because space is a physical thing. If a piece of space can't be measured directly because it isn't properly energetic, perhaps it can be measured by mapping the behaviour of energetic space surrounding it, much like the contour of the centre of a stretched sheet can be extrapolated from the surface tension around the edges. Of course in this case we'd probably be talking about some significantly complicated 'chaos geometry' (or somesuch) that is as of yet beyond us. In being able to specifically map that space, we'd be able to predict the energetic outcome (in terms of the virtual particles, perhaps) of bombarding it with energy - and therein is a means of empirically testing the truth or falsehood of said mapping, and thereby a means of knowing what exactly the state of that space is in lieu of a particle coming into existence there.
I don't remember if I said this before, but information IS energy transfer. Without energy transfer there is no information. We can theorize to our hearts content, and we will get closer and closer to describing the physical phenomenon. However, it is fundamentally impossible to prove anything with science, we can only verify results. This limitation becomes much more problematic when you are dealing with science where you cannot directly measure the results without effecting the action.

I don't really know what you mean by energetic space. We measure things with a device. It is not that the field lacks the energy to be measured, its the fact that trying to extract information from the field (through energy transfer) effects the field. I'm by no means an expert on this area, but it seems to me that you are attacking the most fundamental law of quantum mechanics in the above quote, and the fact is that the most brilliant scientists in the world have been working on tricking the system for decades with zero success.