Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - A philosophical investigation into the nature and role of intelligence in the cosmos

Yakk · 12-20-2004, 12:36 PM

It is my opinion that emergent properties are more important than most people are willing to give them credit for.

Russell observed that all of logic was a string of Tautologies.

The Church-Turing thesis can be viewed to claim that algorithms are thought, and the Turing Machine thus covers thought.

Newtonian gravity is simple, but even 3 bodies can't be solved.

One of the strongest laws of physics, enthropy, can be reduced to the effects of pure mathematical statistics. In other words, enthropy could be viewed as the statement 'more likely things are more likely to happen, and unlikely things are less likely to happen'.

Dispite the fact that every true statement in logic is, at some level, as trivial as 'a chicken is a chicken', the complicated dressing around it changes it from meaninglessness to a quite powerful mode of expression. The Church-Turing thesis collapses in the Turing Tar-pit: while every computational tool is equivalent, they really aren't the same.

Emergent properties matter, in a way that is almost beyond ken.

Was the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem somehow already in the mind of the first person who built logic? The proof is, in some way, an inevitable consequence of the laws of logic: but, it actually is content.

Some would say that a sculpture exists within the block of granite, and the artist just chips away at what doesn't belong -- but, until the artist is there, the scupture isn't.

Intelligence in the universe, in my mind, seems more like the sculpture within the boulder, or the proof within the topography of logic. It comes from the rock or the axioms, but it isn't there until it is. The scupture isn't there until you cut off the rock, and the proof isn't there until you write it down.

Intelligence appearing doesn't mean that it is part of the essence of the universe any more than a sculpture appearing means that the sculpture was part of the essence of the rock.

The universe is a 'sufficiently complex' spot, and when you have spots of sufficient complexity, interesting things happen. I strongly suspect that intelligence is just one of those interesting things.

We see a universe that seems suited for intelligence, not nessicarilly because the universe demands the existance of intelligence, but because we couldn't see it unless it was. We demand a universe that suits intelligence, in order to be.

edit: spelling

12-20-2004, 12:36 PM	#43 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	It is my opinion that emergent properties are more important than most people are willing to give them credit for. Russell observed that all of logic was a string of Tautologies. The Church-Turing thesis can be viewed to claim that algorithms are thought, and the Turing Machine thus covers thought. Newtonian gravity is simple, but even 3 bodies can't be solved. One of the strongest laws of physics, enthropy, can be reduced to the effects of pure mathematical statistics. In other words, enthropy could be viewed as the statement 'more likely things are more likely to happen, and unlikely things are less likely to happen'. Dispite the fact that every true statement in logic is, at some level, as trivial as 'a chicken is a chicken', the complicated dressing around it changes it from meaninglessness to a quite powerful mode of expression. The Church-Turing thesis collapses in the Turing Tar-pit: while every computational tool is equivalent, they really aren't the same. Emergent properties matter, in a way that is almost beyond ken. Was the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem somehow already in the mind of the first person who built logic? The proof is, in some way, an inevitable consequence of the laws of logic: but, it actually is content. Some would say that a sculpture exists within the block of granite, and the artist just chips away at what doesn't belong -- but, until the artist is there, the scupture isn't. Intelligence in the universe, in my mind, seems more like the sculpture within the boulder, or the proof within the topography of logic. It comes from the rock or the axioms, but it isn't there until it is. The scupture isn't there until you cut off the rock, and the proof isn't there until you write it down. Intelligence appearing doesn't mean that it is part of the essence of the universe any more than a sculpture appearing means that the sculpture was part of the essence of the rock. The universe is a 'sufficiently complex' spot, and when you have spots of sufficient complexity, interesting things happen. I strongly suspect that intelligence is just one of those interesting things. We see a universe that seems suited for intelligence, not nessicarilly because the universe demands the existance of intelligence, but because we couldn't see it unless it was. We demand a universe that suits intelligence, in order to be. edit: spelling __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. Last edited by Yakk; 12-20-2004 at 12:53 PM..