Tweet
Originally posted by obiwan18
Couple quick points to rebut:
1. You may have killed Christ, but Christ defeated death by rising from the dead.
So what have you accomplished, except for establishing the righteousness of all those who believe in Christ?
Couple quick points to rebut:
1. You may have killed Christ, but Christ defeated death by rising from the dead.
So what have you accomplished, except for establishing the righteousness of all those who believe in Christ?
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Perhaps Angelo was saying that we killed God in the same sense that Nietzche said "God is Dead." Human knowledge has rendered the need for belief in a deity unneccessary, etc.
Perhaps Angelo was saying that we killed God in the same sense that Nietzche said "God is Dead." Human knowledge has rendered the need for belief in a deity unneccessary, etc.
... anyway, your interpretation makes me seem very bright and acculturated
so... Yes, that was exactly the meaning of my post!
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Oh, now I understand. Mechanicism, as I understand it, is more like a philosophy instead of physics.
Oh, now I understand. Mechanicism, as I understand it, is more like a philosophy instead of physics.
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
However, the random elements which quantum mechanics offer do not constitute as free will. They are just random events.
However, the random elements which quantum mechanics offer do not constitute as free will. They are just random events.
The interesting things about quantum mechanics are others such as (for example) holism and non-locality, states superposition (
)Anyway i never said it explains or even has something to do with free will, i really don't know, but what i know, is that the mechanical (algorithmical if you prefer) way to describe the brain seems to be both old and wrong.
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Also, such scientists as Wolfram and Barabási are currently developing theories which could make even quantum mechanics predictable.
Also, such scientists as Wolfram and Barabási are currently developing theories which could make even quantum mechanics predictable.
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
That is not the entire truth. Have you heard about "hazed logic"? (that's the name for it in Finnish, don't know the English name and my dictionary doesn't either) The difference between computer logics and "hazed logic" is that when computers use 1 and 0 to describe information, "hazed logic" uses any numbers between 1 and 0, usually excluding 1 and 0 themselves. "Hazed logic" is a somewhat new branch of logics, but it has proven extremely useful in, for example, developing artifical intelligence.
Of course applications that run according to "hazed logic" are still running on ordinary computers, and are thus only illusions of "hazed logic" taking place. The point is, that binary logics are not the only forms of logic in the universe.
This, however, is not my area of expertise. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
That is not the entire truth. Have you heard about "hazed logic"? (that's the name for it in Finnish, don't know the English name and my dictionary doesn't either) The difference between computer logics and "hazed logic" is that when computers use 1 and 0 to describe information, "hazed logic" uses any numbers between 1 and 0, usually excluding 1 and 0 themselves. "Hazed logic" is a somewhat new branch of logics, but it has proven extremely useful in, for example, developing artifical intelligence.
Of course applications that run according to "hazed logic" are still running on ordinary computers, and are thus only illusions of "hazed logic" taking place. The point is, that binary logics are not the only forms of logic in the universe.
This, however, is not my area of expertise. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Logic itself was invented exactly with this goal.
Let me search some info to better explain what i mean:
Around the '30s mathematics discovered that there are classes of problems whose solutions cannot be discovered by a mathematician working 'mechanically'; fortunately (or unfortunately...) we needed something else (we can call it 'intuition' or 'initiative' if you want).
Turing was, obviously, aware of these discoveries when he started his work on TMs and therefore limited his machines (and every other pure algorithmical machine) saying that it was "able to execute any procedure that can be carried out by an idealised human clerk working mechanically with paper and pencil."
He went ahead defining an 'oracle': this 'oracle' was a mathematically defined object able to execute uncomputable functions, he added that "We shall not go any further into the nature of this oracle apart from saying that it cannot be a machine.", thanks to the oracle Turing was able to explain the mathematician's 'intuition' in theorem-proving.
Years later Turing said that applying the Universal Machine property to a brain is somewhat difficult because, to apply it, we need to show that brain behaviour is in principle predictable by calculation.
Obviously, as Eddington noticed, according to the indeterminacy principle in quantum mechanics no such prediction is possible, not even theoretically.
So, you see, human brain can't be a machine, i've no idea what it is, but it's not a machine in the informatic sense.
Originally posted by Vesayen
Thats why you throw in a VERY heavy helping of chemistry and particle physics
Thats why you throw in a VERY heavy helping of chemistry and particle physics
Look, in science history it's called classical mechanics the physics (and chemistry and particle physics, etc. etc. etc.) pre-1925, i don't know why, i presume it's to honor Newton's mechanics that started all. but it's not my fault if they called it so...
Anyway we've threadjacked enough, like juhani_kahvi said, if we want to discuss further about this topic i suggest to open another thread.
Comment