0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by nhamann · 2011-03-30T22:17:40.033Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sorry, I could not make sense of any of this. Especially the symbolic part, but also the conversation part. And all the other parts too.
Replies from: Alicorn, Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:27:30.801Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sorry, perhaps you can try understanding on thought experiment section.
Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again, sorry for this.
comment by Manfred · 2011-03-30T22:19:33.319Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Some tips: Before talking about infinity too much, be sure to read up on set theory in mathematics, which has lots of interesting things to say about infinity and provides a common language for saying them.
Also be careful to not use the same word for different things. If you want to call the first cause God, that's okay. But be careful not to later use it for "conscious being" without explicitly showing that the first cause is a conscious being. Track the concepts, not the words.
Replies from: Seremoniacomment by Desrtopa · 2011-03-30T22:54:23.308Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Once we believe in the existence of "The First without beginning", it means if we are able to communicate, animals can communicate, then "The First without beginning" is also able to communicate. If we are able to realize, able to feel, then "The First without beginning" is also able to realize and feel. Up here is enough for me to make sure that there is "The First without beginning" that is able to realize, able to communicate. And for me it's enough to ensure for the existence of a large force that encompasses everything and can be considered as having consciousness that is worth for us to make decisions, to press theworshipbutton.
This doesn't follow. Just because all things have the same particles, or share origins, doesn't mean that they share all the same properties.
We can communicate. Clams, which are made of all the same particles and share most of our evolutionary history, cannot communicate.
I agree with Manfred that you should study the mathematical concept of infinities further before attempting to base arguments on your understanding of it. However, since the universe does appear to have a past of limited length, and so there is probably something that could be considered the first cause, this is not the main problem with your conclusion.
The main problem is that you seem to be attributing qualities to that first cause that it almost certainly doesn't have. It's much simpler to make thinking things out of parts that don't think, which follow consistent rules, than to make everything have thought on a basic level. This post explains this somewhat, and I hope it can make things clearer for you.
Naming such an entity "God" is also almost certainly a mistake. The entire Human's Guide to Words sequence is helpful to understand, but this post is probably the most important for your right now.
I'm sorry that these articles aren't available in a language that would be easier for you to follow. Comprehending the sequences is hard enough work for fluent English speakers, and it's difficult to express the concepts in them more plainly, but the ideas would be valuable for your to understand.
Replies from: Seremonia, Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-03-31T02:22:40.160Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am asserting that, for "The First without beginning" it shows the consequence of having qualities that cover all things that derived from "The First without beginning" itself. Therefore I am not saying that because anything created with the same particles then it means they share all the same properties. I am saying that if we see something able to communicate, then this ability must be inherent to "The First without beginning". The ability to communicate doesn't have to be owned by anything.
And I it doesn't have to be structured based on mathematics. As long we constructed argument with axioms and we can understand it, then it's enough for someone to see the make sense of the truth.
For someone who can understand the axiom and can feel the certainty expressed by the axiom, that was enough. Mathematics is not mandatory for everyone, but certainty in the understanding is required for anyone who wants to understand the certainty of something.
I consider the earliest is God that it's "The First without beginning", "The First and The Biggest", It encompasses all things that derived from itself.
"I'm sorry that these articles aren't available in a language that would be easier for you to follow"
I realize that, and this requires more than just the english language for daily activities, but at least I try to flow and see if things become clearer and more easily to be communicated, and hopefully, we will gradually come to another area and spread to overall problem, and maybe in the end we can see the essence of a problem and understand more thoroughly.
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-03-31T02:34:34.300Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am asserting that, for "The First without beginning" it shows the consequence of having qualities that cover all things that derived from "The First without beginning" itself. Therefore I am not saying that because anything created with the same particles then it means they share all the same properties. I am saying that if we see something able to communicate, then this ability must be inherent to "The First without beginning".
This isn't the case though. It's possible for us to construct simple sets of rules different from those of our own reality which can potentially give rise to intelligent life (John Conway's Game of Life being the example given in that article.) The set of rules is not intelligent, but entities which exist within the system can be.
The potential for intelligences to exist must be inherent in the set of rules, that's obvious, but this is simply a consequence of how entities obeying the rules interact. It's not as if "Intelligence: allowed" is inscribed on some cosmic natural order. Nobody even has a concrete idea of what it would mean if that were true.
If you want a word for an entity that encompasses all things derived from itself, what's wrong with "universe?"
Replies from: Seremonia, Seremonia, Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:37:57.042Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Please note that there is an axiom to show that something has a connection directly or indirectly with the awareness. And it can be tested by being able to travel from point A towards a certain direction and return to starting point A. This proves that something should be considered able to adapt and communicate directly or indirectly with us.
And the more difficult things to establish movement patterns near circular trajectory, parabolic, it indicates the less chance of something considered to have a conscious and able to adapt and communicate better.
If there is something is big enough (planet) and considered difficult compared to our lifes to forms the trajectory approaching the form of spheres or parabolic, but it did, then it assert that there is a consciousness that has the quality to adapt a more diverse and better communication.
If something more intelligent, then something will be increasingly able to demonstrate the ability to create movement closer to parabolic trajectory or circle. This is the axiom.
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-02T14:00:03.334Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What basis do we have for adopting that as an axiom? It seems completely arbitrary.
Replies from: Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T15:58:44.763Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The momentum of something that moves without any obstacles at all will likely move to a perpendicular direction.
Something (gravity etc) that forcing something else to form as an angular movement (closer to parabolic or circle), then it requires the resistance that is not random.
Moreover, for the motion that closer to parabolic or circular and it was happened over and over again, then this further indicates the existence of resistance to the linear momentum that is not random and directed, and this confirms there is something behind it, and it's the existence of intelligence and strength enough to adjust and controlling.
We can validate it with empirical evidence, and easy to know in everyday life.
A dog that is chasing its tail.
Computer simulation featuring a circular image, it simply shows the intelligence behind the computer, and it has been proven which is human.
and other similar with these, etc, ...
The more neat for something doing movements (left traces in the form of) that is closer to the parabolic shape or a circle with a greater difficulty (compared to our lifes) and it was happened again and again, the more shows there is the existence of an intelligent with the power which is also higher (large).
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-02T17:24:37.919Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The momentum of something that moves without any obstacles at all will likely move to a perpendicular direction.
Can you explain this further? On face value, this appears to be either meaningless or false.
Something (gravity etc) that forcing something else to form as an angular movement (closer to parabolic or circle), then it requires the resistance that is not random.
Celestial bodies tend to move with negligible resistance, and there's no reason to hypothesize an intelligence guiding them when exceedingly simple rules of motion explain their behavior quite precisely.
If you can follow it, it may be helpful for you to read this. You appear to be reasoning by analogy when the mechanisms behind the things you're referring to do not support the comparison.
Replies from: Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T19:36:35.252Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
On outer space, if something is thrown, then the object will travel a straight path. Please try to use your feeling (your sense of self-evidence), whether the object will turn from its original direction (if there is no obstacle)? Of course not. If the object is in conflict or are attracted by gravity from another object, maybe it'll shift. And if the attractiveness of the object is stopped, then this object will be shifted from its original direction but not in a circle.
Imagine a missile exploring a space and bound by a strong rope in its nose. When the missile is traveling in a straight direction, then pull the rope on the missile until the missile is enough to make the shift, then cut the rope, so the missile can travel free to move forward in accordance with the residual energy.
Are you aware of this? Missiles will be shifted but did not form a circular path. If necessary, the rope can be drawn continuously (with supervision - consciousness) to shift the missile and withdrawn continuously to form a round, but this reflects a conscious effort (intelligent).
Or after shifting, the rope is released and a new missile has a trajectory different from the original trajectory (but not a circle). Or taken over by the program to return to its original position, and this shows there is intervention of intelligence.
Here asserted that the missile which shifted from its original direction of movement will tend to have a new path which will never form a parabolic or circular.
Do you believe in someone who said he had seen a missile shot and after a hit by something and still be able to continue the trip, the missile is moving in different directions with the direction of movement that is almost close to parabolic or circular path (and this is done without using a program or without the remote control by humans that is considered to have intelligence)?
Suppose you look at the super computer that is turned on for weeks and just make a simulation of image as a circle. Is this enough to show us there will always be a simulation of image as a circle that repeated for many times, so it is considered there is no intelligence (programming) guiding the supercomputer?
Let us now thinking by scaling with our own reality. We see through a smaller scale in our lives. Is there something not worth mentioning as intelligent but it can form a movement from A back to A or more perfect again by forming a pattern of near parabolic shape or a circle?
Maybe we have been so affected by the circumstances of the movement pattern of celestial objects are repeated continuously so as to give the impression as it is without any effort (negligible resistance), automatically or similar to these, etc. Strong enough to ignore the existence of resistance. But this is actually a relative.
Negligible resistance? Because of what?
It's not about analogy, but it's about thinking by scaling.
Thank you for this http://lesswrong.com/lw/rj/surface_analogies_and_deep_causes/
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-03T00:46:24.704Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
On outer space, if something is thrown, then the object will travel a straight path. Please try to use your feeling (your sense of self-evidence), whether the object will turn from its original direction (if there is no obstacle)? Of course not. If the object is in conflict or are attracted by gravity from another object, maybe it'll shift. And if the attractiveness of the object is stopped, then this object will be shifted from its original direction but not in a circle.
It's been known since the day of Galileo that an object can attain a circular trajectory by traveling at an appropriate speed perpendicular to gravity. It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules.
In relativistic physics, celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space.
You're invoking complex explanations to account for simple phenomena.
Replies from: Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-03T13:42:27.018Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As you said: " It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules."
But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.
As you said: "celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space"
It's not a problem. The possibility that a planet circulating around the sun because of being pulled (classical theory) or it happened because they were held by a curved space, it still shows a force or property that has a characteristic capable delivering simulation near parabolic or circular motion.
One more thing, I'm also not simplify anything, but I just try to see things from another perspective and see what's there. On further application should stick to relevancy. When talking about nature and how to interact, then we can not let go of physical explanation, but at least when we talk about an awareness that higher than our own, then physics has room for it.
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-03T14:34:26.103Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.
Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I'm having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it's basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America.
I don't think there's much point in my continuing this. If you can read and demonstrate that you understand all the sequences, then we might be able to get somewhere, but at this point, you're making some very basic and fundamental errors; and they are errors, not simply disagreement, and I don't think we're communicating effectively enough to dispel them.
Replies from: Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-03T15:10:09.435Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As you said: "Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I'm having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it's basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America."
I am not saying something irrelevant, It's not like that. What I mean:
When doing activities that involve patterns of circles, thinking in a circular patterns, researching things, and there are many circular patterns involved and occur repeatedly. This shows that we are facing a lot of evidence of intelligence related to what we're dealing with.
I confirm that all that we face (if not for all) have a lot of crossing patterns and return to its original position, the circle, and this is enough for us to show the existence of intelligence behind it all.
Tracking something in relation to this case which involves a parabolic pattern and circle, or in other words think of something, make an argument involving parabolic and circular pattern, it also indicates the existence of intelligence.
Protecting - self defense in such way that leave a trail near parabolic or circular pattern, it indicates there is something intelligent involved.
↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-03T17:09:15.937Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Circles are not evidence of intelligence. Take an object moving in a straight line and apply centripetal acceleration to it, and you have circular motion. It's one of the easiest things in the universe to do.
Unless you go out of your way to demonstrate that you've read the rest of the sequences and understood them, this is the last I am going to respond.
Replies from: Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T04:41:22.026Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Universe does not cover everything, universe just as a place for everything. All qualities are not derived from the universe, because if this is true, then at least there are signs that the universe has a quality of one of thing that derived from the universe itself, which is able to communicate. It's just a place. We are not within universe, but universe within us.
↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-03-31T02:52:32.089Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A set must have the potential of members of a set. Universe encompasses all only as far as accommodating, but it does not have the potential to communicate like humans
If a man makes a work of whatever it is, certainly at one time, there will be a work that reflects the characteristics of humanity, and demonstrated ability to interact with humans, but we understand the axioms that the universe would never have characteristics that can be attributed to humans, but only to be places . Among the universe with human and the other is the complementary for each other.
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2011-03-31T03:05:43.796Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A set must have the potential of members of a set. Universe encompasses all only as far as accommodating, but it does not have the potential to communicate like humans
It doesn't actually follow from your argument that this is problematic at all though.
I don't want to be rude, but I think your English fluency is really impeding your ability to argue your point. A lot of what you're saying doesn't make sense, and it's difficult to tell how much of it is due to lack of familiarity with the language. For your benefit, I should point out that this is not a community where this statement
This dialog is a convertion for a better understanding. Sometimes thinking logically looks like "doesn't make sense" because of using symbols or forms of language that unusual to everyday life.
holds true. Members of this community in general are quite well equipped to follow symbolic logic, and if a lot of people here are telling you that you're saying something that doesn't make sense, it's worth taking seriously the idea that rather than having an audience that doesn't understand, you may actually not be making sense.
Replies from: Seremonia, Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:16:05.299Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When you can not understand something, at least you can explain the essence of something that you can not understand, even if it's wrong, to show that you can not understand, and to demonstrate that the essence of an explanation can not completely understood, and it can not be understood not by appearance, but because its essence can not be understood
Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again. sorry for this.
comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-03-31T02:00:02.535Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The universe does not need God.
Replies from: Seremonia↑ comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:48:23.889Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, you are correct, but on my side, the necessity that inherent to my logical thinking asserts the existence of God. Anyway, Every person has differences, I can't argue it.
We all share just looking for suitability in between us, not arguing.
Arguing to reach an approval is only an illusion, but actually, everyone has limits in the adjustment, and when the compatibilities occur among us, will be formed as an approval.
There is no arguing, it's just adjusting. So, if you do not agree with me, that just because you do not have compatibility with me. Nothing is wrong, truth is subjective to the observer, but not for truth itself, It's just an illusion about arguing on our own perception.
comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T06:58:21.832Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We all share just looking for suitability in between us, not arguing.
Arguing to reach an approval is only an illusion, but actually, everyone has limits in the adjustment, and when the compatibilities occur among us, it will be formed as an approval.
There is no arguing, it's just adjusting. So, if you do not agree with me, that just because you do not have compatibility with me. Nothing is wrong, truth is subjective to the observer, but not for truth itself, It's just an illusion about arguing on our own perception.
comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T06:30:04.010Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Another proof for intelligence life, that should be considered leads to the existence of The Most Powerful Consciousness:
Please note that there is an axiom to show that something has a connection directly or indirectly with the awareness. And it can be tested by being able to travel from point A towards a certain direction and return to starting point A. This proves that something should be considered able to adapt and communicate directly or indirectly with us.
And the more difficult things to establish movement patterns near circular trajectory, parabolic, it indicates the less chance of something considered to have a conscious and able to adapt and communicate better. If something more intelligent, then something will be increasingly able to demonstrate the ability to create movement closer to parabolic trajectory or circle. This is the axiom.
If there is something is big enough (planet, Einstein's geometric gravity etc) and considered difficult compared to our lifes to forms the trajectory approaching the form of spheres or parabolic, but it did, then it assert that there is a consciousness that has the quality to adapt a more diverse and better communication.
comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T06:19:17.868Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For someone that still don't understand my argument:
Sorry, perhaps you can try understanding on thought experiment section.
Udnertsadning teh esesnce is cretainty to evreyone to comumnicate wihch is ohter.
When you can not understand something, at least you can explain the essence of something that you can not understand, even if it's wrong, to show that you can not understand, and to demonstrate that the essence of an explanation can not completely understood, and it can not be understood not by appearance, but because its essence can not be understood.
Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again. sorry for this.