• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Is it possible to become more intelligent?

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
We weren't discussing if a human being could have the unlimited potential.
And you do have infinitely many problems to solve.
1+1, 1+2, 1+3...
And we haven't even started.
Therefore, since it needs a finite amount of time to solve each one of them, it will never solve all of them.
This basically refutes your premise that it would cease to be intelligence in the first place, for it still fulfills all the definitions we were arguing about.

when did i say something about humans except when criticizing hawkeye's (seemingly) anthropocentric definition?

infinite intelligence, infinite processing power... INFINITEY FAST CALCULATIONS. INFINITELY LITTLE LEFT TO BE INTELLIGENT ABOUT ANYMORE. THE INFINITE INTELLIGENCE EFFECTIVELY IS FUCKING ALL THERE IS. DO YOU COPY???????

how hard can this be? do you read my posts?

infinity means infinity, not "wow quite very huge". IN-FINITY
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
when did i say something about humans except when criticizing hawkeye's (seemingly) anthropocentric definition?

infinite intelligence, infinite processing power... INFINITEY FAST CALCULATIONS. INFINITELY LITTLE LEFT TO BE INTELLIGENT ABOUT ANYMORE. THE INFINITE INTELLIGENCE EFFECTIVELY IS FUCKING ALL THERE IS. DO YOU COPY???????

how hard can this be? do you read my posts?

infinity means infinity, not "wow quite very huge". IN-FINITY

So unlimited intelligence means infinitely fast calculations? That is, of course, not necessarily true, to say the least, but for the sake of arguing, let's say it is.
Do you need finite amount of time to store the solutions to the problems? Yea, that's out of the realm of infinite intelligence. And there is a infinite number of them. So, intelligence can maybe "FUCK ALL THERE IS", but it will still have infinitely many things to be intelligent about, things the solutions to are unavailable to it, even though it solved it before. Did you copy?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
So unlimited intelligence means infinitely fast calculations? That is, of course, not necessarily true, to say the least, but for the sake of arguing, let's say it is.

unlimited =/= infinite

i have tried to demonstrate why infinite intelligence is subject to limiting conditions defined by whatever qualities we assign to the universe itself.

anyway it's pretty obvious that it would entail infinitely fast calculations since intelligence consists of performing calculations. the more intelligent, the more efficient, the faster it can do the same thing. do you see where this goes when we bring IN-FINITY into the equation? we let the trend progress and see the results. we perform calculus. have you ever done that btw?

Do you need finite amount of time to store the solutions to the problems? Yea, that's out of the realm of infinite intelligence. And there is a infinite number of them. So, intelligence can maybe "FUCK ALL THERE IS", but it will still have infinitely many things to be intelligent about, things the solutions to are unavailable to it, even though it solved it before. Did you copy?

what do you mean by "need finite amount of time"? with increasing processing power, time needed approaches the infinitesimal.

infinite intelligence would mean an intelligence that approaches complete instant comprehension. it would be a replica of the universe. or rather it would subsume the universe. everything in the universe would be part of this intelligence. the intelligence would be the universe; an infinitely accurate and fast model, a perfect approximation. a tautology.

btw i didn't say "FUCK ALL THERE IS". it's getting increasingly clear that you don't bother reading other people's posts.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
unlimited =/= infinite

This is false as the words are synonyms.

i have tried to demonstrate why infinite intelligence is subject to limiting conditions defined by whatever qualities we assign to the universe itself.

Infinity by definition has no limit. Your analogy has an ending thereby making the claim to infinity void.

infinite intelligence would mean an intelligence that approaches complete instant comprehension. it would be a replica of the universe. or rather it would subsume the universe. everything in the universe would be part of this intelligence. the intelligence would be the universe; an infinitely accurate and fast model, a perfect approximation. a tautology.

Again, you are not describing something as limitless, rather you are describing something that eventually maximises to everything. This is not the same as infinity. Infinity is an unreachable target that goes on and on.
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
unlimited =/= infinite

i have tried to demonstrate why infinite intelligence is subject to limiting conditions defined by whatever qualities we assign to the universe itself.

anyway it's pretty obvious that it would entail infinitely fast calculations since intelligence consists of performing calculations. the more intelligent, the more efficient, the faster it can do the same thing. do you see where this goes when we bring IN-FINITY into the equation? we let the trend progress and see the results. we perform calculus. have you ever done that btw?



what do you mean by "need finite amount of time"? with increasing processing power, time needed approaches the infinitesimal.

infinite intelligence would mean an intelligence that approaches complete instant comprehension. it would be a replica of the universe. or rather it would subsume the universe. everything in the universe would be part of this intelligence. the intelligence would be the universe; an infinitely accurate and fast model, a perfect approximation. a tautology.

btw i didn't say "FUCK ALL THERE IS". it's getting increasingly clear that you don't bother reading other people's posts.

Hmm. It is clear that you got a bit upset, but, please, be civil enough not to insult the person you haven't ever met. Judging form your post, you would be surprised.

I have read all of your posts, where do you think that I got the sentence in caps? Or were you confused because I altered the form to grammatically fit mine? Plus, mine had better form, for your point was that the solving would take a mere fraction of time, so not much sense in using continuous tense.

unlimited =/= infinite

Please elaborate the difference.

If you read my post, you would see that I gave you that point. The one that you where supposed to defend is the following.
If you solve a problem now, and you see the same problem in 20 years, you won't be able to recall it, and solving it again wouldn't be meaningless, right?
Imagine that you just solved an infinite amount of problems. You cannot possibly recall them all, and memorizing/marking solutions in any way would take infinite space and infinite time.
The intelligence would not consume the universe.
Unequal infinities?

It is becoming increasingly clearer that you are not getting my point.
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Tomorrow 2:39 AM
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,858
-->
Location
th

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCwLQrJz4Bo

Just throwing that in. One of my favorite channels. Not completely following this derail but maybe you would like to redefine your terms.

Thanks for sharing the video. The definition in the video does not actually state the down limit of the idea (the simplest possible idea) our upper-level ideas must be connected to. Without drawing the lower line, we actually end up knowing nothing :)

But in this case, it doesn't matter which definition for knowledge is used, for it is infinite and would therefore require infinite time to store it, so my point still holds.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Hawkeye:

geez

try asymptote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote

"In analytic geometry, an asymptote (/ˈæsɪmptoʊt/) of a curve is a line such that the distance between the curve and the line approaches zero as they tend to infinity"

"In mathematical analysis, asymptotic analysis is a method of describing limiting behavior."

unlimited means having no boundaries. infinite means continuing forever with whatever one does. if what one does is defined in any way whatsoever (such as things tend to be...) then it has limits even as it approaches infinity. infinite isn't the same as "undefined"; infinity isn't the same as the world. but intelligence (as in information) approaches identity with the world as it approaches infinity. it is limited by the world because it is defined relative to the world. intelligence is congruence between representation and world. the more congruent, the more intelligent.

Lucifer von Satan:

o wow grammar correction when i didn't even err.

also you changed "FUCKING" from a qualifier into a verb. you perverted the meaning altogether.

you're both being very cocky.

The one that you where supposed to defend is the following.
If you solve a problem now, and you see the same problem in 20 years, you won't be able to recall it, and solving it again wouldn't be meaningless, right?
Imagine that you just solved an infinite amount of problems. You cannot possibly recall them all, and memorizing/marking solutions in any way would take infinite space and infinite time.
The intelligence would not consume the universe.
Unequal infinities?

why could i not possibly recall them all? intelligence incorporates storage, naturally. you're splitting hairs.
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
Hawkeye:

geez

try asymptote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote

"In analytic geometry, an asymptote (/ˈæsɪmptoʊt/) of a curve is a line such that the distance between the curve and the line approaches zero as they tend to infinity"

"In mathematical analysis, asymptotic analysis is a method of describing limiting behavior."

unlimited means having no boundaries. infinite means continuing forever with whatever one does. if what one does is defined in any way whatsoever (such as things tend to be...) then it has limits even as it approaches infinity. infinite isn't the same as "undefined"; infinity isn't the same as the world. but intelligence (as in information) approaches identity with the world as it approaches infinity. it is limited by the world because it is defined relative to the world. intelligence is congruence between representation and world. the more congruent, the more intelligent.

Lucifer von Satan:

o wow grammar correction when i didn't even err.

also you changed "FUCKING" from a qualifier into a verb. you perverted the meaning altogether.

you're both being very cocky.



why could i not possibly recall them all? intelligence incorporates storage, naturally. you're splitting hairs.

Did I say your mistake was grammatical? No.
Yes, the point was in the meaning I improved so it would be consistent with your point. A bit embarrassing if the person on the other side of the argument needs to do that.

Let's be clar on this, if all three of us weren't coocky, we wouldn't be arguing for so long.

Now, intelligence is not equal to memory. Please, ability to solve problems is not equal to the ability to recall them.
Universe would not be consumed by it, what does problem solving have to do with physical objects?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
what relevance does the verb "fuck" have here? please explain o enlightened one

memory is a factor in intelligence. you can't model the world without memory.
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
what relevance does the verb "fuck" have here? please explain o enlightened one

memory is a factor in intelligence. you can't model the world without memory.

I explained enough about it, read it again.

You only need short-term memory (certainly not infinite) to model the world.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
Brontosaurie said:
when did i say something about humans except when criticizing hawkeye's (seemingly) anthropocentric definition?

I thought you did here:

in birth and death we are infinitely intelligent

Hence my initial mention of humans. I would ask to what "we" you were otherwise referring to, but as I went on to clarify that my argument extends beyond humans; there is no point.

Hawkeye:

geez

try asymptote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote

"In analytic geometry, an asymptote (/ˈæsɪmptoʊt/) of a curve is a line such that the distance between the curve and the line approaches zero as they tend to infinity"

"In mathematical analysis, asymptotic analysis is a method of describing limiting behavior."

unlimited means having no boundaries. infinite means continuing forever with whatever one does. if what one does is defined in any way whatsoever (such as things tend to be...) then it has limits even as it approaches infinity. infinite isn't the same as "undefined"; infinity isn't the same as the world. but intelligence (as in information) approaches identity with the world as it approaches infinity. it is limited by the world because it is defined relative to the world. intelligence is congruence between representation and world. the more congruent, the more intelligent.

How about this: Is there a limit to how many values there are in an asymptotic curve?

If yes; infinity is a finite value.
If no; the answer is unlimited.

In the context unlimited is being used, it is equal to infinity.



In your original post, you seem to be saying that zero equals infinity; it doesn't. "I have zero apples" is not the same as "I have an infinite amount of apples". Zero equals infinity only in that you have the potential to give an infinite amount of zero apples away; however, zero isn't the bit that equals infinity in this equation, rather it's the number of transactions.





Brontosaurie said:
when the subject of intelligence is maximal, there is no other thing left beside it; no object, nothing to be intelligent about.

You are applying a limit to infinity, but not in the way you have differentiated infinity from unlimited. The limit you have applied is a maximum value that will be reached according to you. How is this infinite?

Let me rephrase what you are saying:

There is a maximum potential that is limited by the universe.

Otherwise you are saying that the length of an infinite piece of string is limited to the size of the universe. :rolleyes:

Infinite intelligence does not exist.
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
Infinite intelligence does not exist.

Or the universe is infinite. May seem unlikely, but, seriously, how can we know.

There exists also a concept of unequal infinities, for instance, the set of all odd numbers is infinite, but is contained in the set of all numbers, which is also infinite. So it may be logically possible that a thing such as infinite intelligence exists and is contained in a larger infinity, such as the universe.

But The Flying Spaghetti Monster and building a skyscraper out of uranium is also logically possible. So yea.
 

Etheri

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
1,000
-->
In your original post, you seem to be saying that zero equals infinity; it doesn't. "I have zero apples" is not the same as "I have an infinite amount of apples".

'There are infinitely many people on earth' will transform into 'there are zero people on earth' within no time.

Because, you know, oxygen, space, we'd crush eachother to death, stuff like that.

Infinite people => no people. :elephant:
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
'There are infinitely many people on earth' will transform into 'there are zero people on earth' within no time.

Because, you know, oxygen, space, we'd crush eachother to death, stuff like that.

Infinite people => no people. :elephant:

We weren't talking about things like people.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
Or the universe is infinite. May seem unlikely, but, seriously, how can we know.

There exists also a concept of unequal infinities, for instance, the set of all odd numbers is infinite, but is contained in the set of all numbers, which is also infinite. So it may be logically possible that a thing such as infinite intelligence exists and is contained in a larger infinity, such as the universe.

But The Flying Spaghetti Monster and building a skyscraper out of uranium is also logically possible. So yea.

Different sized infinities is a bizarre side-effect that emerges from the concept of infinity. However, they are not really different sizes because in reality they have no size; they are exactly the same.

Infinite quantities cannot be known by their very nature. Personally, I think Aristotle got it right all those years ago when he said actual infinity does not exist.

Things may have the potential to go on indefinitely, but this does not make them infinite.

This is where it probably turns into a semantic argument. Nonetheless, Bronto's initial statement still doesn't make any sense as his use of infinity has a maximum which is impossible.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
'There are infinitely many people on earth' will transform into 'there are zero people on earth' within no time.

Because, you know, oxygen, space, we'd crush eachother to death, stuff like that.

Infinite people => no people. :elephant:

Your analogy makes no sense because your reasoning requires a variable you purposefully removed in the first sentence - time.

:storks:

If time were added however, it would mean that there are an infinite number of universes being both created and destroyed at all times. This obviously cannot happen due to the paradox of reaching infinity before the second hand moves on to the next second; time could not pass.
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
Different sized infinities is a bizarre side-effect that emerges from the concept of infinity. However, they are not really different sizes because in reality they have no size; they are exactly the same.

Infinite quantities cannot be known by their very nature. Personally, I think Aristotle got it right all those years ago when he said actual infinity does not exist.

Things may have the potential to go on indefinitely, but this does not make them infinite.

This is where it probably turns into a semantic argument. Nonetheless, Bronto's initial statement still doesn't make any sense as his use of infinity has a maximum which is impossible.

Hmm. We cannot really state that they are exactly the same, for, let's say, every object in one infinite set there is the same object in the second infinite set (therefore the subset) and another object that is not contained in the previous set (therefore not the subset in the other direction, i.e. the two are not equal). Going infinitely in one dimension doesn't not mean going infinitely in the other. So there is a logical possibility that there could be something like what we discussed before. BTW, the original argument about unequal infinities is by George Cantor.
I know it doesn't help his point, just thought it would be interesting to mention :smoker:
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
Hmm. We cannot really state that they are exactly the same, for, let's say, every object in one infinite set there is the same object in the second infinite set (therefore the subset) and another object that is not contained in the previous set (therefore not the subset in the other direction, i.e. the two are not equal). Going infinitely in one dimension doesn't not mean going infinitely in the other. So there is a logical possibility that there could be something like what we discussed before. BTW, the original argument about unequal infinities is by George Cantor.
I know it doesn't help his point, just thought it would be interesting to mention :smoker:

Ah, my point was merely that the sizes of infinities are exactly the same. However, talking about infinities in terms of size makes no sense as infinity has no size if you get what I mean.

I agree that infinities can be unequal. :)
 

kvothe27

Active Member
Local time
Today 12:39 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
382
-->
I decided to try choline. I've been on it for about five days. So far, I've seen some minor social improvements and I'm a little more focused, but this might just be placebo.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
Infinity by definition has no limit. Your analogy has an ending thereby making the claim to infinity void.

As far as we know the universe is quite finite so no. That's the whole point. Apply infinity in a finite domain and what Bronto says will happen will happen.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
Or the universe is infinite. May seem unlikely, but, seriously, how can we know.

There exists also a concept of unequal infinities, for instance, the set of all odd numbers is infinite, but is contained in the set of all numbers, which is also infinite. So it may be logically possible that a thing such as infinite intelligence exists and is contained in a larger infinity, such as the universe.

No the universe is finite.

That's a fucked up analogy, mathematics do not describe reality; mathematics is a closed system of its own.

Jesus motha fucken christ.
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
No the universe is finite.

That's a fucked up analogy, mathematics do not describe reality; mathematics is a closed system of its own.

Jesus motha fucken christ.

Seriously, take me to a single research paper that says that it is finite. Math is a model of reality, so it describes it, and we still do not have better model than it to predict and understand the universe. If you take the numbers and substitute them with space (or whatever), in my example, everything works (given that the universe is infinite). Got a better idea?

You cannot apply infinity to a finite domain, that is a paradox.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
As far as we know the universe is quite finite so no. That's the whole point. Apply infinity in a finite domain and what Bronto says will happen will happen.

We do not know that the universe is finite or infinite; it is an ongoing debate. I however, do not believe it to be infinite. In fact, I do not believe infinity to be anything other than a theoretical concept i.e., it's not real.

Also, given that the universe is finite; infinity cannot exist within it. You cannot apply infinity to a finite domain, you can only maximise the domain. These are two very different things.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
Sorry my bad.

I was wrong bout the universe, the observable universe is finite. Whatever else may be is difficult to speak of however, and an infinite universe could never be observed as such by virtue of that very quality.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
I thought you did here:

yes i did, but talking about us as conscious beings rather than specific neurological make-up.

How about this: Is there a limit to how many values there are in an asymptotic curve?

If yes; infinity is a finite value.
If no; the answer is unlimited.

no, 'tis continuous.

but it has a limit! just not along that axis. it continues interminably, yet follows a pattern. this is true of most series/processes we call infinite.

but i guess this is partly semantic quibbling. in terms of intelligence, infinite intelligence of course is unlimited (just like "an unlimited number of apples" means "an infinite number of apples"), but intelligence as a phenomenon has a definition that provides a limit as to what can be conceived as an infinite intelligence; intelligence is subjective awareness of the object and (given some loose assumption resembling first law of thermodynamics) the object is eliminated when the subject expands. thus intelligence ceases to be as it approaches infinity. the more intelligent you become (or rather: the more you let the trend of increasing subjective awareness progress), the more everything you are and the less your intelligence is something. i'm kinda hungover and after-baked right now so i won't bother to think but i'll throw this: intelligence/awareness is highly paradoxical. it seems like we need to make a conceptual distinction and assign one of the concepts to the X axis and one to the Y axis. that way we can clearly see that the progression of the trend of "psychic conquest" (let's call it that please) is different from maximization of qualitative, effective intelligence/awareness. the latter peaks in the middle of the former, under a normal distribution. alternatively, intelligence peaks in its own middle. ok now i'm not sure i said anything beyond "moderation is key"....... but whatever, i wrote words. words are cool.

(sry i do very bad thinking these days, all feeler concerns in my brain)

that's why i felt free to state that in birth and death, we possess infinite intelligence. i envision the spectrum as circular and 0 intelligence the same as infintite. on the other hand regular "dead" matter probably isn't an absolute zero either... maybe i'd best retract my initial statement.

now i'm wavering a bit between materialism and idealism.

what i can say for sure is i disagree with your claim that infinity is "just another human concept". it is finity that is the core human concept, the core human activity; defining, delineating, demarcating. reality, if it can even be spoken of, is continues and infinite - but we need categories.

In your original post, you seem to be saying that zero equals infinity; it doesn't. "I have zero apples" is not the same as "I have an infinite amount of apples". Zero equals infinity only in that you have the potential to give an infinite amount of zero apples away; however, zero isn't the bit that equals infinity in this equation, rather it's the number of transactions.

zero and infinity are not the same thing per se. but in this case that's the only way i can make sense of it. zero intelligence is analogous to the statement "nothing isn't" and infinity intelligence is analogous to "everything is".

You are applying a limit to infinity, but not in the way you have differentiated infinity from unlimited. The limit you have applied is a maximum value that will be reached according to you. How is this infinite?

i've applied a limit in accordance with my distinction: intelligence cannot go beyond a certain point no matter how long it progresses. it cannot be aware of more than all there is.

i wonder how much we actually disagree...

Otherwise you are saying that the length of an infinite piece of string is limited to the size of the universe. :rolleyes:

Infinite intelligence does not exist.

the definition of string doesn't depend on the surrounding world like the definition of intelligence does...
 

Antediluvian

Capitalist logic collides with external wisdom
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
164
-->
One study claimed that studying for the lsat increased reasoning ability, the interesting thing was that the left brain didn't seem to strengthen, but that the right side adapted.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
i've applied a limit in accordance with my distinction: intelligence cannot go beyond a certain point no matter how long it progresses. it cannot be aware of more than all there is.

i wonder how much we actually disagree...

I don't disagree that intelligence can only go so far. I have said all along that it's limited. What I disagree with is you calling this limited intelligence "infinite intelligence" when it clearly isn't.

the definition of string doesn't depend on the surrounding world like the definition of intelligence does...

But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that you are trying to use infinity in a finite domain. This means it is no longer infinite, but rather total.

Or to put it another way:

Your analogy is like the universe is a 500ml cup and intelligence is an infinite amount of juice.

However, what if we have 750ml of juice? It's far from infinite, but it still fills the cup.


Infinity is too paradoxical to exist in reality. Like the singularity in a black hole... If it were truly infinitely small, it would have infinite density and therefore infinite gravity and so on...
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
I don't disagree that intelligence can only go so far. I have said all along that it's limited. What I disagree with is you calling this limited intelligence "infinite intelligence" when it clearly isn't.

it's infinite because it can only be conceived as the theoretical result of an infinite series of iterations, provided the universe is continuous. you seem to think that it clearly isn't.



But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that you are trying to use infinity in a finite domain. This means it is no longer infinite, but rather total.

Or to put it another way:

Your analogy is like the universe is a 500ml cup and intelligence is an infinite amount of juice.

However, what if we have 750ml of juice? It's far from infinite, but it still fills the cup.


Infinity is too paradoxical to exist in reality. Like the singularity in a black hole... If it were truly infinitely small, it would have infinite density and therefore infinite gravity and so on...

intelligence isn't an object of a specific quantity. its infinity is its totality.

now i've admitted that equating birth/death nullvoid with infinite intelligence was rhetoric hyperbole...
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
it's infinite because it can only be conceived as the theoretical result of an infinite series of iterations, provided the universe is continuous. you seem to think that it clearly isn't.

I would say the universe has the potential to be infinite, you are arguing it is actually infinite. There is a difference between the two and actual infinity cannot exist. In fact, Cantor claimed it existed by conveniently ignoring certain paradoxes. He just wouldn't accept that his justification was flawed.

My finite juice example satisfies your analogy for so called infinite intelligence.

intelligence isn't an object of a specific quantity. its infinity is its totality.

now i've admitted that equating birth/death nullvoid with infinite intelligence was rhetoric hyperbole...

You can't use infinity as a totality because infinity is an incomplete set. Otherwise infinity is finite and you have a paradox. :facepalm:

If the intelligence of entities can be compared it has a quantity. Some animals are more intelligent than others for example. This is based on the generalisation of the many definitions I found on intelligence. For this reason saying intelligence is infinite makes no sense.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
I would say the universe has the potential to be infinite, you are arguing it is actually infinite. There is a difference between the two and actual infinity cannot exist. In fact, Cantor claimed it existed by conveniently ignoring certain paradoxes. He just wouldn't accept that his justification was flawed.

My finite juice example satisfies your analogy for so called infinite intelligence.

no, no: actual finity cannot exist.

You can't use infinity as a totality because infinity is an incomplete set. Otherwise infinity is finite and you have a paradox. :facepalm:

okay. seems to me that paradox is inevitable with our finite intelligence. it's bound to appear somewhere.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
no, no: actual finity cannot exist.

This makes no sense as one apple is a finite amount of apples.

I have two hands, not an infinite amount of potential hands and anti-hands that exist in the same space. The very idea is absurd. :p
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:39 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
This makes no sense as one apple is a finite amount of apples.

I have two hands, not an infinite amount of potential hands and anti-hands that exist in the same space. The very idea is absurd. :p

those hands are really not separate objects though. they only appear so because they exhibit certain regularities which are relevant to our survival. in "reality", there are no definitions.
 

Lucifer van Satan

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:39 PM
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
130
-->
Location
Internal Inferno
no, no: actual finity cannot exist.

I totally agree that finity is a subjective term (on the level of our entire species), but, we cannot know that this is exclusively true, objectively speaking. Neither about if universe may be finite, nor about if finity exists somewhere in it's structure. The universe can be finite in one dimension and infinite in another. Or the basic fiber of space and time is made of finite points which are not perceivable by us and therefore can only be understood as infinitesimal.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:39 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
-->
Location
Schmocation
Can anyone show me a theory that states or claims finity cannot exist as I can't seem to find one? I suspect there is a reason why. ^^
 
Top Bottom