Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.

[Divine Insight]

If you think you have a valid reason for postulating the existence of a supernatural entity that supposedly created the world in which we live please post those reasons here for discussion and possible rebuttal.

Thank you.

[mgb]

Define "life".

There is no fully agreed on definition of life, even in science. Is a virus alive? That depends on how life is defined. Mere self replication is not a complete definition of life. In my terms life is consciousness; a sentient awareness of reality. Are bacteria alive? I don't know. Earthworms? Probably. Sam Harris? Probably not. Richard Dawkins? I would say yes, but his philosophical insight and understanding are severely abbreviated...

Well that doesn't help since the mathematical system must be extended indefinitely because it can never be completed. As for creating axioms, computers are great at spotting patterns, what are axioms, if not patterns that hold true?

Axioms are self evident, common sense truths. Computers don't have common sense.

How is that not creative proof if it is completing the work of mathematicians?

Testing millions of possibilities to see if there is an exception is not creative, it is basic calculation. Mathematicians sometimes get computers to do this because it is too labourious.

Does processing petabyte of strings of symbols and finding the patterns within, then using the discovered pattern to come up with new strings of symbols, count as "being told?" It has no idea what it is processing and no idea what it is outputing other than this symbol should follow that symbol. An AI doesn't need to know you are trying to trump it to print out the symbol 'b' followed by 'e' followed by 'c'... and so on.

I accept that humans cannot anticipate where complex systems will lead but that does not mean the computer is thinking. The Game Of Life is an example. Nobody could predict how the patterns will emerge but that is not intelligence, it is just loads of stuff we can't figure out.

What does 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16... add up to if the terms are taken to infinity?* (each denominator is double the previous). How does a computer figure this one?


*ie, what is the limit of the sum?

[Artie]

There is no fully agreed on definition of life, even in science. Is a virus alive? That depends on how life is defined. Mere self replication is not a complete definition of life. In my terms life is consciousness; a sentient awareness of reality.

So when you say "You are here because the universe is made in such a way as to open up the possibility of life" you actually mean consciousness? But wasn't according to you the maker of the universe already conscious?

[Bust Nak]

Axioms are self evident, common sense truths. Computers don't have common sense.

So don't call them axioms, you don't need common sense to pick out necessarily truths, and we can add those to math and get the same result.

Testing millions of possibilities to see if there is an exception is not creative, it is basic calculation. Mathematicians sometimes get computers to do this because it is too labourious.

Granted.

I accept that humans cannot anticipate where complex systems will lead but that does not mean the computer is thinking. The Game Of Life is an example. Nobody could predict how the patterns will emerge but that is not intelligence, it is just loads of stuff we can't figure out.

So basically you've defined intelligence in such a way to exclude computers even as they are producing the same kind of results, we are talking about ai systems that can out perform human here. Aren't you really arguing that computers aren't conscious?

What does 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16... add up to if the terms are taken to infinity? (each denominator is double the previous). How does a computer figure this one?

In place of human intuition, computers try random stuff out until it finds something that sticks.

[mgb]

So don't call them axioms, you don't need common sense to pick out necessarily truths, and we can add those to math and get the same result.

You do need common sense fundamentals to build a mathematical system.

"An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. ... As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

So basically you've defined intelligence in such a way to exclude computers even as they are producing the same kind of results, we are talking about ai systems that can out perform human here. Aren't you really arguing that computers aren't conscious?

I am saying the are not intelligent and certainly not in the way human beings are. Penrose explains why in his book The Emperor's New Mind.

In place of human intuition, computers try random stuff out until it finds something that sticks.

That is not intelligence, it is just brute force.

[Divine Insight]

I am saying the are not intelligent and certainly not in the way human beings are. Penrose explains why in his book The Emperor's New Mind.

I'm totally familiar with Penrose's ideas and claims. I also have very good reason to disagree with him.

Am I saying that Penrose is wrong? Only in his ultimate conclusions. What I'm saying is that his conclusions are based on faulty premises. Penrose is simply using out-dated information upon which to form his conclusions. He's viewing computers as solely being CPU-based computers that need to follow incremental instructions laid out in typical program form. And then he points to Allen Turing's Halting problem as "proof" that computers can never go beyond that.

This is all wrong. If the real world were restricted to only CPU based computers that can only execute programs in a serial fashion in harmony with Allen Turing's Halting problem, then Penrose would be right. But where Penrose has made his error is in assuming that modern day computing has remained restricted to this type of computing. It's that assumption where Penrose is wrong.

Computers simply are no longer restricted in ways that Allen Turing had shown concerning antiqued computer methods. The Allen Turing Halting problem simply doesn't apply to modern day A.I. methods.

Unfortunately for Penrose, he simply hasn't kept up on computing technologies. The "proofs" that his conclusion rely upon are simply no longer applicable to modern day AI technology.

You are taking out-dated information at face value thinking that it represents eternal proofs that can never be overturned, when in truth those conclusions no longer apply to the modern world of computing.

Penrose actually is "wrong' if he thinks those outdated proofs and conclusion still apply today's computing technologies. They don't.

You are working with out-dated conclusions that simply no longer apply.

[Bust Nak]

"An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. ... As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

So a pattern a computer has spotted ought not be treated as well-established and accepted without controversy or question? The computer would not realise the significance of what it spat out, but we should.

I am saying the are not intelligent and certainly not in the way human beings are. Penrose explains why in his book The Emperor's New Mind... That is not intelligence, it is just brute force.

That's just semantics again. It's not intelligent in the sense that human are intelligent, but if it is producing good result, it is at least creative in some sense when it brute force up something fresh.

[mgb]

Computers simply are no longer restricted in ways that Allen Turing had shown concerning antiqued computer methods. The Allen Turing Halting problem simply doesn't apply to modern day A.I. methods.

Mathematical truths don't become outdated. Show me a computer program that can show there are an infinity of primes.

Here is Euclid's proof which is thousands of years old:-

https://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/q2.html

So a pattern a computer has spotted ought not be treated as well-established and accepted without controversy or question? The computer would not realise the significance of what it spat out, but we should.

An axiom is not a pattern. Axioms are primitive. At any rate, 'spotting' something by chance is not intelligence.

[Divine Insight]

Mathematical truths don't become outdated. Show me a computer program that can show there are an infinity of primes.

Actually mathematical formalism is often updated and recognized to have been previously incorrect.

Apparently mathematical formalism isn't what you seem to think it is.

Our mathematical formalism is a dynamic changing formalism that is far from complete. And it may actually be quite wrong in terms of reflecting any actual "truths" of reality.

I imagine that you bought into the idea that there exists a perfect "Mathematics" that exists in an imaginary Platonic World that can never be questioned. But that entire line of thinking is itself nothing more than a ridiculous religion.

As far as a computer that can show there an an infinity of primes, I'm not personally aware of any that can currently do this. However, that doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. The Turing Halting problem most certainly can't prevent modern day AI from doing this. So AI most likely will be able to do this in the very near future if they haven't done it already.

You are basing your entire worldview on antiqued out-dated information that no longer holds true. You're just not keeping up with modern advancements.

[Bust Nak]

An axiom is not a pattern. Axioms are primitive. At any rate, 'spotting' something by chance is not intelligence.

Come on, that's yet more semantics, a rock is identical to that rock, a lake is identical to that lake, a fox is identical to that fox. That nets us A=A, that's not a pattern?

And what do you think intuition is, if not the ability to spotting something by chance very quickly?

[mgb]

Actually mathematical formalism is often updated and recognized to have been previously incorrect.

Apparently mathematical formalism isn't what you seem to think it is.

Our mathematical formalism is a dynamic changing formalism that is far from complete. And it may actually be quite wrong in terms of reflecting any actual "truths" of reality.

You don't understand. The Godel/Turing argument is about formalism and its limitations.