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]

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?

How do you know A=A? Common sense. But computers don't have common sense. Intuition is not chance. It is an awareness of the order of the world.

[Divine Insight]

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.

That's exactly right. I understand perfectly. But those formalism systems are human inventions based on axioms chosen arbitrarily by humans.

The real world doesn't necessarily obey the arbitrary axioms that humans have invented.

Godel's Incompleteness theorem is a theorem that makes statements about a self-contained and therefore self-referenced axiomatic formalism. A formalism invented by humans.

The universe doesn't need to adhere to Godel' theorem. In fact, I see no reason to think that it would. Godel's Incompleteness theorem makes statements about human-invented formal systems of logic. NOT about the real world.

Also, keep in mind that logic is totally dependent up on what axioms or premises we accept in the first place. Change the primal axioms and the same logical reasoning leads you to entirely different conclusions. See the three arbitrary axioms of geometry as a prime example.

The same thing is true of Turing's Halting Problem. You are totally correct. Turing's axioms and conclusions are based on a specific formalism. In this case his theorem only applies to CPU-based computers that follow programming code that is laid out in sequential instructions.

But modern AI machines are no longer limited by that obsolete technology (or formal system of computing). So Turing's Halting Problem no longer applies to the new computing systems because they aren't restricted by the formal system that Turing's conclusions are based upon.

~~~~~

If you think that human formalism is absolutely perfect and carved in stone for eternity, you need to rethink that one.

[mgb]

That's exactly right. I understand perfectly. But those formalism systems are human inventions based on axioms chosen arbitrarily by humans.

They are not arbitrary, they are a logical necessity.

The real world doesn't necessarily obey the arbitrary axioms that humans have invented.

That makes computing even harder.

Godel's Incompleteness theorem is a theorem that makes statements about a self-contained and therefore self-referenced axiomatic formalism. A formalism invented by humans.

It also applies to the physical universe. This is why Stephen Hawking had to question the feasability of GUT. https://www.nature.com/news/paradox-at- ... le-1.18983

But modern AI machines are no longer limited by that obsolete technology (or formal system of computing). So Turing's Halting Problem no longer applies to the new computing systems because they aren't restricted by the formal system that Turing's conclusions are based upon.

You need to post a link to support your claim.

Here's a link to outline the problem https://www.wired.com/story/greedy-brit ... -learning/

[Divine Insight]

That's exactly right. I understand perfectly. But those formalism systems are human inventions based on axioms chosen arbitrarily by humans.

They are not arbitrary, they are a logical necessity.

It may be necessary to being with arbitrary axioms before you can being to "reason" (i.e. draw logical conclusions based on those axioms), but there is no reason why you must choose to begin with any specific axiom.

The real world doesn't necessarily obey the arbitrary axioms that humans have invented.

That makes computing even harder.

If you're computing based on false axioms then it's not a question of how hard it might be to compute, but rather whether or not the resulting computations have any meaningful value.

Godel's Incompleteness theorem is a theorem that makes statements about a self-contained and therefore self-referenced axiomatic formalism. A formalism invented by humans.

It also applies to the physical universe. This is why Stephen Hawking had to question the feasability of GUT. https://www.nature.com/news/paradox-at- ... le-1.18983

Incorrect. Godel's Incompleteness theorem specifically addresses the formalism of mathematics and specifically references the natural numbers.

But modern AI machines are no longer limited by that obsolete technology (or formal system of computing). So Turing's Halting Problem no longer applies to the new computing systems because they aren't restricted by the formal system that Turing's conclusions are based upon.

You need to post a link to support your claim.

It's not my job to educate you on the current state of AI technology. Do your own research.

But if you like here's a video you can watch just to get your feet wet:

[youtube][/youtube]

Here's a link to outline the problem https://www.wired.com/story/greedy-brit ... -learning/

The link you pointed to is not a problem at all in terms of your argument. Your argument is that AI could never achieve the same level of intelligence and reasoning as a human brain. The article you pointed to is merely a philosophical argument that suggests that AI will eventually face ultimate limitations.

So?

Insofar as we know so will human brains.

I don't need to argue that AI will eventually reach unlimited knowledge or unlimited capabilities. In fact, I see no reason to even argue for such a thing.

All I need to argue for is that AI won't be limited anymore than human brains are.

That's more than sufficient.

In fact, if you like, we can allow Godel's theorem to apply to all of reality. Even if it did that would then also apply to human brains. Why claim that it would only be a restriction for AI?

Where is there any reason to believe that human brains will eventually be able to figure out the answer to everything? According to Godel that would be impossible in general.

You seem to be assuming that human brains represent some infinitely unbound intelligence. That's hardly the case.

The arguments you are trying to make against AI would apply to human minds as well.

[mgb]

Incorrect. Godel's Incompleteness theorem specifically addresses the formalism of mathematics and specifically references the natural numbers.

Did you not read what the article said? Godel's Theorem also applies the physics.

Where is there any reason to believe that human brains will eventually be able to figure out the answer to everything? According to Godel that would be impossible in general.

You seem to be assuming that human brains represent some infinitely unbound intelligence. That's hardly the case.

I never said 'brains' have intelligence, let alone unbounded intelligence. I said the mind is able to think in a way that is not restricted by Godel's Theorem. Penrose demonstrates this relatively easily. And that is all the more reason to believe mind is non physical. So there is a piece of the evidence you are looking for.

[Divine Insight]

Did you not read what the article said? Godel's Theorem also applies the physics.

I did read the article. It clearly said that this only applies when taken to infinity. But there are no examples of any actual infinite crystals in physics. So it doesn't apply to physics in any meaningful or practical manner. Only in a totally abstract philosophical way where infinite possibilities are imagined to exist.

I never said 'brains' have intelligence, let alone unbounded intelligence. I said the mind is able to think in a way that is not restricted by Godel's Theorem.

That is not true. In fact, how could you ever make this claim? All Godel's Theorem says is that there must exist some undecidable propositions in any closed self-referenced system.

Where have humans violated this?

Penrose demonstrates this relatively easily.

Where? Please show where Penrose has demonstrated that humans have violated Godel's Theorem. If they have, then Godel's Theorem would have been instantly proven wrong. One counter-example is all that is required to prove a theorem to be false.

And that is all the more reason to believe mind is non physical. So there is a piece of the evidence you are looking for.

What evidence?

Human's haven't violated Godel's Theorem.

Not only this, but Euclid's proof on the existence of an infinite number of primes is itself an algorithm. It's a solvable algorithm that ends in a conclusion. So this algorithm doesn't violate Turing's Halting problem anyway. All a computer would need to do is recognize the required starting premises that leads to this finite conclusion.

In fact, "deep learning" networks are quite good at this sort of thing. They keep trying different things until they find something that works. Also modern artificial intelligence is capable of learning new ways to solve problems. This is what makes it so powerful. It it couldn't do this the people in the AI community wouldn't be as excited as they are.

Penrose makes the gave mistake in thinking that the only way a computer could ever answer this question is to try to find every possible prime number which would lead to a never-ending algorithm. But clearly Euclid showed how a computer could be programmed to solve the problem in finite many steps.

So you haven't provided any evidence for anything other than Euclid happened to stumble upon this particular proof before AI was invented.

[mgb]

I did read the article. It clearly said that this only applies when taken to infinity. But there are no examples of any actual infinite crystals in physics. So it doesn't apply to physics in any meaningful or practical manner. Only in a totally abstract philosophical way where infinite possibilities are imagined to exist.

That is only one article on the subject. It has been known for a long time that Godel's Theorem applies to the physical universe.
You are behind the times with this.

That is not true. In fact, how could you ever make this claim? All Godel's Theorem says is that there must exist some undecidable propositions in any closed self-referenced system.

Where have humans violated this?

I didn't say they violated it. I said that Penrose has demonstrated that human thought is not algorithmic. Humans don't think like computers so there is no need to violate anything to think creatively.

What evidence?

Human's haven't violated Godel's Theorem.

I have given it to you. If the mind was a function of the brain it would be subject to Godel's limitations but it is not. That is not because minds violate anything it is because minds are in a non physical realm and are therefore not subject to these physical limitations.

Not only this, but Euclid's proof on the existence of an infinite number of primes is itself an algorithm. It's a solvable algorithm that ends in a conclusion. So this algorithm doesn't violate Turing's Halting problem anyway. All a computer would need to do is recognize the required starting premises that leads to this finite conclusion.

But where did the algorithm come from? It is a creative invention of the human mind and that is the point. Computers cannot create imaginative creative proofs because that requires a level of thought that is outside the limitations of algorithmic processes.

But clearly Euclid showed how a computer could be programmed to solve the problem in finite many steps.

Exactly. He showed how humans can tell the computer what to do.

[Bust Nak]

How do you know A=A? Common sense. But computers don't have common sense.

You are undermining your own case, computers without a jot of common sense can generate A=A.

Intuition is not chance. It is an awareness of the order of the world.

You know full tell there is no active analysing of the world when intuition comes up with something. How is that "awareness" when you aren't actively aware of your intuition firing?

[mgb]

You are undermining your own case, computers without a jot of common sense can generate A=A.

Because they are told how to do it by human minds.

You know full well there is no active analysing of the world when intuition comes up with something. How is that "awareness" when you aren't actively aware of your intuition firing?

Intuition is a conscious experience. It is non algorithmic awareness. The mind is directly aware of the order of the world. That is one reason why intellect based science is not the only way to knowledge. That the mind does not have to laboriously figure everything out, like a computer, is self evident. Creativity is above the intellect. It is understanding by consciousness.

[Divine Insight]

I did read the article. It clearly said that this only applies when taken to infinity. But there are no examples of any actual infinite crystals in physics. So it doesn't apply to physics in any meaningful or practical manner. Only in a totally abstract philosophical way where infinite possibilities are imagined to exist.

That is only one article on the subject. It has been known for a long time that Godel's Theorem applies to the physical universe.
You are behind the times with this.

No it doesn't. The only people who believe that are people who think that the universe obeys mathematics, which it clearly does not. If our universe actually obeyed our mathematics it would instantly crash and burn just like our mathematics does when we try to use math to explain the ultimate nature of reality.

That is not true. In fact, how could you ever make this claim? All Godel's Theorem says is that there must exist some undecidable propositions in any closed self-referenced system.

Where have humans violated this?

I didn't say they violated it. I said that Penrose has demonstrated that human thought is not algorithmic. Humans don't think like computers so there is no need to violate anything to think creatively.

Penrose has not shown that human thinking is not algorithmic. All human thinking is algorithmic.

What evidence?

Human's haven't violated Godel's Theorem.

I have given it to you. If the mind was a function of the brain it would be subject to Godel's limitations but it is not. That is not because minds violate anything it is because minds are in a non physical realm and are therefore not subject to these physical limitations.

This claim of yours is absolutely false. If this were true we'd have proof that a human mind cannot be physical. No such proof exists. If you think it does you are necessarily fooling yourself.

Not only this, but Euclid's proof on the existence of an infinite number of primes is itself an algorithm. It's a solvable algorithm that ends in a conclusion. So this algorithm doesn't violate Turing's Halting problem anyway. All a computer would need to do is recognize the required starting premises that leads to this finite conclusion.

But where did the algorithm come from? It is a creative invention of the human mind and that is the point. Computers cannot create imaginative creative proofs because that requires a level of thought that is outside the limitations of algorithmic processes.

Modern AI is doing precisely this. So you are making claims that simply do not conform with known reality.

But clearly Euclid showed how a computer could be programmed to solve the problem in finite many steps.

Exactly. He showed how humans can tell the computer what to do.

But now with modern advances in AI humans are no longer required to tell computers what to do because computers have become creative in their own thinking.

Apparently this is something you are either unaware of, or unwilling to accept because it threatens your theological beliefs.

The arguments you are making here are obsolete and have long since been shown to be false. Apparently you are not aware of the extremely rapid pace of AI technologies.

AI is here. It's no longer science fiction of a possible future. Every reason you have given for why AI cannot exist has been demonstrated to be false.

Sorry, but humans aren't anything special. They are nothing more than biological brains. There is no need for imaginary jealous Gods who demand blood sacrifices in order to grant humans undeserved salvation.

Think about what it is that you are ultimately attempting to support.

It's seriously ridiculous.