I still find several problems with this. Firstly, I do not how quantum entanglement equates with compression. It seems to me to indicate that time and/or space is simply another emergent property of force interaction just as matter is. Even given his proposition that this 'quantum compression' results in our perception of an expanding Universe such a relative expansion would be universal, thus we would observe an expansion between all objects, from the quantum to the celestial. Yet this is not what we observe. Re the link, I am not going to pretend to be able to handle set theory to a point where I am able to mathematically counter his argument. However, I do see several theoretical issues here as well: Such would require a deterministic relationship, not a nondeterministic one. Nondeterministic phenomena would simply be noise in the system and while it might randomly affect perception it would not correlate to any other phenomena. Indeterminacy does not equate to "free will" only randomness. If we accept that indeterminacy does play a significant role in the output it is, once again, only the generation of noise in the system, which would confound prediction but does not equate to an independent operator. That which we desire to understand as 'free will' is more likely to be a function of deterministic self-recursion. Complexity (and some random input perhaps) only give the illusion of "free will" but provide no basis for truly independent self-determinism. Sorry but I don't see where he's escaped Godel's theorem. All he seems to be saying here is that we are confined to a closed system described by an open system. I see two problems. One, how is it that we can express Godel's theorem if our system is not open. And two, we still wind up unable to explain the larger system. ML simply winds up describing this unknowable meta-system as God. He's come no further than the mystics 5000 years ago. It's interesting and fun but it really doesn't explain anything useful. Some of what he says is interesting (once deciphered) but I find nothing new or particularly valuable in it. Certainly nothing that even comes close to the TOE. ~Raithere
J.P. - when quantum states interact the total amount of information that they represent doesn't increase; when you drop two objects into the water and they make waves, they don't change the volume of the water, only its shape. An iterated system like the one you've described here doesn't compress or increase, it just changes.
The actuality of any set of opposing pair of probabilities can be defined as a boolean. For the sake of simplicity I will use the computer science practice of using binary digits to represent the boolean values. TRUE will be defined as 1 and FALSE will be defined as 0. In any matter of the probability of existance there is one pair of opposing probabilities. The probability that something exists and the probability that it doesn't. Both probabilities are equally valid but concerning any one entity only one or the other can be true. If we represent the probability of existance as exist and the probability of non-existance as nonexist then we can display this in the following equation. (exist && nonexist) = 0 One or the other of these probabalities must be true. Something either exists or doesn't. (exist || nonexist) = 1 Common sense will back up the notion that when asserting the existance of something one must either assert it's existance or it's non-existance for the assertion to be 1. Therefore if I assert my existance is 1 then the probability of my non-existance becomes 0. By common sense everyperson will attempt to assert their own existance. Therefore every person will accept the following statement. When made from my perspective towards them. (youexist = 1) Now if trying to assert I exist I am in fact trying to assert the follwing. (iexist = 1) And therefore, given the previous assertion you accepted, I am also trying to assert the following. (youexist || iexist) = 1 (youexist && iexist) = 1 Therefore we can see that: (youexist || iexist) == (youexist && iexist) In english this would be read "If either you exist or I exist then both you and I exist." By typing out these formulae I have proven to you that I exist. When god does the same for me then I will see that the existance of god has been proven.
Let's examine the statement "IF you exist OR I exist THEN you exist AND I exist" (which is, I believe, what you said). Let's replace "I exist" with "I am being gang probed by aliens". Now you have a tautological proof that you are being gang probed by aliens. Um... Actually you don't. The problem is that "If (You exist OR I exist) then (You exist AND I exist)" is false in the case where "I exist" is false, because that makes the antecedent (You exist OR I exist) true, and the consequent (You exist AND I exist) false. You used the thing that you were trying to prove (I exist) as a premise. When you use your conclusion as a premise, proving it as a conclusion doesn't take much effort... Anyway, asserting "I exist" = true is not a good way to start out to prove that I exist. Religious types will give you bonus marks for circular reasoning though.
I figured someone would catch that. But like you said, circular reasoning is a favorite of christians, so I was trying to fight stupidity with stupidity. As the saying goes though, "Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
I don't think the existance or non existance of something can be proven mathmatically unless you first accept that what your senses reveal to you is real.
IMO, that's quite a stretch. You'd also have to assume that math is necessarily applicable. Though ultimately many concede that nothing can really be proven, Langen begs to differ eh? His CTMU could be self-consistent. Does that indicate a proof? I think the only way to prove god is real is faith. Personally, I've got all of my faith wrapped up in reason right now - which implies directly (as I fathom it): FAITH IN GOD IS UNREASONABLE.
I have a real problem with trying to correlate intellect with raw horsepower. I don't see a problem with measuring horsepower mind you, but there is a real problem to me with labelling it "intelligence". IMO, intelligence is context dependent. It comes in a myriad of flavors, each with talent in some areas, not as much in others. It's so complicated by not only the individual's gifts and the context they create/encounter during their lives that develop/inhibit their gift(s) that it's almost impossible to look at someone and say "you're dumb". Consider savants as an extreme (and rare) example. Mr. Langen might be a mathematical genius, but apparently he's not so sharp when it comes to epistemology. IMO, if he were, he'd address the whole "you can't really prove anything" thing before asking me to pretend his theory is proof of anything. I'd say regarding the issue of god - the only thing that is provable is that you can't prove anything abou tit. And really, that is no proof unless one has faith in reason.
My Cat My Cat's brain is the size of a walnut, but he's got a very high I.Q. for a cat. My cat tells me that people who appeal to Human IQ's as proof of supernatural phenomena- are full of shit.
