Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

I think if you were to look at some leaves from the same tree, you would find that, overall, leaves from the same tree are similar in geometry thought no two may be precisely congruent.

How is debunked? This equation describes mass-energy equivalence, and it is correct for this purpose. It doesn't claim to describe "everything".

There are many studies out there showing that certain ratios of proportions are, statistically seen as more attractive than others.

 

Overall they may be similar in geometry, but overall do they have the same shape? That's where I draw the invisible line in the sand. I do not mean to seem nitpicking; it is an actual point of honor for me.

I didn't mean debunked literally. He was saying that quantum physics has debunked E=MC^2 which I took to mean there are some instances where E=MC^2 isn't helpful. All I was saying was that yes, of course E=MC^2 comes up short. You don't have to be a quantum physicist to understand that. It is difficult in these times of idolotry to recognize who is clear headed and who is not, so forgive me if I do not know who I am speaking to.

These studies do not impress me. Statistically, most people may prefer daytime to nighttime. Does this mean that the nighttime is no good or that it doesn't exist? Anyway, these ratios of proportions are self-dependent. They don't explain themselves to anyone. It isn't as if we ourselves created the ratios. We just discovered their beauty which we were unable to sufficiently describe.

Only poetry attempts to describe such beauty. Really it is just a token of beauty, however. I only make this point to establish the fact that beauty infiltrates us to our core. It cannot be captured explicitly, and therefore a person's behaviors cannot be turned into an equation.

 

Say we two equilateral triangles X, and Y where the area of triangle X is twice that of triangle Y ... Ax = 2Ay. Are the triangles the "same shape" ?... they are both equilateral triangles.

Whether somethinng is subjectively good has no bearing on whether or not this same thing exists, or doesn't. The same people who prefer daytime for waking prefer nighttime for sleeping, those who prefer nighttime for waking prefer daytime for sleeping, both are good.

 

First off, I'll concede that I may not fully grasp the brain as a computer analogy, if there are any proponents of the theory that you can recommend that explain it well ace k, I may be interested in checking that out.

In another recent thread, I think it was the "What makes a God" thread, I mentioned that an animal, the long-finned pilot whale has been shown to have more neurons than us, by a considerable margin as well. My initial (or perhaps knee-jerk) reaction is that these findings are fatal to the computational theory of the mind, particularly if we are to maintain that humans are the most 'advanced' (intelligent) species on the planet. Going by the analogy, I don't see how that cetacean species would not be more advanced than us if they are operating with more 'computing' power. Any explanations?

 

"Computing power" ... what's interesting to me here is how we measure "computing power". Is it raw number crunching ability, or signal processing? What if the data is meaningless? We could have a machine running an inefficient algorithm doing ten times the number of computational operations per second compared to a second machine, running a much more efficient algorithm on a machine capable of fewer instructions per second. A computer scientist might call the more efficient algorithm running on the second machine "better" because this algorithm will finish first being that computational speed is equal, and an engineer might also say that the second system is "better" because it accomplishes the same thing, using less power. The second algorithm is better, because if the machines were equal, the one running the more efficient algorithm finishes first. Surely the less efficient algorithm is wasting a lot of computational resources doing some things that aren't necessary to solve the problem, the proof of that being that the second more efficient algorithm exists and does solve the same problem.

I don't think we must necessarily relate human minds with computers as we know them to be. Human minds are for sure, absolutely not like Turing machines, but they do process information so it could be said that they must be computing machines of some sort. The same could be said for any sort of system that takes inputs and produces outputs accordingly. These systems could be said to be processing information, and can be described by some sort of mathematical function. The point here that I try to make is that mathematics describes nature, and mathematics is computable. There are some very hard problems though, ones that aren't practical.Things that come to mind are one way so-called "trapdoor functions" used in cryptography involving the difficulty in factoring the products of very large prime numbers, the solution is easy to compute in constant time one direction, but reversing it is arbitrarily complex and requires an arbitrarily large amount of time. There's no "proof" that there is no solution, it could just be that mathematics hasn't found one yet

 

These are imaginary triangles you speak of, though. I can try to imagine two triangles of such exquisite design that neither has any flaw, and they are somehow just examples of "shape" out there in the cosmos. But if you have two equilateral triangles made of real stuff, let's say wood, they are going to have microscopic differences and these discrepancies are technically a part of its shape, so their shapes won't be the same. Real stuff, like leaves, is different from imaginary concepts like the triangle. I seriously doubt that a perfect equilateral triangle could ever be formed. Well, the uncertainty principal kind of proves that it cannot. You can't measure anything to a perfectly refined degree.

Then you agree that beauty cannot be reduced to an algorithm. Though two people have very differing opinions of what is beautiful, what they both find beautiful can truly be beautiful. But anyway, you are just talking about forms that are beautiful without describing why they are beautiful. Why they are beautiful isn't adequately explained by, "They are beautiful because their ratio of their circumference to their radius is 3.2%" or whatever jive you're throwing at me. Asking why something is beautiful is the same as asking why anything exists at all, and there can be no explanation.

Why do people suppose that anything can be reduced to something explainable? In a certain way, everything is unexplained. Let's pay homage to this unexplained aspect of our nature sometimes.

 

This argument leads to the question of whether or not things exist at defined levels of abstraction.

 

So then what are you talking about when you say "beauty"?

I'm guessing you're about to describe something....

 

Every definition is abstract. Thats why it doesn't make sense to argue about definitions. Its semantics.

Kinda like saying 1 and 1 does not make 2.

People think there is something concrete "out there" to disagree about, but there really isn't.

 

Some of that makes the analogy seem less appropriate, for instance I'd be surprised if anyone arguing for the brain producing consciousness, would conclude that that brain develops many, many billions of "meaningless data" neurons for one species but not another.

Perhaps with the example of the machines varying in algorithmic effiency, we can relate it by suggesting we cannot say that brains are brains are brains. That is to say, specialization in brain development perhaps plays significant functions in how the organism expresses it's behaviors and consciousness. I also have remarked how the brain stands in relation to the body, for humans I think the fact that our brain sits atop our brain stem as opposed to the brain jutted into the stem at an angle like the evolutionary ape cousins, gives humans a decided advantage, namely in terms of processing efficiency. However this coincides with many more neurons and more developed brain regions as well, particularly in the neocortex. I have not, nor do I particularly care to look into that long finned pilot whale's cerebral makeup. I'd speculate it's pretty developed in some areas, maybe not as not much emphasis on certain frontal lobe regions and it'd take some research to maybe see how or if cerebral capabilities vary significantly from terrestrial species to aquatic species.

 

Or maybe that species really is more intelligent than us and perhaps a deeper understanding to reality lays based in a Keanu Reeves movie, but
Less Matrix and more Johnny Mneumonic.


http://youtu.be/5Th7GSBtM6Q

 

They don't have hands, like dolphins or some other species of whales to do anything about it.

 

computers are made of molecules

we are made of molecules

we both behave like a pile of molecules

whats the confusion

 

no confusion here. Things are quite clear.

 

Thats great my dear. Now where's my beer.

 

Do you think that deficiency is enough to trump the ability to manipulate the environment and creativity?

It has been suggested that dolphins use 'tools', I guess by maneuvering stuff with their mouths and I think have some creative aspects as well. We don't have wings, yet overcame that with planes, spaceships, parachutes, wingsuits, etc.

 

I am sorry. I just don't see that as making us superior.

Should dolphins make airplanes in the oceans with their mouths?